Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
The stated purpose of these regulations is to bring Great Britain’s vehicle type approval regime into closer alignment with the European Union legislation—legislation which, of course, applies in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That objective, I say in passing, inevitably raises serious and wider questions regarding implications of the Windsor Framework and the Government’s trajectory of regulatory convergence with the European Union, despite the UK having no role in shaping the rules with which it is expected to comply.
Ministers argue that such alignment is necessary to reduce friction within the United Kingdom’s internal market. However, the practical effect of these regulations is not to preserve that market but to formalise its division. They explicitly acknowledge and entrench the existence of two separate regulatory systems within our country—one applicable to Great Britain and another in Northern Ireland, which remains bound by the EU single market for goods. Indeed, paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the no. 2 regulations talks about the removal of barriers for vehicle manufacturers
“wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
Therefore, these regulations do not resolve the fundamental issue; they institutionalise it. They reinforce the reality of a United Kingdom operating under two distinct vehicle type approval regimes. This situation—that division of regulatory regimes—is causing real problems for car dealers and ordinary consumers and customers in Northern Ireland through additional costs, reduced availability of vehicles, and burdensome administrative complexity. It is a position that, in my view, is wholly unsustainable for the United Kingdom.
I put it to the Government that in reinforcing the division of the UK into two separate and distinct vehicle type approval schemes, they must realise that they are acting in contradiction of Section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which says that Ministers must have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and to the need to
“facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Whatever else these regulations do, they do nothing to meet those criteria and to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. Until the Government address the underlying structural issue of dual regulatory regimes, businesses and consumers will continue to bear the costs of a flawed system.
I come to the real and practical problems that consumers and businesses now face in Northern Ireland as a result of the dual regulatory regime, even after these regulations come into force. In the first 10 months of this year alone, the car market in Northern Ireland is down by 6%, and in the rest of the United Kingdom it has increased by 5%. That represents a reduction in turnover of approximately £50 million. Matters are expected to deteriorate significantly as we approach next year, when full implementation of the GB type approval scheme is due to come into force.
We have seen some very stark consequences already. The best-selling car in Northern Ireland, the Vauxhall Corsa, cannot be sold in Northern Ireland as things stand; it can be sold in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it cannot be sold in Northern Ireland. Renault, Citroën, Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover are not dual-approved. BMW is making dual-approved cars, but they are still Great Britain-designated when leaving the factory. This industry in Northern Ireland supports 17,600 employees. If we keep on the present course, job losses will be an unavoidable reality, consumer choice will continue to be greatly restricted and the costs for consumers—including hard-working families in Northern Ireland—will rise sharply.
This is not theoretical; it is already happening. The National Franchised Dealers Association of Northern Ireland has given oral and written evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee for the Economy on a number of occasions, most recently just last week. Its message, as it stated to Members of the Assembly—who, by the way, unanimously agreed across all parties that this was a serious and important issue that needed to be addressed—was one of profound frustration. It expressed exasperation at the degree to which the free flow of vehicles within the United Kingdom is being obstructed. It said in its evidence last week that there has been little meaningful progress in identifying a workable solution; that sentiment is shared in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
The Government have given assurances, but action to remove the fundamental problem has been lacking. Businesses and customers cannot operate on the basis of promises that something may be done at some unspecified point in the future. Action is needed now or at the start of next year; otherwise, we are going to face immense problems. It is simply not logical or defensible that Northern Ireland should be excluded from the UK-wide car market, which accounts for 2 million units per year; the Northern Ireland market accounts for 45,000 units a year. We are old that this system exists to protect the EU single market, yet the reality, according to the evidence given to the Assembly, is that, in the first 10 months of this year, only six vehicles moved into the Irish Republic. That is the scale of the so-called risk.
This system is doing so much damage to consumers in Northern Ireland, whom it is designed to protect. It is destroying the UK internal market and, with it, reducing competitiveness, undermining consumer choice and placing livelihoods in jeopardy. Consumers will increasingly and inevitably turn to Great Britain, where there will be greater choice and lower prices, to purchase vehicles. Manufacturer incentives and deals that are available on the mainland are not, and will not be, accessible in Northern Ireland, exacerbating the trend. Why should citizens in Northern Ireland be disadvantaged in this way? Sales at Vauxhall, one of the leading manufacturers in terms of market share, are up by 16% in Britain and down by 59% in Northern Ireland. That is not market fluctuation; that is structural failure.
With all of this, I fear that Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly marginalised. Our consumers are viewed as less valuable and attractive and are increasingly inaccessible within the manufacturers’ supply strategies. Car dealers and franchises in Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the UK unsold stock pipeline, as vehicles will be produced primarily to GB standards. This will fundamentally change the ability of local dealers to source and supply vehicles competitively.
Market distortion is inevitable. Great Britain-based dealers will pre-register vehicles and actively market them into Northern Ireland, or consumers will simply travel to England, Scotland or Wales to access better value and wider choice. That is not a functioning internal market, which is the Government’s obligation to uphold under the internal market Act.
It will also become increasingly difficult for dealers to sell new electric vehicles, particularly as compliance requirements tighten. Dealers will be forced to stockpile EU-compliant vehicles to maintain availability, creating significant additional cost burdens. Meanwhile, consumers in Northern Ireland will be excluded from the very consumer offers targeted at clearing unsold pipeline stock across Great Britain.
The EU, and thus Northern Ireland, is due to adopt new emissions standards in the coming years in respect of plug-in hybrids, as well as applying the new general safety regulation phases 2 and 3. This will drive divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland new car markets even more. They will also increase benefits-in-kind taxation costs in Northern Ireland. These costs are based on different utility factor categorisations allocated by the EU to Northern Ireland and by the UK Government to Great Britain. This is expected to work out to some £4,000 extra for a Northern Ireland consumer of a new car compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The NFDA asked last week: why is it acceptable, under the Windsor Framework, for consumers in Northern Ireland to have less choice and yet pay higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government have spoken about future equalisation measures, and I have no doubt we will hear that again today. However, that provides little comfort for customers standing in showrooms today, or after the Christmas holidays and in the new year, or for dealers, who face the immediate prospect of the problems that these measures create.
The Government say that there is no technical impediment to manufacturers dealing with dual-type approval. They say that it is legal for them to do it, but permitting something and making it legal is very different from the actual practice of businesses, which of course want to operate within the law, but they operate on the basis of what makes sense commercially. Manufacturers are not taking guidance from government officials; they are, naturally and inevitably, pursuing separate type approvals wherever it gives them commercial advantage—that is what is happening. As I said, sometimes cars are made dual approved, but on leaving the factory, they are designated as either EU or GB type approval. The reason given by manufacturers for pursuing single-type approvals is that they are restructuring their internal engineering processes and systems on the assumption of progressive divergence between EU and GB standards over time. That is the commercial reality they are preparing for. Even those manufacturers who have opted for dual-type approval do so only as an interim measure, expecting future divergence and prepared to adapt their approvals accordingly. They will move away from EU standards if they believe there is a commercial benefit in doing so.
As I said, the Government will say that we need not worry about all this because we will converge with the EU and adopt its standards. However, that is not sufficient to meet the here and now; it is not sufficient to meet will happen in the next six months to a year. In reality—according to the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Economy—we are not going to have 100% convergence in any case, so manufacturers will always say that they are going to build according to the GB regulations; it is a far bigger and more profitable market compared with doing something to accommodate the 45,000 sales in Northern Ireland. Some manufacturers have indicated that they will exit the Northern Ireland market entirely, as the volume simply does not justify the cost and complexity of operating under these incredibly complex conditions.
We are going to have restricted consumer choice, increased prices compared with the rest of the UK, higher benefits-in-kind taxation, differing vehicle specifications, customer confusion, reduced stock availability and prolonged delivery times. The Government must now acknowledge that this is unsustainable. It is not protecting trade but suppressing it. It is not safeguarding jobs but placing them at risk, and it is eroding Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I know there are a lot of colleagues from Northern Ireland present. Before we hear the elaboration here, I would just like to get some clarification, if I may, from the Minister.
We are, of course, party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—1958 was the agreement signed by the United Kingdom—as are member states and the EU itself. Indeed, I was quite amazed to read the amount of regulation that the United Nations has applied in connection with motor vehicles. I speak not with direct knowledge but as vice-chairman of the Historic Vehicles All-Party Parliamentary Group, but it seems to me very interesting and really quite amazing that we cannot see the coming together of regulations, when some of the exemptions have clearly negatively affected the marketplace in Northern Ireland.
The detail in which the United Nations goes into these matters is quite extraordinary. For instance, on the emergency call systems that are now installed in all new motor cars, it requires confirmation of the details. Whether it is to be through 2G or 3G, as it was known, or under the new 4G or 5G speed of communication has to be specifically stated under United Nations Regulation 144. When it comes to ISOFIX—child seats, safety seats, and of course it is vital that they should be safe—the United Nations again has a clear regulation in place. Automated lane keeping systems that many new cars now have installed come under United Nations Regulation 157. Yet we seem to be behind the curve.
Our friends in America, particularly Mr Musk and his FSD Supervised—that is, the driving system where a car drives itself in an automated fashion—is now moved to a category called v14.2, which he has now asked the European authorities to approve for the markets both in Europe as a whole and in the United Kingdom in the hope that it will be installed or available from 2026. I wonder whether the United Nations has been consulted or if it is going to come in with its own regulations, which would give control of this situation more broadly.
Of course, it is right that Northern Ireland should not be in any way in difficulties over this. It is aligned with the United Nations, but in one or two cases—type approvals and so on—one or two elements seem to have been missed, so that Northern Ireland is out of sequence with the rest of the United Kingdom on certain of these regulations. Is not one of the answers to this to try to make sure that the United Nations umbrella is more available in order to oblige the manufacturers to make sure that the markets are equal and there are not these disparities, which are often taken for commercial reasons, due to the size of the relevant markets?
I happen to be in favour of alignment when it comes to standards in motor cars—I think it makes sense—but I am disappointed that the separation between one part of the UK and another in these regulations is both unfair and biased in such a way that it deprives one vital part of the United Kingdom of the opportunity to have commercial success in relation to what is undoubtedly a very useful United Kingdom enterprise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered these regulations, and, like others, of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which also dealt in some small way with this issue, in that when we were in Newry, we took evidence from a representative of one of the car dealerships, and in fact I have had further discussions with him.
I would say that the root cause of all this is Brexit. Brexit means less choice and more cost for new car sales. In fact, after Brexit I was a victim of that, because I was seeking to purchase a new Renault Clio, and it took me some seven months in 2022 to secure that new car, because all the parts arrived from France, they were constructed and put together in Britain, and then the car was brought to Northern Ireland along with other similar cars. Then, when I got a flat tyre, it transpired that the wrong spare had been placed in the car. Therefore, it caused a lot of difficulties and challenges.
A consequence of Brexit is divergence. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority basis to remain within the European Union. Surely, safety standards in the UK and EU in terms of car manufacturing are similar, if not the same, so surely a solution could be found there. The report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“While the existence of two vehicle approval regimes in the UK is a consequence of the Windsor Framework, we urge the DfT to consider all potential barriers that manufacturers may face in obtaining dual approval and the resulting impact on NI”.
Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, back in April and May this year, wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his response to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Secretary of State said that the Government were
“keen that Northern Ireland consumers have access to the same vehicles and models … as in Great Britain, and a key part of that is ensuring manufacturers can dual-approve vehicles to both the GB and EU type approval schemes”.
Having talked to the dealership, I note that it cannot understand and finds it totally inexplicable that the same standards in the EU and GB do not exist. The Secretary of State further states:
“Our goal is to ensure that the regulations that apply in the UK work well for businesses and to address practical issues where we can. We are working closely with manufacturers to ensure that UK-wide approvals for vehicles are available, and are considering what more we can do to smooth processes and fix any issues that may arise”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what further progress has been made in relation to this issue, as the Department for Transport has overall responsibility? In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says in that letter that
“we continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and have recently adopted consistent rules for the design of rear registration plate space on vehicles. The Government intends to make announcements shortly on its intention in regard to a number of other EU regulations, including the Euro 6e emission standard”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister if he could advise us on that.
I will ask some other questions. Has the Department for Transport considered the delay in procuring cars, as they have to comply with certain regulations, and the impact on the local economy? Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I was told that there are problems for Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Renault, Vauxhall and Citroën. People want to access such cars. They have used them traditionally, and they want to continue to use them, because they are cost effective.
What impact will this delay in the provision of certain EU car models to Northern Ireland have on our local economy? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already amplified that, but we want a solution to that, and we always have to remember that. I am clearly somebody who wants to see a route back to membership of the EU. I support the Windsor Framework but, where there are obstacles and challenges, they should be resolved and the Government should work directly with the EU as part of the reset in order to try to achieve something that is meaningful, practical and pragmatic. Last week, a BBC story emerged out of the Northern Ireland Assembly economy committee in relation to this issue.
Undoubtedly, we need the challenges, delays and lack of knowledge among businesses around the Windsor Framework to be resolved as quickly as possible. In that regard, I ask the Minister to outline when these issues around new car sales and approvals will be resolved, and to outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure that this happens.
Furthermore, when will we receive responses to the recently published reports, which dealt with the challenges and fissures in the system? One, the Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, was produced by my noble friend Lord Murphy; one, Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, was produced by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee; and the third was produced by the Independent Monitoring Panel. They dealt with the challenges, difficulties and issues that need to be resolved. I agree that there may need to be a delay in the transition to this, in order to ensure that those difficulties can be resolved, but we must all remember that with Brexit came divergence and that it is difficult to achieve convergence in those circumstances.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dodds’s Motions and to listen to his detailed analysis of the effects that they will have on the garages that sell these cars, on consumers and on the economy of Northern Ireland.
We have raised a number of issues over a period of time around how the Irish Sea border has affected so many issues in Northern Ireland, ranging from pets to dentists, as well as around the huge amount of extra bureaucracy that is now involved, with the paperwork, the duties, the duty reimbursement schemes—all of that. Yet this Irish Sea car border is qualitatively different and even worse because, as has been said, in three months’ time, these SIs will create an absolute prohibition on the movement of new cars for sale in Northern Ireland from GB if they have not been manufactured fully—I stress “fully”—to the EU-type approval regulations, as laid down by the European Union.
The Irish Sea new cars border, as I will call it, presents an absolute barrier to vehicles that have only GB-type approval. The initial government answer, as was mentioned earlier, was that manufacturers should manufacture to both GB and EU vehicle type approval standards. However, as the National Franchised Dealers Association pointed out recently, in Northern Ireland, manufacturing a car to the EU vehicle type approval standard can make it up to £4,000 more expensive than a car manufactured to the GB vehicle type approval standard; it is also more expensive because of the extra burdensome environmental requirements. Car manufacturers are in the business to make a profit, so I can see why many of them have decided that they are not going to bother to send to Northern Ireland: it does not make sense to sell their models here because of the smaller market in Northern Ireland, as distinct from the GB market.
I know that the Government seem to have realised that they have to do something about this; and that the only solution is to require that all cars produced for sale in the UK must be made to the same standard if there is to be a UK internal market for goods for new cars. They have stated that their policy is now to subject GB vehicle type approval to what is, in effect, EU vehicle type approval; of course, that is what these regulations will do today. The problems with this are that, as has been pointed out, it is going to happen not all at once but over a period of time—there have already been something like three regulations in the last few months—and it still will not make a difference to Northern Ireland sales.
Of course, what we are also seeing—I know that there are noble Lords who will be happy about this—is the Government falling again for the European Union’s strategy of keeping part of the UK in the EU, in effect, then giving the EU the leverage to undermine our leaving the European Union across the whole UK and working towards what I imagine this Government would like to do but cannot quite do yet because it was not in their manifesto: bringing the whole of the UK back into line with the whole of EU law.
Part of the rationale for many people, in voting to leave the European Union, was that they would be able to produce goods more cheaply as a result of not having to bow to the EU’s excessive bureaucracy requirements. Having reflected on this, car manufacturers have concluded that the economic gains to be had from fully exploiting the Brexit pricing benefits in the 2 million-unit GB market are worth more to them than the loss of not being able to sell some of their cars in the much smaller Northern Ireland market.
More worrying, of course, is the fact that this will have an effect—indeed, it already is having an effect—on jobs in the motor car sales market. When any of us who come from Northern Ireland speak to the garages selling the various types of vehicle that have been mentioned—some of us have already done so, I think—they all say that they are already beginning to look at redundancies. This will lead to a very serious situation, quite apart from the fact that people are losing choice in terms of what kind of car they want.
The Government need to move quickly on this. If they think that it is necessary for GB producers to have the same type of regulations as Northern Ireland is going to have to have—or that we are being told we will have to have, because of the Windsor Framework and being left in the European Union—they should be doing that very quickly indeed. I know that they are not going to do this, but I would prefer it if they said, “Sorry, European Union, that’s not what we’re going to do. We’re going to align Northern Ireland with GB. So what about the Windsor Framework? That’s just too bad. You’re being far too pedantic over this, and it’s not necessary”.
We are now seeing more of a move towards getting alignment. It is fair enough if people want to have that, but let us have it for the whole of the United Kingdom and not drip by drip, with little bits here and there. I know that the Minister understands the pressure that will be put on people and garages in Northern Ireland, especially in terms of sales. I hope that he will look at this matter and give a commitment that the Government will speed up the changes and get a move on—or, at the very least, postpone the date of 1 February, because that is less than three months away and will be ruinous for so many people. I ask the Minister to respond to those questions—plus the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—because we need answers and we need action.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to express my solidarity with and sympathy for the concerns that have already been raised by all the previous speakers. This afternoon, we have been presented with an accurate account of the problems that face the car industry in Northern Ireland.
I want simply to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the point that the situation we are faced with apparently conflicts with the internal market Act 2020—and he is right. However, there is also an issue here around the promise of the Windsor Framework, to which this Government are committed, the previous Government were committed and the European Union is committed. Nobody who reads the Windsor Framework can miss the fact that in it is an attempt to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the fear of increasing divergence—that is, the fear of the sneaking imposition of an island economy on the island of Ireland or on Northern Ireland—is now over. The language on page 10 is very explicit.
If it turns out that the promise of the Windsor Framework to the people of Northern Ireland is simply something that they misunderstood—I do not think it is—and is not valid, that will have implications for the stability of the political process in Northern Ireland, because it was at least partly on the basis of the Windsor Framework that the return of the devolved institutions happened in Northern Ireland. So there is a lot at stake here. The spirit of the Windsor Framework is very clear, and there is a lot at stake here for both the UK Government and the European Union in maintaining loyalty to that spirit.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but it has been a fascinating short debate on a hugely serious issue. My noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned that there were three reports on the Windsor Framework that the Government are currently looking at: the one that I produced some months ago, the report of the committee of your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland, and that of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I understand it is likely that, some time in the new year—January or February, or something like that—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having consulted other Ministers, will produce a response to that.
It is clear to me that, in addition to the points and recommendations that all those reports came up with—in my own case, for example, I recommended 16 different things that the Government and the Stormont Assembly should do—this has become a hugely serious issue. The idea that people in Northern Ireland cannot buy a car of their choice in the way that we can everywhere else in the United Kingdom is really serious. I did not come across this during my review; this is a relatively new phenomenon. I have had a look at the statutory instrument, and I cannot pretend I understand every single word of it, but it means that a very serious situation is developing.
My plea to my noble friend the Minister is for him to take the results of this debate back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Minister for European Affairs, Nick Thomas-Symonds. Perhaps they could have a look, in conjunction, at the serious ways in which this could be addressed. The last thing we want is further instability in Northern Ireland around this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as ever, this has been an important and interesting short debate, and it was a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who raised some important issues. It is useful to know that these reports are likely to be responded to in the early new year.
Particularly, perhaps, for the benefit of the Minister, as ever this debate has been less to do with the substance of the regulations before us—which are rather technical in nature—and more to do with the legitimate and very real constitutional concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords about some elements of the Windsor Framework.
The actual substance of these regulations seeks to align the EU and GB eCall components and to incorporate recent developments in international regulations on vehicles. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I cannot claim to be an expert on these subjects, but it strikes me that it would be rather hard to be against the regulations as such.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy with his arguments about the lack of input, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the realities of becoming a de facto rule taker, as we increasingly follow EU regulations since leaving the European Union. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and as I have often said in these debates on Windsor Framework-related regulations, I think that this is a direct result of Brexit, particularly the hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to follow. It is the case that we would not be having these debates if we were still in the European Union.
These regulations state that they are about alignment and removing barriers to trade: paragraph 5 of both the Explanatory Memorandums states that they
“will ultimately remove barriers for vehicle manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
In these debates on Windsor Framework regulations, we often have justifiable criticism about the lack of consultation with the relevant sectors. However, paragraph 7 of both Explanatory Memorandums states:
“All the trade associations representing vehicle manufacturers supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of aligning with international standards”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there has been such a remarkable degree of unanimity of view on this topic, especially from the voices from Northern Ireland, that I worry that I may start by saying some things that sound a little harsh. The first is that I do not accept the proposition that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That question was not on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should remain in the European Union or leave, and the fact that a certain geographical part in this UK-wide vote happened to vote one way or another is merely a fact of historical interest: it has no legal or practical effect. It is like saying that London voted to stay in the European Union. What one means is that the majority of people in London voted for the UK to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly true, but nothing flows from it. To imply or claim that something flows from it in the case of Northern Ireland, I think, is a mistake.
The second thing I want to say is that I rather resent, especially having myself been a staunch supporter of Brexit in 2016 and still being so, the fact that debates such as this are used by certain colleagues, not least the noble Baroness I am following, to continue to claim that everything is the fault of Brexit, and would not it be wonderful if we reversed it all and went back and joined the European Union. There is very little basis for that claim.
I discovered something interesting in the course of this. Like, I suspect, certain other noble Lords who are not great experts on vehicle type approval, I assumed that the Windsor Framework—remember that the Northern Ireland protocol was going to give the best of both worlds to Northern Ireland—meant that the people of Northern Ireland would bask in the luxury of being able to choose between a rich array of vehicles emanating either from Great Britain or from the European Union, as suited them. In fact I discover, and I am going to quote here briefly from the UK Vehicle Certificate Certification Agency, that:
“While EU and UK(NI) type approvals”—
note the plural there—
“follow the same legislative requirements”—
in other words, they have to have the same content—
“they are considered as separate legislative frameworks. The GB type approval scheme is another separate legislative framework”.
So, in fact, for the people of Northern Ireland, having the best of both worlds, in the case of vehicles, means having access to neither world but having access to their own world only. Since manufacturers, as has been explained, are not that keen to manufacture for this relatively small world—this delicious, beautifully shaped and richly endowed but none the less relatively small world of Northern Ireland, choice is running low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, explained the difficulty she had in acquiring her car, and I am sure that other stories can be advanced of a similar character. There is nothing, at the moment at least—I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that this will continue to be the case when these regulations come into effect—to prevent somebody who lives in Northern Ireland going to Britain, buying a car, taking it back, presumably registering it in Northern Ireland, paying its tax in Northern Ireland and so on. So that can happen, but the result, of course, is that the automotive industry in Northern Ireland—that is, the dealerships but also to some extent those parts of the industry that are involved in maintaining cars and doing all those things—will be gutted, because they will not be selling any cars; everyone will be nipping over to Britain to buy a car.
Of course, they could go across to the Republic to buy a car, I presume, but the Republic does not manufacture any cars and they are quite expensive, so Britain is the place to go. But that does not mean that they will necessarily get all the advantages that they would get in buying a car in Britain when there are sales, discounts and so forth, so it is not a satisfactory situation. It is not the best of both worlds—that is the point—and that is what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland. In other words, this is not working for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government may say that this is not a situation of their making but one they inherited from the previous Government, and that of course is a perfectly fair point. But one of the consequences of being in government is that problems created by other people land on your plate, so it is for the Government to come up with a solution to this, and these instruments do not represent a solution. They are not addressing the problem that exists, so I second those noble Lords from across the Commitee who have asked the Minister to say what the solution is. Everyone has said that this is not the solution, but what is the solution for addressing these real and practical problems that exist in Northern Ireland? We are looking for a practical solution—not an ideological one or one that is to do with whether the EU is a good thing or a bad thing, but a practical solution that means that Northern Ireland can have access to vehicles on at least as good terms as the people of Great Britain. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing forward these Motions and all who have contributed to the debate on these statutory instruments, which are very technical and cover a range of subjects that make up a small part of the type approval requirements for road vehicles. The instruments themselves are part of a continuing process to ensure that the regulatory requirements that apply to cars, vans and other road vehicles keep up with the fast pace of technological developments in the automotive industry. In the absence of updates such as these, the type approval requirements would rapidly become out of date and no longer be fit for purpose. Regular updates are necessary both to ensure that new vehicles meet the highest standards for safety, security and environmental performance and to support the introduction of new technologies and features to benefit UK drivers.
The international nature of vehicle production means that most technical regulatory requirements are harmonised around the world. These are developed in the United Nations by experts from countries as far apart as Japan, Australia and South Africa, but also by experts from the United Kingdom and from European Union member states. More than 70% of GB requirements derive from the United Nations requirements. For instance, the statutory instruments we are discussing today applied in Great Britain the UN regulation on automated lane-keeping systems, UN Regulation 157. These are some of the first examples of self-driving systems, and the statutory instruments allow manufacturers to bring these safely to market.
These statutory instruments also recognise another UN regulation concerning anchorages in vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, remarked—that allow child restraints to be safely installed. These UN regulations have been adopted across the globe, including the EU, and it makes sense that they should also apply in the United Kingdom. Through the application of these international regulations, UK experts continue to play an important and influential role in setting the regulatory requirements that apply across the United Kingdom.
These amendments will also ensure that a safety system known as eCall continues to work effectively as the mobile signals it relies on switch from the older 2G and 3G standards to the newer 4G and 5G standards. The eCall system works by automatically calling the emergency services in the event of a severe crash, improving response times—especially in single-vehicle accidents in remote areas. In the absence of these amendments, safety would be lowered. My department consulted on these amendments, both publicly and with the devolved Administrations, and the responses showed overwhelming support for the proposals and for the approach to ensuring that GB regulations remain aligned with those in the EU.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Let me just read out paragraph 5.12, which says:
“Type approval authorities of Governments (‘contracting parties’) that sign up to an internationally agreed specification”—
here, it is referring to the United Nations regulation—
“are permitted to issue approvals to vehicles or components that comply with that regulation. Contracting parties”—
that must include the EU as well as the UK—
“must accept vehicles and components type-approved by another contracting party that is a signatory to the relevant UNECE regulation”.
Does the Minister not think that that brings not a solution, perhaps, but something where the Government can act to make sure that there is a benefit to Northern Ireland in this matter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I will come back to that point, if I may. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is okay.
I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised around businesses in Northern Ireland—I will come back to that point in a moment—and the challenges that, as we have heard, they face. It is important that dealers and consumers in Northern Ireland are not restricted in their choice of vehicle brands and models, and have the same choice as those across the rest of the UK. The GB-type approval scheme, which these statutory instruments amend, was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles with both an EU and a GB approval; the Government fully expect manufacturers to do so.
The technical requirements in the GB scheme are such that vehicle manufacturers can design and approve a single vehicle for the entire UK market. They do not need to conduct additional testing for the GB market or fit components that differ from those used on vehicles intended for the market in Northern Ireland. The updates to the GB scheme made by these statutory instruments preserve this situation and avoid divergence that could prevent the free movement of new vehicles throughout the UK. The interests of both the UK Government and the European Union are the same: we both want vehicles that are safe, clean and secure. UK and EU officials will continue to work together in UN forums to ensure that the regulations reflect this common aim.
None the less, the Government are aware that there is apprehension among some manufacturers and dealerships regarding the potential for future divergence between Great Britain-type and Northern Ireland-type approval systems. To that end, my department has reassured businesses that they should operate on the basis of an explicit presumption of alignment between the GB and the EU schemes. Again, this reflects the shared objectives of improving vehicle standards and working together to develop common technical regulations; it also demonstrates that this Government are committed to providing certainty and clarity to business by ensuring that the type approval regulations remain up to date while easing administrative burdens and supporting trade. My colleague in another place, then the Minister for Roads, wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 25 June specifically to set out both that commitment and our concern that the basis of the presumption should always be that it will be aligned between the GB and the EU schemes.
These statutory instruments reflect this approach by aligning with the EU on eCall, making sure that the GB scheme uses the same test procedures and applies the same UN regulations. The Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the United Kingdom. Moreover, we monitor developments and have listened to concerns raised by businesses in Northern Ireland, where it appears that legislation might inadvertently create distortions in the marketplace. We continue to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market; indeed, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury announced in July that we intend to legislate for a UK-wide easement in the benefit-in-kind tax applicable to vehicles in order to address concerns that the recent move to a new emissions level, known as Euro 6e, would unfairly affect customers of vehicles that meet the new emissions standards.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister is talking about his conversations with manufacturers to ensure that they offer models that are available in GB and in Northern Ireland. How does he conduct those conversations with manufacturers that are not based in Britain and are not manufacturing in Britain? Do they pay any attention?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer is that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders represents all manufacturers. Most vehicles are produced in various countries around the world. My understanding, at least, is that they represent all of the manufacturers, wherever they are based. As the noble Lord knows already, I am sure, this is an international market, and it does not suit manufacturers to have many different types of the same vehicle. What we are talking about here are our best efforts to ensure that there are limited types of vehicle; that the types of vehicle that are produced are marketed in as many countries as possible; and, in particular, that the same vehicles are marketed in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my earlier references to the influence of the United Nations have answered at least some of the questions asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. He pointed out paragraph 5.12 of the EM, which I will go away and look at. We are all, I think, trying to do the same thing here: have one set of standards deriving from world standards, to which the EU and UK standards ought to be as near as possible simply because these markets are very large. Manufacturers should be trying to make the same thing. What these regulations, among many other regulations, do—and what we must continue to do—is ensure that all of these standards are as consistent and equal as possible, in order to make manufacturers produce their vehicles to the same standard in as many places as possible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I do not want to be unhelpful; I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I will make the point that I tried to make in my earlier remarks. The Minister is missing the point slightly when he talks about standards. It may well be the case that they have the same standards—for example, this widget may be exactly the same as the one in another car—but what is significant here is the legal basis of the certification regime. We have three of them in play. Even if they are all producing exactly the same standards, the certification is the difficulty.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly understand the noble Lord’s point. Given that we are working in this area, the best thing that the Government can do is to make sure that whatever rules apply are as easy to comply with as possible. If you have to comply with only one set of rules but the certification is duplicated, that is a very different thing from having to comply with two separate sets of rules.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think we are at common cause on that. My understanding is that complying with two sorts of certification with the same rules is not particularly burdensome. The assurances that we are giving to the manufacturers, wherever the vehicles are made, is: if the requirements are in harmonisation, it is a relatively easy process to make sure that the vehicles comply with any certification standards. We will see. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, which I take completely, is that if the ranges offered are so limited, we have more work to do. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that we will seek to look at.
In response to my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Murphy, the Government are taking great care to ensure that they comply as much as they can. The answer to both is that the Government will respond to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, by the legal deadline of early January. The Government are doing their best to make sure, by inspection, that the rules that we have set out to apply are the right ones. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Panel concluded that the guarantee was fully met. However, I take the point that that is not the same as the practical implication of what we are debating this afternoon—which is the extent to which vehicle types, and therefore vehicles, are available in Northern Ireland—and our intention is that they always will be. I say to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick that we will work both with the Northern Ireland Office and my own department to do our best to ensure that what we set out to deliver is what is actually there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the date of the mandatory phase of GB-type approval as 1 February 2026. I say to her and other noble Lords that we will have more to say on that shortly, and ahead of that deadline, to make sure that the deadline is not a hindrance to these processes and is capable of being adhered to.
The only other thing I have to say to my noble friend Lord Murphy is: happy birthday. That is obviously the right thing to say.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked me a variety of questions. It is our intention to continue to align with the European Union rules, simply because this is an international market and we will not get anywhere if our certification requirements are different. We want to make it as easy as possible for the manufacturers and vendors of motor vehicles to sell the maximum number of vehicles of the same description across those markets.
I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question about oversight in the House of Commons; I do not know whether she expected me to, but I cannot. However, the objective is to ensure that we continue to align fully and that that results in the market in Northern Ireland being no less accessible to manufacturers and the choice for consumers being equal in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the Vehicle Certification Agency. I will go away and see what it says, but I understand his point about the regimes. My point is that I do not think the requirement for dual certification, if the standards are the same, is particularly onerous, but I take the point that various noble Lords are raising about what is for sale in Northern Ireland. I will go away after this debate and seek both information and advice from the department to see to what extent we can concur with their conclusions about the lack of choice and the lack of sales, and see what else can be done. We will do that in good order before the GB type approval scheme moves to its mandatory phase in February 2026.
I hope I have demonstrated that the reason for these amendments—indeed, the reason why the Government will continue to make amendments such as these—is in order to keep consistency going. I hope I have demonstrated that we are listening to the concerns that have been raised, that we are committed to the continuing refinement of the type approval regulations, and that I will go away and take the points that have been raised by noble Lords very seriously in order that we can make a success of moving the GB type approval scheme to its mandatory phase from February next year so that the market in Northern Ireland is vibrant and the people in it can continue to function.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does the Minster have an answer to my question about there being no inhibition on the people of Northern Ireland purchasing motor vehicles in Great Britain, taking them to Northern Ireland and registering them there as a result of these instruments, and the Government having no plans to inhibit or restrict that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct—you can buy a car anywhere in the United Kingdom and use it anywhere in the United Kingdom—but equally I take the point that that is probably not an especially helpful message to motor dealers in Northern Ireland, who probably do not want people to travel to England to buy cars, which would not be good for their business.
That is why the Government are concerned to make sure that that market is as vibrant as possible. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—I think it was him—said that 17,000 people’s jobs depended on it, so I should take note of that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister consider working with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to meeting the manufacturers’ association and those involved in car dealerships in Northern Ireland so that he is fully appraised of the whole picture and that he can provide some comfort to them? At the end of the day, that is what they are looking for.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I think her proposed remedy is the right one, which is to meet people who know what they are talking about and listen to them. If that is part of the solution here, I am sure that we should do that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think we are all agreed that this is a very serious issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, for people in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned constitutional issues. I have sought in this debate to emphasise the practical problems, which are the outworking of some of these wider issues on the constitutional front that in my view are totally unnecessary, but we have to find solutions. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for his reply to this debate and for the tone and content of what he has said, in that he is going to take this away, take it seriously and talk to colleagues and those who matter to try to find solutions. That is what we would love to see happening. Up to now, I do not think there has been enough urgency, if I may say so, as the deadline has crept up and up. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment. Knowing him and the way in which he operates, I know he will hold fast to that, and that will, I hope, deliver results.