Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Ashcombe

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this draft order and the many noble Lords who have expressed concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have both set out their concerns, which I share because I live in the Isles of Scilly. Although the Minister briefly mentioned the Isle of Wight, the comments made about the difficulty of getting to and from, and living in, the islands—I include Northern Ireland in that—are well known. We have been fighting the Government for years to try and get some benefit for the Isles of Scilly and Isle of Wight, in some kind of support for transport—which is ships, of course. Although the Scottish Government were clever in sticking with what they have, we have so far failed.

Some noble Lords may say, “Well, you’re talking about little baby ferries”—those that go across to the islands I mentioned—whereas this order is at the moment limited to 5,000 tonnes. That is true, and none of the ships that go to the Isles of Scilly, except cruise ships, weigh more than that. However, we are also told by many, and I am sure it is true, that when the European Union reviews all these related regulations it will wish to reduce the limit from 5,000 tonnes to much less, so that could affect the freight and passenger ships to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly. Let us be clear that, at the moment, the costs of services to these islands are very high. The cost of freight to the Isles of Scilly probably means that it comes out at about four times what you would be paying on the mainland for a bag of cement or a tin of baked beans. It is very serious.

The second issue I have with this draft regulation is the timing, as my noble colleague has just mentioned. The timing is quite serious if we are to come up with some alternative means of propulsion. It is fine to say that they can all be electric, and electric ships exist—but not everywhere. In parallel to electric ships, you need a lot of power to ports, but, at the moment, we seem to have a shortage of power. We have had many debates here about the high-power demands for AI, railways, buses and everything else like that. To say that ports must have enough power available to service all the ships that are going to come in in two or three months is cloud-cuckoo-land. We are talking just about ferries—nice though it is to talk about ferries to Ireland. Cruise ships have also been mentioned, as have general cargo and container ships. All kinds of different craft that could reach the 5,000 tonnes or less in the future need to know what the future limits are going to be and to assess what they will do in terms of rebuilding, refitting, or whatever.

I conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister what information has been given to the industry about the need for and the availability of shore power. I also ask him whether he thinks it would be a good idea to ring-fence some of the shore power availability to some of the bigger ports, and whether there is enough generating capacity. I hope my noble friend will be able to tell me that.

I support other noble Lords who suggest that this regulation should be delayed until we have much better proof of alignment with the EU and are given a much longer-term feed-in notice so that the industry, be it ports, shipping lines or anyone else, can adapt and avoid being fined, because that is not what we want for this business. I hope also that we can continue to have a good debate and get some exemptions for Northern Ireland, which I fully support, and for the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my noble friend Lord Moynihan and from other noble Lords regarding the situation facing Northern Ireland’s ferry services and the shenanigans that are certainly coming to light today. Having been raised in the Republic of Ireland, I well remember our reliance on maritime trade to keep the country supplied. I therefore appreciate the pressures described today and suspect those pressures have only intensified in the current era.

I want to turn my attention to a rather smaller stretch of water, near my home in the New Forest; namely, the ferry routes to the Isle of Wight from Portsmouth, Southampton and Lymington. I have used all three of these depending on whether my journey takes me to the east of the island, to Cowes, or to the west. The distances involved may be only four to 12 miles, depending on the route, but what truly matters is that there is no alternative means of travelling to or from the island. The Government seem to have forgotten—or, dare I say, ignored—the Isle of Wight.

As a result, the Isle of Wight will face immediate and disproportionate impacts from the proposed extension to the emissions trading system to domestic maritime vessels of 5,000 gross tonnes and above. The Government’s final-stage impact assessment argues:

“Expanding the UK ETS to include domestic maritime emissions is critical for maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU ETS … Without coverage, UK operators could gain a competitive advantage over EU counterparts, creating market distortions and increasing the risk of carbon leakage”.


There are no foreign vessels trading between the south coast of England and the Isle of Wight, nor between the mainland and the Scottish islands. It is therefore difficult to see how exempting UK domestic island services would in any way undermine the relationship with the EU.

The Isle of Wight has a population of about 142,000—higher in summer as tourism swells the numbers. The island is wholly dependent on its ferries for passenger travel, as well as for the movement of freight, being fuel, food and essential goods, and exporting fresh produce. These services are part of the island’s critical national infrastructure.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord Ashcombe

Committee stage
Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I thought that the noble Lord was going to tell us about the experience of driving tanks—I know he is a great expert on that—with or without the right alcohol limit, but he did not.

I have listened very carefully to all the speeches on this group of amendments. They seem to have one thing in common, which is that it is a way of trying to mitigate the previous scaredom, if you like, of previous Governments to upsetting the motorists: “Let’s do the minimum, because we don’t want to upset the motorists”. That applies to the random breath tests and many other things.

My noble friend Lady Hayter listed the various countries with the different blood alcohol limits. If you dig a bit further, you find that there are four European countries that have a zero-tolerance level, where you must not have any alcohol at all. They are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. Many of us have visited these places; maybe their driving is safer and maybe it is not. Then there is of course the question of bikes. Should you be under the influence of 80 milligrams or 50 milligrams if you are riding a bike? I will not go into that one now; we have talked a lot about bikes today. However, many noble Lords have been fighting to get it down from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams for many years, led by my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I have tried to help. We have all failed because it appears that Governments of whichever hue—the Labour Party, the Tories, or whatever—have been so frightened of the motorists’ reaction that they have refused to go forward with it.

The evidence is uncontroversial now, and we should go for this. I favour a 50- milligram limit to start with, but—it is a big but after our discussions today—with much better enforcement and much better reduction in the number of different rules that have to be applied before anybody can be tested with a breathalyser. It has to be simple and, if people will be frightened by it, that, combined with a lower limit, will hopefully make the roads a great deal safer.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 416B, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, which concerns the issue of uninsured drivers and to which I have added my name, as this is a serious crime. I declare my interest as an insurance broker with Marsh Ltd.

Within the motor industry, it is a regrettable truth that a significant number of vehicles on our roads are being driven without insurance. The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that between 300,000 and 450,000 vehicles fall into this category. That figure alone should give us pause for thought. It represents not merely statistics but a vast unknown risk to every law-abiding citizen. When accidents occur involving these vehicles, there is no third-party insurance to provide protection or compensation. Instead, the burden falls upon the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which must step in to provide cover where none exists. Sadly, we read of such occurrences all too often, particularly in the local press.

The scale of this problem is stark. The bureau receives a claim arising from an uninsured driver every 20 minutes. Every week, at least one person is killed as a result of uninsured driving and, every single day, another individual suffers injuries so severe that they require lifelong care. This is not a marginal issue but a persistent and devastating reality.

The financial consequences are equally sobering. The bureau spends approximately £400 million annually on claims, with its 2024 annual report noting reserves of around £3 billion. It estimates that uninsured driving costs the UK economy £1 billion each year and adds £260 million to motor insurance premiums. These figures are not abstract. They translate to an additional cost of around £15 on every policy paid by law-abiding drivers. In effect, responsible motorists are subsidising the reckless and the negligent. Anecdotally, when police apprehend uninsured drivers and ask who is their insurer, the response is simply, “The MIB”—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. This casual reliance on the bureau underscores the inadequacy of current deterrence.

At present, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has explained, the penalties stand at £100 for keeping an uninsured vehicle and £300 plus six penalty points for driving without insurance. These sums are significantly lower than the average premium of £550 and far below the £1,000 often paid by younger drivers. This disparity is glaring. The penalty for breaking the law is cheaper than the cost of compliance. It is little wonder, then, that uninsured drivers persist at such scale. Ideally, we would strengthen the financial penalties to reflect the gravity of the offence. However, as these measures have been ruled out of scope, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, this amendment offers a practical and proportionate alternative. It would empower authorities to confiscate uninsured vehicles and, if insurance is not secured within 28 days, to have them permanently removed from the road. That, to you and I, means crushed—gone. This is not punitive for its own sake: it is a necessary step to protect the public and to uphold the principle that motor insurance is mandatory for the benefit of us all.

Uninsured driving is not a victimless crime. The law-abiding majority should not be asked to carry the burden of those who flout their responsibilities. Amendment 416B is a measured and effective response to this scourge and I commend it.