Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Bew Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2012

Lord Bew Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I, too, support the order and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for introducing it. I also thank the officials in the Northern Ireland Office for producing helpful explanations of some of the more technical parts of order. That is necessitated not simply by the fact there was legislation going through this place in 2010 but that other prior pieces of legislation such as the Policing and Crime Act 2009 had to be taken into account. So the logic behind the legislation is impeccable and not a problem at all.

I want to make just a brief remark about the general issue of the devolution of policing and justice. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has already alluded to the fact that those of us who tried to make the argument for the Good Friday agreement in 1998 found that at the time that that was one of the most dangerous and weakest parts of the argument. I can remember leaving a television studio, having supported the Good Friday agreement, and receiving a call from the bowels of the Northern Ireland Office from a well-known senior figure therein congratulating me on the fact that I had actually avoided all discussion of the issue and had pushed it to one side. Although allowed for in theory in the 1998 Act, it was considered to be something for the far distant future—and I mean a future beyond the time we are now living in and acting upon. So it is quite remarkable that we have made this progress and that the parties of Northern Ireland have reached so much agreement about it. The logic of that progress has to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, that we consider the role of the Parades Commission and the devolution of those powers to the First and Deputy First Ministers. I support his request to the Minister that at least some thinking should begin on this matter. The question of timing is inevitably a difficult one for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.

I want to add one other point. We are extraordinarily lucky in the person of the Minister responsible for justice in Northern Ireland. He was, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, knows, the leader of the Alliance Party, which he led with such distinction for so long. He has his critics, of course, but in Northern Irish terms he is a very consensual figure—as consensual as you are going to get. The political circumstances that led to his appointment will not necessarily subsist for ever, and that is understating the case. In the context of all we have said about the almost magical nature of the improvement in Northern Ireland, we have to be aware that there are still difficulties, one of which is the possible personality of the next Minister for Justice. However, that is a mere caveat, and I agree that in general things have gone remarkably well.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for the order. He said that he is new to the Northern Ireland brief. In 1998 I was the Opposition Spokesman for Northern Ireland, and I have to say that I enjoyed it, particularly when visiting the Province. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, asked me about Article 7: why should not all responsibility be transferred to the Department of Justice and why is there a split of responsibility for the policing of the airport? The policing of an airport involves both excepted functions such as national security and immigration, and devolved functions such as policing. This arrangement ensures that responsibility for key exempted considerations such as national security arrangements remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State while allowing the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to take full responsibility for those aspects that relate to the devolved functions. He also asked me about the interaction of the Crime and Courts Bill: whether it seeks to replace the National Policing Improvement Agency, why is that not referred to in the order. The Crime and Courts Bill is still passing through this House. We will ensure that it makes the necessary consequential amendments, but to legislate now would be the wrong thing to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about parades. I agree entirely with his observations about the difficult issues around the Parades Commission. The Government regret that community tensions spilt over into violence in the evening in the aftermath of the 12 July parade in the Ardoyne. The Government totally condemn all violence and we want to avoid a repeat of the violent scenes of riots in Belfast that have been beamed across the world each summer. We need to ensure that the marching season passes off peacefully. Violence around parades affects those living in the areas and does nothing to promote the good name of Northern Ireland. It is in everyone’s interests to find a locally agreed solution to devolving the regulation of parades. It was disappointing that the Northern Ireland Executive was unable to reach an agreement in 2010. I hope that it is something they can look at again and find a compromise solution to this problem that blights Northern Ireland every year.

It is not for the Government, however, to comment on the independent decisions of the commission. I am sure that the Committee fully accepts that the Parades Commission is an independent body that has to make arduous decisions about contentious parades. It has to take many considerations and all factors into account in an attempt to reach a compromise. These are difficult, demanding and sometimes nearly impossible decisions to make, and we stand by its impartial judgment, particularly given that there is no other mechanism to adjudicate on parades in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, also talked about the Parades Commission. All that I can add is that I sincerely hope that agreement can be reached at some point. I agree with him that good news is coming from Northern Ireland. We have come a long way since I was previously an opposition spokesman in the 1990s. The noble Lord asked whether all of Article 9 had been excepted and what the position was in Scotland. The article partly devolves certain functions, such as bail and regulation of the Immigration Services Commissioner, to the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. This brings the legislation into equivalence with Scotland. He asked: why are we altering an Act that deals with excepted issues? Certain aspects of immigration, such as bail, are fully or partly justice issues, and should therefore be devolved. This arrangement again brings the legislation as it relates to Northern Ireland into equivalence with that obtaining in Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, talked about the support of the PSNI to the Olympics. This arrangement was agreed some time ago and is not a response to the failure of security firm G4S to recruit enough staff for the Games. However, I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the PSNI, and the RUC before it, for their assistance on international policing operations that I have seen and have very much appreciated. I should also like to give thanks to the work of the PSNI.

The noble Lord also got on to somewhat wider issues, which he is entitled to do, about discrimination by the Department of Justice in terms of consultation and advertising. This is a matter for the devolved Administration, which I am sure he will recognise. His comments are on record and can be seen by the relevant Ministers. If I have missed out anything, I will write to noble Lords.

People Trafficking

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames for securing this debate. As he made clear in his remarks, this problem has a long-term historical and international context, something that anybody can read in the more grim passages in Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, published in 1864. My noble and right reverend friend also referred to the Irish context, which, as he made clear, is also important to the United Kingdom. I would like to follow in that spirit. Just this week the Italian judge Maria Grazia Giammarinaro, who is the OSCE special representative on human trafficking, referred to what she called a new trend involving Ireland: the trafficking of people from Bangladesh and Pakistan for labour exploitation, particularly in agriculture, construction, hotels and restaurants. Given the porous nature of the border within Ireland we have to bear these things in mind, as my noble and right reverend friend has already indicated.

I want to say two very specific things about the Irish context. Thanks very much to some excellent journalism by writers such as Henry McDonald of the Guardian, there is a good public opinion on these questions but I have one technical question for the Minister. Will the Minister confirm that after the government amendments on human trafficking to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, Sections 57 to 60 of the Sexual Offences Act remain unchanged in relation to the provision for human trafficking in Northern Ireland, and that these will be in place until the Northern Ireland Assembly introduce their own provisions on human trafficking for sexual exploitation? I am worried—I hope it is a false worry—that we may have created a gap by the recent benign move that the Government have made.