Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts(3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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”.
Rail Performance
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The provision in HS2 for bats is a whole other subject, but I sympathise with the drift of the noble Lord’s argument. We should be doing as much as we can to enable access to the railway system by everyone. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who is in her place, knows that we have not been very good at it so far. I made a commitment to the House during the passage of the Bill of which we had the Third Reading today that we would do more. Level access, which I have already referred to, is an important subject. It is hard to crack but we should start, because if we do not start then we will never finish.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Regarding HS2 and Old Oak Common, what is going to happen to services from Wales and the West Country over the next number of years with the effective semi-closure of Paddington station?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I met, I think, every Member of Parliament west of Bristol two days ago, and they all had the same question. The work at Old Oak Common for the HS2 station and the construction of an interchange station on the Great Western main line, which also serves the Elizabeth line, is a big undertaking. I agreed then, and say again now, that one of the questions is whether it needs to be so disruptive, and so disruptive now. To answer that I am going to meet all the parties involved in the next few days. It is a big job at Old Oak Common, but I understand the views of those who use the Great Western main line. I will attempt to answer those questions and see what can be done to alleviate the delay during building and its effects after construction.