All new UK cars will have breathalysers and black box-style recorders under Labour plans to align with the EU
Sir Keir Starmer 's government argues that differences in car manufacturing between Britain and Europe will lead to higher costs being passed on to the customer.
But critics argue such a move shows a desire by Labour to closely align Britain to rules and regulations implemented by Brussels.
Labour previously agreed the UK would align with EU plant and animal health rules as part of concessions to form a closer relationship with the union.
Now Lord Hendy, Minister of State for the Department for Transport, stated earlier this week in parliament that the government 'takes an explicit presumption in favour of alignment' in regards to how cars are manufactured.
He added that the government would be 'considering options for requiring the fitment of the safety technologies mandated by the EU's general safety regulation' and would discuss these with individual manufacturers, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and the National Franchise Dealers Association.
Under the EU, new British and European cars followed the same legislation.
But following Brexit, Brussels introduced the General Safety Regulation 2 (GSR2), which called for different devices and technology to be pre-installed.
These include a breathalyser that prevents the car from starting if the driver fails an alcohol test.
Event Data Recorders (EDRs), which can provide information on how fast a car was travelling before an accident, and Driver Drowsiness Warning (DDAW), which can alert a driver if they are becoming sleepy, are also required to be fitted into new vehicles.
Northern Ireland follows GSR2 rules as part of the Brexit deal to prevent a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.
But differences between new cars made under EU and UK rules could mean customers in Northern Ireland would face higher costs for purchasing a new vehicle from the mainland.
Labour is understood to back an 'alignment' of the EU and UK safety laws to stop Northern Irish consumers being treated unfavourably.
Car manufacturers are also said to see the advantage of aligning the rules.
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders told The Telegraph: 'With the heavily integrated nature of the UK and European automotive sectors, regulatory alignment supports efficient production, keeping costs down for consumers while retaining the widest possible model choice.'
But Brexit supporters argue that UK car manufacturers do not need to be led by Brussels and the move is simply an attempt by Labour to woo the EU.
Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, said: 'This is a game being played out where they keep incrementally moving back towards the European Union.'
Mark Francois, chairman of the Conservative European Research Group, added: 'This is still rule-taking from the EU, however you try and dress it up.'
Away from the theatre of politics, in-built breathalysers - or 'alcolocks' as they are also known - are actually backed by the majority of motorists as a solution to stopping drink drivers from reoffending.
A recent poll by the RAC found 53 per cent of drivers want courts to have the power to order anyone convicted of drink-driving to have alcolock breathalysers installed in their cars.
Support for the interventionist approach comes as a Freedom of Information request to the DVLA found 27,000 individuals were convicted of multiple drink-driving offences in the 11 years leading up to July 2024.
On the back of this evidence, the RAC is pushing for the Government to take up this method - already in use in other countries including Australia, Belgium and parts of the US - in a bid to reduce drink-driving.
Simon Williams, RAC head of policy, said: 'Too many lives are lost and ruined by drink-driving.
'It's also very apparent that many of the drink-drivers caught by the police are reoffenders which implies something different needs to be done to change this dangerous behaviour.'
Alcolocks – what are they? Could they become standard?
Not everyone will have heard of alcolocks or alcohol-interlocks as they're properly known.
Alcolock is actually a brand name – founded in the 70s - but has become the common name for breathalysers fitted to the car's ignition system.
Once fitted a driver has to provide an alcohol-free breath sample in order to start the engine – usually blowing for five seconds.
If there's little to no alcohol the engine will start. If it exceeds a set level it won't start.
There are various options as to how they're mandated and who pays for them: For instance, courts could mandate them for reoffenders only, or anyone convicted of drink-driving.
In other countries the fitting is generally paid for by the offender, although in cases of financial hardship the state can step in to cover the cost.
However, it's worth noting that the EU introduced new rules in July 2024 requiring all new cars sold in the EU to be 'prepared' to have an alcolock fitted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
3 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Major UK high street bank quits UN-backed net zero alliance as it says body ‘not fit for purpose'
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A MAJOR high street bank has become the latest British lender to quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance, the bank said on Friday. Barclays argued that the departure of several global lenders has left it no longer fit to support the bank's green transition. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Barclays has become the latest British lender to quit the Net Zero Banking Alliance Barclays' decision to quit the foremost banking alliance focused on tackling climate change follows on from HSBC and several major US banks. It also raises questions about the ability of the group to influence change in the sector going forward. The bank said in a statement on its website: "After consideration, we have decided to withdraw from the Net Zero Banking Alliance." It added that its commitment to be net zero by 2050 remained unchanged and that it still saw a commercial opportunity for itself and its clients in the energy transition. Earlier this week Barclays published the first update on its sustainability strategy in several years. It said the bank made £500 million in revenue from sustainable and low-carbon transition finance in 2024. Jeanne Martin, co-director of corporate engagement at responsible investment NGO ShareAction called the decision to leave the Net Zero Banking Alliance "incredibly disappointing and a step in the wrong direction at a time when the dangers of climate change are rapidly mounting." Barclays said the alliance was no longer fit for its purpose: "With the departure of most of the global banks, the organisation no longer has the membership to support our transition." The Net Zero Banking Alliance, a global initiative launched by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, lists more than 100 members on its website - including leading international financial institutions. A spokesperson for the alliance said it remains focused on "supporting its members to lead on climate by addressing the barriers preventing their clients from investing in the net-zero transition." Daily Money News It comes after it was announced that Barclays is slashing interest rates on its popular Rainy Day for the third time in less than seven months. From August 4, the interest rate for balances up to £5,000 will fall from 4.61% to 4.36%. The Rainy Day Saver account, which offers easy access to funds, has been a favourite among Barclays' 20 million customers. It is designed for balances up to £5,000, with savers earning the higher rate on the first £5,000 – currently 4.61%. Savings above this threshold earn just 1% interest, but customers benefit from instant access to their money at any time. At the current rate, holding £5,000 in the account would earn you £230.50 in interest over 12 months. However, when the rate drops to 4.36%, this will fall to £218 - a loss of £12.50 per year. Once boasting a competitive 5.12% interest rate earlier this year, Barclays has steadily chipped away at its appeal. In February, the rate dropped to 4.87%, followed by another cut in April to 4.61%. In February, the bank reduced the rate to 4.87%, followed by another cut in April to 4.61%. Now, just months later, rates are set to drop again, leaving savers questioning whether to stick with the account or explore better options elsewhere.
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
RICHARD TICE: Why ditching Miliband's Net Zero madness could save every family £1,000 a year
Labour is facing a make-or-break moment when it comes to its new cult, Net Stupid Zero. This week, Ed Miliband opens his latest renewable energy auction, which allows green developers to bid for lucrative taxpayer-funded contracts. The eco lobby says the auction, officially titled Allocation Round 7 (AR7), will be the centrepiece of Labour's plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and that this seventh round must be the biggest yet to 'keep the dream alive'. But it's a dream Britain cannot afford. Inflation is rising. Food prices are once again on the up. And families across the country are cutting back – not just on holidays or takeaways, but on essentials. According to research consultancy More In Common, 60 per cent of Britons list the cost of living as their top concern – and have done so consistently since January last year. And one of the biggest contributory factors to this crisis is an issue that almost no one in Westminster wants to talk about: Net Zero and the spiralling cost of Britain's green energy agenda. Expensive energy is the grenade exploding Britain's economic model. It is not just about switching on the lights and heating homes. It powers industry, transports goods, and underpins every job and price tag. When energy becomes expensive and unreliable, everything else does too. When you hear ministers blaming this crisis on Russian president Vladimir Putin and international fossil fuel markets, remember this: UK energy prices were already among the highest in the developed world before Russia invaded Ukraine. This emergency didn't start in Moscow. It was manufactured in Westminster. We blew up coal plants, messed up nuclear, banned fracking, deterred North Sea investment (which drove up gas imports) and prioritised unreliable green energy. From the other side of the Atlantic, even Donald Trump can see that, writing on his social media site Truth Social: 'North Sea Oil is a treasure chest for the United Kingdom. The taxes are so high, however, that it makes no sense... Incentivise the drillers, fast.' He rightly added that wind is 'the worst form of energy' and a con. When it comes to energy, Westminster has been Putin's most useful idiot. If the US is waking up to that fact, when will Labour? For nearly two decades, clueless politicians from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have clung to a fantasy: that we could eliminate all hydrocarbon use, build a national grid dominated by wind and solar power, and suffer no consequences. The result? At a time of rising demand we are reliant on an unreliable energy supply and lumbered with higher bills. Three-quarters of the rise in electricity bills over the past decade can be attributed to green energy policies and the multi-billion-pound subsidies paid to renewable investors, according to Net Zero Watch. Yet hundreds of thousands of jobs are being destroyed by high energy prices, while millions more are at risk. Now suppliers are warning that prices will rise again in 2026. Professor Gordon Hughes, a former energy adviser at the World Bank, has warned they could approach 40p per kilowatt hour by 2030 – up from 25p today, which is a catastrophic increase. That's why I took action. Last month, I wrote to major windfarm developers, warning them and their investors to stay away from the AR7 auction. I made it clear that if they press ahead, a Reform government will make them regret it. As Nigel Farage said a few weeks ago about the renegotiation of green subsidy contracts, investors will see 'some haircuts'. Naturally, activists, consultants and subsidy-hunters – the 'Green Blob' – erupted in outrage. But, if these windfarms go ahead, it will be an act of grave economic self-harm. By putting a spanner in the works of Miliband's mad plan, we can stop the 20-year rise in bills. By 2030, my letter alone might be saving households £1,000 a year. But this isn't just about price. It's about security. Much of our ageing fleet of gas-fired power stations is nearing retirement. Thanks to subsidised renewables, few developers are willing to invest in replacements. Why build a power station that often won't run to full capacity, especially when Miliband's plan would make the existing situation even worse? Meanwhile, demand for new gas-fired electricity generating units is exploding globally as countries race to power the AI boom. Lead times of gas infrastructure projects are now as long as eight years. Even if we ordered replacements today, they wouldn't arrive until 2033. That's years after the capacity crunch is expected to bite. If we don't act fast, we'll be forced to ration power. Renewables may also be making the grid dangerously unstable. That's not just an economic risk, it's a public safety threat. Look at Spain and Portugal, where a blackout triggered by solar farm switch-offs killed at least eight people in June. Iberian grid operators restored power in a day, but our system is just as vulnerable. No one knows if the 'smart' gizmos grid managers hope will stabilise the system will actually work when it is under stress. Clearly, they need only fail once – and the whole country goes dark. Worse still, under political pressure, resources have been poured into connecting new renewables to the grid, rather than maintaining what we already have. As a result, our electricity grid infrastructure is crumbling. Ageing transformers are already catching fire, most famously the one that routed power to Heathrow Airport, which went up in flames in March causing the airport to close for 16 hours and 1,000 flights to be cancelled. With demand for replacements sky-high in Europe, those problems will not be fixed any time soon. This is not a functioning energy system. It's a slow-motion car crash. But Mad Miliband is determined to step on the accelerator. Labour cannot say they weren't warned. Just after the election, a YouGov poll found more than half of voters expected Labour to deliver real progress on the cost of living within two years. Twelve months in, and with Reform leading in the polls, we will be there every step of the way holding them to account. We must end the decline, not manage it. As an immediate first step that means trying to minimise the damage of AR7. It means cancelling the folly that is Net Stupid Zero. And it means restoring energy policies that prioritise affordability, reliability, and national security. This isn't just an economic battle. It's a democratic reckoning. The public, rightly, cares about the environment. But they never voted to be poorer, or to be saddled with unsustainable costs like green levies and hidden network charges that flow from Westminster's Net Zero agenda. That's why I won't apologise for going to war with the root causes of this crisis: green energy subsidies and their vested interests. The British people deserve leaders who will fight, not flinch, when livelihoods, families and the national interest are on the line. Let the battle begin.
South Wales Guardian
33 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Plans for new offence to crack down on promoting Channel crossings online
Ministers are seeking to create a new offence under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill already going through Parliament, to widen its scope to tackle illegal entry to the UK. The offence would also outlaw the promise of illegal working being promoted online and could carry a large fine. It comes as the Government grapples with a record number of migrants arriving in the UK after crossing the English Channel. On Wednesday, arrivals passed more than 25,000 for the year so far, a record for this point in the year. Assisting illegal immigration to the UK is already a crime, but officials believe the changes will give more powers to police and other agencies to disrupt criminal gangs. According to analysis by the Home Office, around 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat told officials they used social media during their journey, including to contact agents linked to people smuggling gangs. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them, wherever they operate. The National Crime Agency already works with social media companies to remove posts promoting crossings, with more than 8,000 taken offline in 2024. NCA director general of operations Rob Jones said the proposed new offence will give them more options of how to target gangs and their business models. Previous cases that could have been targeted under the proposed offence include a Preston-based smuggler jailed for 17 years for posting videos of migrants thanking him for his help. Albanian smugglers who used social media to promote £12,000 'package deals' for accommodation and a job in the UK on arrival would also be in scope. The Conservatives said it was 'too little, too late' and that only their proposal to automatically deport people who enter Britain via unauthorised routes can tackle small boat crossings. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: 'Tinkering at the edges won't fix the problem. 'Labour still has no clear plan to deter illegal entry, no effective enforcement and no strategy to speed up removals. This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing. 'The only clear and enforceable plan is the Conservative Deportation Bill, a no-nonsense strategy that allows us to detain illegal arrivals immediately and remove them without delay. The British public deserve focused action, not more of Labour's dithering.'
