
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


Scotsman
2 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Polarising Donald Trump's North Sea comments tapped into growing frustration
It's time to listen to the point made by US president Donald Trump and turn his soundbite on the North Sea into a smart, sober policy, writes Ryan Crighton. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Donald Trump's shoot-from-the-hip diplomacy was on full display in Aberdeen this week as he waded into the UK's energy debate, calling for lower taxes on North Sea oil and gas operators. The president's remarks – delivered both in person and online to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – will have raised eyebrows in Westminster. However, in the north-east of Scotland, where redundancies are mounting, his comments tapped into a growing sense of frustration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad US President Donald Trump on the first tee during the official opening of the New Course, the second championship course at Trump International Golf Links, on the Menie Estate in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire | PA He may be a polarising messenger, but his advocacy for the repeal of the Energy Profits Levy (EPL) aligns with what the data, the workers and the businesses on the ground have been saying for over two years – that the windfall tax is killing off a vital British industry and a crucial national asset. According to data from Offshore Energies UK, 10,000 jobs have already been lost since the levy's introduction by the Conservative government in 2022. Harbour Energy, the UK's largest oil and gas producer, has since laid off 600 people in Aberdeen alone. These aren't abstract statistics — they are highly skilled individuals, families, and communities being sacrificed on the altar of fiscal short-termism. The failure of the north east green freeport bid is a major blow for a regional economy transitioning away from fossil fuels. Picture: Andy Buchanan/Getty Worse still, the economic wreckage isn't even delivering the returns that were promised. Independent analysis from Stifel shows EPL revenues have consistently come in at the low end of government forecasts. Why? Because the supposed "windfall" they are taxing does not exist. Oil prices are down 50 per cent since the peak of the Ukraine crisis. Gas prices have collapsed by 80 per cent. The result is a textbook case of policy failure. Tax hikes intended to boost revenues have instead triggered a collapse in investment, with over £20 billion of planned capital spending now cancelled or paused. Exploration activity has ground to a halt. Fields are being decommissioned prematurely. The UK is forfeiting not just jobs and tax income, but its energy security. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This shouldn't just be of concern to those living and working in Aberdeen - this should alarm everyone, because the UK still needs oil and gas. Even in the most ambitious net-zero scenario, the country will require between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil equivalent by 2050. Right now, we're on track to produce less than four. And that energy shortfall isn't going to be filled by wind turbines and hydrogen pipelines overnight. The reality is that we are swapping cleaner, domestically produced energy for dirtier, imported alternatives. According to the North Sea Transition Authority, gas extracted in the UK has less than a quarter of the carbon footprint of imported LNG. Yet we are allowing that domestic capacity to decline while increasing our reliance on higher-emission imports from the US and Qatar. It is environmental hypocrisy at its worst. All the while, the UK government continues to claim we are 'maximising value' from our domestic resources. But how? By driving capital offshore? By gutting the supply chain that is also needed to deliver renewables, carbon capture, and green hydrogen? By forcing energy companies to pay tax rates that, in some cases, exceed 100 per cent? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ryan Crighton, policy director at Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce and a senior partner at True North Advisors. | True North Advisors In 2024, Harbour Energy reported a pre-tax profit of £950 million. However, after accounting for an effective tax rate of 108 per cent, the company posted no net profit for the year. This level of taxation is without parallel in the UK economy. It's not just unfair - it's economically suicidal. The UK's approach also compares poorly to our North Sea neighbours in Norway. While their headline tax rate is similar, the Norwegian government supports exploration and shares risk through its fiscal regime. That's why Norway continues to attract investment and why its energy sector is thriving. We, by contrast, have taken the opposite path – penalising production, scaring off capital, and hoping for different results. What's even more galling is that the levy is being used to fund Great British Energy – the new public clean energy company set-up by the Labour Party. According to Stifel, EPL revenues are set to collapse from £5.5bn to under £1bn by 2029. You cannot fund the future of energy by strangling the very sector that underpins it. So yes, President Trump is right to shine a spotlight on this issue. But the solution isn't a populist soundbite or a quick political win. It is a long-overdue dose of energy pragmatism. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That means abolishing the EPL – now – and restoring a stable, competitive tax regime that can unlock investment, extend production and retain the critical skills base we will need for the next generation of energy infrastructure. It also means rejecting the false binary between fossil fuels and renewables. The future is not oil or wind. It is oil and wind. And hydrogen. And carbon capture. We need all of it. Everything, everywhere, all at once. The UK cannot build a low-carbon future while dismantling the industrial engine required to deliver it. A managed transition must be just that – managed. And that means recognising the continuing role of oil and gas, treating our energy sector with the strategic seriousness it deserves, and stopping the ideological war against the basin that still powers Britain. So, let's take Trump's call and translate it into smart, sober policy. Not because he said it, but because the facts demand it. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The North Sea doesn't need special treatment, but it does deserve fair treatment. The alternative isn't a greener future – it's a weaker Britain.


Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Church of England must stop feeling guilty about the Reformation
Thomas More has a richly ambiguous place in our religious and political history. Like a brave hero of conscience, he defied the will of a tyrant, even unto death. A herald of modern liberty, then? Not quite. Before he found himself on the wrong end of the axe, as Lord Chancellor he calmly sent many dissidents to their death. His cause was not modern liberty, but the defence of the old version of authoritarian order. The Catholic Church calls him a saint. He is back in the news because a church in Canterbury has said it wants to exhume his remains, which the Catholic faithful are obviously keen to venerate. The surprising thing is that this church, St Dunstan's, is Anglican. As a few GCSE students still know, the Church of England was launched by the very tyrant who ordered More's death, Henry VIII. Some well-meaning types will see it as a lovely sign of harmony between the old rival traditions, that an Anglican church wants to maximise the veneration of this Catholic martyr. I don't. To me it is a sign that the Church of England lacks self-confidence. It is inclined to apologise for its birth. It is hypocritical to honour a man who wanted to strangle the CofE in its cradle. Yes, there was a bloody side to the birth of our national Church. Revolutions are bloody. You can't make a holy omelette without breaking holy eggs. Maybe it could all have happened in a slightly nicer way, but it is good that it happened. The English Reformation was a good thing. More was on the wrong side of history. You might be neither Catholic nor Protestant, and feel you have no dog in this fight. But, if you care about the tradition of British liberty, you have a puppy in this fight. For that tradition was born here, in the rather brutal national take-over of the Church. Paradoxically, the Tudor tyranny paved the way for the first major liberal state. It was the Reformation that led to a break with the medieval unity of religion and politics, which was basically a form of theocracy. It used to be part of British identity, to have some awareness of this. The Church of England should try to rekindle that awareness. Instead it is crippled with guilt about its origins. This guilt explains its current failure to sort out its divisions. In a story that is seemingly unrelated to the remains of Thomas More, the bishop of Fulham was cross with a community choir that was borrowing his church this week. He came down in his dressing gown and told them to can it. The real significance of this story is an omission in the Times report of what happened. It tells us at the end that this bishop, called Jonathan Baker, 'is responsible for episcopal oversight in the dioceses of London, Southwark and Rochester.' It sounds as if he is therefore the chief bishop of these places, which puts him on a par with the archbishops of Canterbury and York. In reality, he is responsible for the episcopal oversight of parishes in these dioceses that reject the ordination of women. The Church of England is divided, with a sub-group of bishops running a church-within-the-Church. These traditionalist bishops effectively reject the spiritual leadership of the archbishops, often declining to receive communion from them. What's the link with the More story? The Church allowed this division to emerge due its guilt at the Reformation. A Church shouldn't impose unity and force tender consciences, so let's allow the traditionalists to have their own bishops. It was a weak-minded decision, which has opened the door to opponents of homosexuality now demanding their own bishops too. The Church is disintegrating because of its victor's guilt at the excesses of Tudor times. Let it rediscover some pride in its remarkable, if a little brutal, history. And let St Dunstan's donate the remains of More to the local Catholic church.


Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Max Verstappen 'killed' career of F1 star but now top teams are considering him again
Five years ago, one driver's Formula 1 career looked over after just two years in the sport, but Alex Albon has not only worked his way back onto the grid but is thriving with Williams On the Formula 1 grid right now, there are two stellar examples of drivers who have made it back after being cast out into the wilderness. One of them is Nico Hulkenberg, who spent three years without a race seat before getting another chance and is leading the Audi project on track, aged 37, now as a podium winner at Silverstone. The other is almost a decade his junior and managed to cling onto his F1 career despite having had far less experience when he was given the boot. Alex Albon had a whirlwind start to life in the sport, spending just half-a-season driving for Toro Rosso in 2019 before being hastily elevated into a Red Bull Racing seat. That accelerated timeline came about because his predecessor, Pierre Gasly, had floundered. And it was similarly tough for Albon alongside Max Verstappen, who is and has for a long time been the undisputed number one driver at Red Bull. Several drivers who have tried to survive alongside the Dutchman have been chewed up and spat out. Albon was in that position for 18 months but was axed at the end of the Covid-hit 2020 campaign and had no place on the grid for the following season. As Guenther Steiner recently put it, his career was one of several "killed" by Verstappen. After a year out, he was given a chance by Williams – his return to the F1 grid assisted by Red Bull with whom he remained affiliated. Despite the team's lack of competitiveness, he impressed enough in 2022 which earned him a new multi-year deal which completely ended Albon's formal relationship with his previous employer. He penned a further new deal last year and the general consensus over those three season was that he did a good job. It was hard to measure, though seeing as his team-mates during that period were a trio of racers who struggles to make an impression – first Nicholas Latifi, then Logan Sargeant and, for the final nine races of 2024, Franco Colapinto. It is this year, now that he is alongside a bona fide star and multiple F1 race winner in the form of Carlos Sainz, that Albon, now 29, has been truly tested. Not only that, but Williams have made tangible progress in their quest to return to the front of the grid after almost 30 years without title success and, so far this year, have been the best of all the teams on the grid outside the 'big four'. Albon, of course, had the advantage over Sainz of having been settled in the team for a few years, while the Spaniard is new and has had to adapt to life after Ferrari. But the British-Thai racer has risen to the challenge admirably and, heading into the Hungarian Grand Prix, has managed 54 points so far this year. No-one driving for any team that isn't McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes or Red Bull has done better. His performances have not gone unnoticed, especially back at his former team Red Bull. Before he was shown the door last month, Christian Horner was watching Albon's progress with interest, while adviser Helmut Marko, who is still there and has a significant say in their driver decisions, also admires what he has achieved at Williams. Red Bull continue to struggle with their second seat, with Yuki Tsunoda currently occupying it after Liam Lawson was dropped just two races into the season, but the Japanese looks unlikely to retain it beyond this year unless he can find a significant upturn in his performances and results. Plus, the team will also worry that Verstappen will quit next season if they cannot compete at the front with their new engines, built in-house for the first time. Sky Sports launches discounted Formula 1 package This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more £43 £35 Sky Get Sky Sports here Product Description The 2026 driver market is likely to be a more active one than this year with several drivers out of contract at the end of next season. Albon's performances have made him an attractive target for even the top teams on the grid and team principal James Vowles is fully aware that both his drivers are likely to be the subject of interest from elsewhere. He said in Budapest this weekend that he wants to "make sure we have conversations early enough in 2026" and "commit early, instead of letting things linger until the August break". That would be wise, given Red Bull are not the only ones likely to be sniffing around Albon if they get even the faintest whiff of the possibility of snatching him away from Williams.