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

Lord Bew Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Indeed, the existing UK-EU ETS alignment remains unresolved and further regulatory divergence, as this policy would create, risks burdening Northern Ireland with even more costs. In this vein, why have this Government not compiled a dedicated impact report of their proposals on Northern Ireland? It seems ludicrous that this has not been thought of. Are the Government comfortable with the imposition of higher costs and onerous regulations upon the working people of Northern Ireland? Most ironically, this proposal is intended to yield decarbonisation, despite the fact it looks set to become a carbon tax if implemented. It is therefore essential that we support the fatal amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the sake of Northern Ireland and its business.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I support the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss on the question of Scotland and the Scottish intervention. I do so because it makes me profoundly uneasy. When I was reading the explanatory comments from the Government for this new SI, the emphasis is on the Northern Ireland protocol of 2020. The Windsor Framework is designed to correct quite explicitly the disproportionate destabilisation of,

“Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market”.

One of the ways in which it does so is clear in paragraph 51. It says it insists on,

“Northern Ireland’s central place in the UK market, on an equal footing with counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.”

Scotland is specifically mentioned there.

As my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss points out, this SI simply does not give treatment “on an equal footing” with Scotland. I know that Charles de Gaulle gave a famous and cynical statement about treaties: that they lasted as long as pretty young girls and roses. I have always assumed that this was not the view of this Government and that they are committed to international law. There is a real problem with what they are doing with this SI. It is not compatible with the central commitment in paragraph 51 of the Windsor Framework.

My second point is broader, and has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. The fact is that the institutions in Northern Ireland are not in as stable a condition as they should be. When the Government talk in the Explanatory Notes about the actual impact of this SI on individuals in Northern Ireland being small, I absolutely accept that. The trouble is that the number of these SIs is mounting and every few weeks, we are back in this Chamber. By the time it comes to the next Assembly elections, there will be those politicians in Northern Ireland who will have momentum to say, “Look at this list of statutory instruments. Look at these things that have moved away from the Windsor Framework.” Those who have listened to this debate will realise that the Windsor Framework is not enormously popular within the unionist population in Northern Ireland. But that having been said, it was part of the means by which the institutions were returned, so what is at stake here?

Above all else, in the broader sense, it is the survival of the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. The Government, I am sure, are absolutely determined to see the survival of those institutions—a great Labour achievement. However, they will not be assisted in this task if they proceed to take solemn commitments in the Windsor Framework that they supported strongly in opposition, and just say, “That doesn’t matter. We could have a Scottish exemption now. We can forget the commitment in paragraph 51 that there would be no such thing.” The stability of the institutions of Northern Ireland in the longer term require the Government to rethink on this matter.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I feel a bit sorry for the Minister because he introduced what appears to be a bland SI and now finds himself in the midst of a debate covering a whole range of other issues, but I am afraid that I am going to add to his discomfiture. In his powerful address earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned—as have others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—the difference in treatment relating to what the other place was aware of, and what we and the devolved institutions are aware of.

It might be useful to kick off by telling the House precisely what information was given to the parties in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Office. It said: “I am getting in touch with you about the Assembly debate on the maritime emissions trading scheme legislation scheduled for 10 March. I hope very much that the Ulster Unionist Party will be supporting it. It is really important, and not getting the SI through would have significant adverse consequences for Northern Ireland’s economy. If we do not link, and all the other devolved Governments have agreed to pass this legislation already, the UK would risk losing CBAM exemption, exposing £7 billion of UK exports to EU CBAM, i.e. businesses would have to pay the CBAM which we are trying to get exemption from in our negotiations with the EU. The cost of this, if we are not successful, would be far greater than the impact of the maritime emissions charge. Northern Ireland would be uniquely exposed. There could also be knock-on consequences for the SPS negotiations. SPS and ETS linkage would be worth nearly £9 billion to the UK economy by 2040”. The Minister referred to that. It continued: “This would benefit Northern Ireland directly through trade and a level playing field with the EU. The costs of purchasing allowances for GB-NI voyages in the ETS is only around £10 million to £15 million per annum and the impact on consumer prices will be low. I would be very happy to discuss”, et cetera.

That information was put through over the couple of days before the Assembly debated and people may not be aware that, had the parties fully appreciated the realities, a petition of concern could have been launched which would have prevented the Assembly passing the legislation, but parties were influenced by information that was submitted to them that is false. I therefore believe the parties in Northern Ireland were deceived, which is a big issue in and of itself.

Let us move back to the realities here on this order. It is often said that if you look after the pennies, the pounds take care of themselves. In the document on the greenhouse gas emissions scheme and its analysis, estimates of the impact on consumers are at the back. It says:

“the overall impact is estimated to be small”.

I make the point that I have sat in your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and its predecessor for five years. We get a series of EMs through from Brussels and often the relevant government departments in Whitehall say that the impact is estimated to be small. If you add all these impacts together, it is not small; it is significant.

The document goes further. It says:

“Consumers in Northern Ireland may be more exposed to any cost pass-through, due to their relatively higher reliance on goods moved via domestic maritime than GB consumers, though the overall impact is … expected to be minor”.


For me, this is the clincher:

“The exact impact is difficult to quantify, given the lack of data about the contents of containers travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.


That is nonsense. Every article that is in a container must be specified under the Windsor Framework. We know exactly what is in every container and, in fact, every container can be opened. Pallets can be taken out and, if the inspectors are not satisfied, it can be held at the ports. We already have to provide the European Union with the details of the contents of every container, yet the Government are saying in their own document

“given the lack of data about the contents of containers travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

That is fundamentally wrong.