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.

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Lord Bew Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

The Government, again, keep repeating—the Minister said it tonight—that they are committed to the integrity of the UK internal market, yet at every turn we have these types of regulations, some even more draconian and more worrying, that undermine that statement and cause diversion of trade, trade friction and real economic problems for many traders and consumers in Northern Ireland, and also restrict choice. So I have every respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this regret amendment. Obviously, if she did press it to a vote, we would support her in that, but I hope that the Minister will have heard our concerns, will reflect on them and will take them on board seriously.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement tonight and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. I say in passing that her speech on a regret Motion in this place has been part of a significant rethink of policy arising out of the Clonoe judgment. The decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review in that case owes a lot to a wide public argument, but it also owes something to the noble Baroness’s important speech on that subject. It is a welcome decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am listening to the noble Lord with interest. I do not know if he has read the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 12 March, or indeed more recent evidence to the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. I urge him to read that, because it sets out the problems in excruciating detail. It is not a question of hypotheses or guesses; this is hard evidence of what is happening on the ground. People are deeply upset and concerned, and losing money.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for that information. I have not heard today’s evidence—although I did watch last week’s evidence to the Select Committee—and I am therefore in the dark. I will simply say that it is essential to accept that we are dealing with a very messy historic compromise. It does not help that there is a tendency on the part of those who are unhappy with the messiness of that compromise to discuss the working out of the Windsor Framework and safeguarding of the union without dealing with the obvious, palpable benefits to a narrowly defined unionist community in Northern Ireland. That is the problem. The consequence is that the people of Northern Ireland still have a sense of pessimism about their future, because there is no answer. Everybody knows that the Windsor Framework passed in this House and the House of Commons by a majority of several hundred, and that if there were another vote like the that on the Windsor Framework—under which, essentially, these regulations exist—there would be an even larger majority. There is no help.

People say that this is terrible and there is not political answer to it. My argument is that it is better and more accurate to describe exactly what is happening under the Windsor Framework and the strengthening of the union, and not just to list the frustrations, of which, I accept, there are many. It is better to have a balanced approach to the meaning of these two documents and their impact in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he reflect on the fact that things could move along better if there were more genuine openness on consultation? He knows the democratic deficit that exists, hence your Lordships’ Select Committee inquiry. That is the difficulty: the consultation issue is key, and yet it has not been acknowledged in the other place. I hope that it is acknowledged in this House.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I accept completely the point made by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I have high regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am always interested in listening to what he has to say on subjects such as this. I do not take lightly what he says, but I detect a sense of—although perhaps this not how he meant it—“If you see something that is not right, just turn your head and look the other way, and it will be all right”. It will not be all right. This House and the other place need soon to learn that it will not be all right when we have been removed and we have 300 areas of law which we cannot do anything about. If anyone thinks that that is acceptable in this wonderful, modern and democratic age in which we all live, then frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Lots of things are written down but they have been trumped by legislation. This evening, I do not so much blame the Minister. He has inherited a lot of bad things, but sometimes, you are better disowning some inheritances, and saying, “I’d prefer not to have that, thank you very much”. I have always found him to be courteous and respectful, and I thank him, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has, for facilitating a meeting quite recently which gave us an opportunity to look at things just a wee bit closer. He did not push back from that, and I hope he continues to do that in the future.

I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the noble Baroness has explained to the House, there are two principal problems with the regulations before us today. The first pertains to undermining the citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland, such that this legislation applies to them automatically. It derives from the EU Commission, from which we are alienated twice: first, on account of it being unelected by anyone; and, secondly, on account of the fact that it is also foreign and thus effectively colonial. I have used that word in the past in debates and I know I got a frosty response, but I still think that it has to be said.

When challenged by the honourable Member for North Antrim, as has been raised not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the Minister in the other place replied saying:

“There is no requirement to consult … These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.


So, it does not matter what the people of Northern Ireland have to say—we are being treated as a colony now and not as a democratic place to live. Rather than providing an answer addressing the assault on the integrity of UK citizenship in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s response only served to set out a problem; it did not go for a solution.

The second problem pertains to the effective undermining of the citizenship of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, as they are effectively encouraged—albeit with the covering dignity of the consultation which we are now denied—to surrender the freedoms afforded by Brexit to develop our law, and instead to become a rule taker from Brussels, like Northern Ireland. In short, the dead hand of Brussels still has its unwelcome grip on the region of the United Kingdom in which I live.

There may be some who would be tempted to say that in this, we are having our revenge, that we are showing those who thought that they could sacrifice Northern Ireland in order to get Brexit done for Great Britain that this is not possible. However, people who think like this do not understand unionism at all; they have no concept of it at all. The essence of unionism is that we are not just concerned about the well-being of the part of the United Kingdom from which we come; the essence of unionism is about recognising that we are more than the sum of our parts and that the well-being of each part is tied up in the well-being of every other part. It is the inherently relational nature of unionism that should make it, and not nationalism, the winning creed of our time.

So, no, I am very troubled about the prospect of Great Britain losing the benefits of Brexit, just as I have been very distressed by the undermining of the union by means of denying Brexit to Northern Ireland. Let me be very clear: to those who might stand in your Lordships’ House today or on another occasion and say that this is the cost of Brexit, I remind them that we did not get Brexit. I want your Lordships’ House today to take note of that.

I believe not only that we should benefit from Brexit but that the whole United Kingdom should do so, and that nothing should place that in jeopardy in any part of our country. The question on the ballot paper was, “Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?”. It was not, “Should the United Kingdom break up and parts of it leave and parts of it stay?” Over 17 million people, in the biggest manifestation of democracy in the history of our islands, said yes. We are often told that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Well, so did Scotland and so did London. But we are never told that, for whatever reason. Maybe one day we will be.