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

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 10 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

10 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

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

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5436293

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On the face of it, Members may be tempted to see the Order as a routine environmental measure. I can already hear the green welly brigade chime, "One small step for mankind, one more technical step in the pursuit of decarbonisation". However, when one examines the detail of what the Order means and, more importantly, the consequences for Northern Ireland, it becomes clear that it is anything but routine. The proposal risks imposing significant new costs on Northern Ireland businesses and consumers while delivering no environmental benefit. Worse still, it does so in a way that treats Northern Ireland differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is the sole reason that we see the nationalist and republican alliance once again coming together. Northern Ireland is uniquely exposed to measures of this kind. For many businesses that trade with Great Britain, maritime transport is not simply one logistical option amongst many; it is the only viable route to market.

Our supermarkets depend on it; our manufacturers depend on it; and our agri-food sector depends on it. The everyday functioning of our economy depends on reliable and affordable maritime links with Great Britain. Therefore, when additional costs are placed on those routes, they do not sit in isolation. They flow through the entire supply chain. They affect exporters selling into Great Britain, businesses importing components and goods from Great Britain and, ultimately, the price paid by the consumer.

The maritime sector has warned that compliance with the extension of the ETS could add around £1·10 per freight metre. That works out at roughly £15 per trailer. That may not sound dramatic in isolation, but, across thousands upon thousands of freight movements every week, it quickly becomes a substantial additional burden. Industry estimates that it could lead to an increase in freight costs of around 6%. Every one of those costs will inevitably find its way into the wider economy. Members will hear this defended as an essential environmental policy, but the central difficulty with that argument is this: the mechanism that is being imposed cannot change behaviour in the way in which environmental policy is supposed to. Normally, a carbon tax works by encouraging people to switch from a more polluting option to a cleaner alternative, but that logic works only where a viable alternative exists. In the case of maritime transport serving Northern Ireland, that alternative does not exist. What happens when you impose a carbon cost in those circumstances? It does not drive behavioural change but simply adds cost. Therefore, what is being proposed is not an environmental instrument; it is a tax on trade and a tax on people's connections through personal travel. Even if Members were prepared to overlook those problems, there is a second issue that is even more troubling. The Government have already recognised that maritime routes can face disproportionate impacts. That is why ferry services serving the Scottish islands have been granted an exemption. The Government accepted the argument that imposing costs on those routes would unfairly burden island communities. That is a perfectly reasonable position, but here is the difficulty: Northern Ireland depends on maritime connectivity as well but receives no equivalent exemption. We hear the Minister talk about the 50% partial exemption that he has secured, while the Scottish islands get 100% exemption until 2028. Why are ferry routes that are servicing Scottish islands exempt from the costs, while ferry routes servicing Northern Ireland are not? When the issue has been raised with officials, the explanation offered is striking: the Scottish Government, we are told, lobbied hard. That raises uncomfortable questions. Why did the Northern Ireland Executive not do the same? Why should businesses in Northern Ireland face costs that ferry services to Scotland's island communities do not? Why should our constituents be placed at a competitive disadvantage simply because our Executive failed to make the case for the businesses? We are also told that Members should support the Order because rejecting it might somehow jeopardise discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding emissions trading schemes or carbon border adjustment mechanisms. That argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Voting against this version of the Order does not bring maritime decarbonisation to an end. It does not dismantle the UK ETS. It does not prevent further and future alignment with European systems. If that were the direction of travel that we wanted to take, it does not go against it. All that it does is require the Government to return with a better drafted and fairer version of the regulations. The solution is remarkably simple. The Government could withdraw the Order, amend a small number of words so that Northern Ireland receives the same exemption as has been granted to Scotland and then reintroduce the measure in revised form. That happens frequently with secondary legislation. When drafting errors occur or policy flaws are identified, the Government correct them and bring forward a revised statutory instrument. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and doing so would cause no real delay. The Government could table revised regulations within days, so the idea that rejecting the Order today will somehow jeopardise further and wider ETS arrangements simply does not stand up. What would be extraordinary is for the House to knowingly pass legislation that treats Northern Ireland worse than other parts of the United Kingdom. At the end of the day, the question before Members is simple: are we prepared to support a measure that will increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, offers no environmental benefit and treats Northern Ireland less favourably than Scotland? If this discriminatory version of the Order passes, it will not be because there was no alternative; it will be because Members chose not to insist on fair treatment for the people whom they represent. Members should reflect carefully on that, because the issue has already been examined at the Committee. Members know how their parties voted there, so the question today is straightforward: why would anyone vote to pass a flawed version of the regulations when they could simply reject it and ask the Government to come back within days with a version that does not discriminate against Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Scotland? It is not acceptable for Northern Ireland to be treated as an afterthought in UK policymaking. It is not acceptable to add cost to the supply chains on which our economy depends. It is not acceptable to impose a policy that places Northern Ireland at a competitive disadvantage in its national market. For those reasons, I cannot support the Order in its present form, and I urge other Members to vote against it and require the Government to come back with regulations that treat Northern Ireland fairly. My last comments will be from the director of TST Group, who has been in touch. If Members do not want to take my word for it, they should listen to what he has to say. TST contacted us, concerned about the disproportionate impact that the proposal will have on Northern Ireland businesses and supply chains. He said:

"Northern Ireland is uniquely dependent on maritime transport. Approximately 90% of goods entering Great Britain move via ferry routes from Great Britain. Unlike businesses based in Great Britain, Northern Ireland companies cannot avoid these additional transport costs. Within the logistics sector, typically it operates on around 1% to 3% of a margin. A cost increase of approximately 6% in freight movements is therefore extremely significant. Ultimately, that will lead in to higher prices for businesses and consumers here in Northern Ireland."

The House has a clear choice to make. There is a better and more cost-effective way for business. We should reject the Order today, and the Government should return with a better offer for Northern Ireland.

1,301 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:11 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification