Debate contribution: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436354
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have outlined the situation with the funding that we have secured to assist us on the decarbonisation journey. I have stated how that links to the wider ambition to join together the UK ETS and the EU ETS, as well as how that links to CBAM. We have to consider those wider issues. It is strange that some people of a unionist persuasion come to the Chamber having not considered the UK's wider ambition to link to the EU ETS. That is something that we need to consider. Brexit has created lots of challenges in Northern Ireland. As Minister, I am seeking to work through those challenges and find solutions to them. As is often the case when I come here with solutions, there are Members who say that they do not like them, yet they do not offer alternatives. Linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes offers us clear benefits, and there will be impacts from CBAM if we do not do so. If the CBAM exemption is not achieved, there will likely be a much greater impact, especially for industry, manufacturing and construction, than the inclusion of maritime emissions within the scope of the UK ETS. The UK ETS maritime legislation will apply only to emissions associated with the transporting of goods by ship. Transport costs are a small component of the final price of goods. Securing a CBAM exemption would remove a major trade barrier for £7 billion of UK exports that are currently within the scope of the EU CBAM. Matching maritime scope is a requirement of linking to the EU ETS and to subsequent EU CBAM exemptions. It would avoid significantly higher costs and admin burden for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Taking into account the benefit of linking the two emissions trading schemes, combined with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the benefit to the UK economy would be almost £9 billion by 2040.
I want to continue. Matching maritime scope is a requirement for linking to the EU ETS and for mutual CBAM exemptions. We therefore must adopt a wider perspective for the maritime issues in hand. A firm ETS link is the only path to CBAM-free trade between the UK and the EU. Numerous businesses and industrial stakeholders have been calling for alignment between the UK ETS and the EU ETS for some time. In advance of the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025, a letter calling for the strengthening of UK-EU cooperation through linking the UK ETS and the EU ETS was supported and signed by 52 organisations. Organisations that signed the letter included the CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, Energy UK and SSE. There is a wider issue to be considered. The draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 will extend the scope of the UK ETS to include emissions from the domestic maritime sector. That has been well trailed for a number of years. Extensive consultation and engagement has taken place on it. The UK emissions trading scheme has proven to be one of the most effective tools in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from high-polluting sectors. The Order, if approved, marks a vital next step in developing effective proposals for expansion of UK ETS, increasing the level of emissions that will come under the scheme and helping to shape the future of UK ETS in a way that supports the long-term decarbonisation strategy of both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. It will allow the maritime sector to choose the most effective way to reduce emissions, supported with £448 million of UK Government funding through the UK shore programme. As Minister, I will continue to work closely with the Finance Minister and our respective officials to explore potential fiscal opportunities for Northern Ireland as a result of our participation in the emissions trading scheme. There is a significant opportunity here for us to link the UK ETS and EU ETS schemes and address the concerns about CBAM that are often raised with us. I urge Members to look at the broader picture of the challenges that we have faced as a result of Brexit, to focus on solutions and to support the Order.
720 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.14 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.30 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.36 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.86 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
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.