Michelle McIlveen
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Public confidence depends not only on effective enforcement but on enforcement being exercised fairly and consistently. <BR /> <BR />There is widespread concern across Northern Ireland about the condition of many of our lakes and rivers, and there are a vast number of factors that contribute to water quality challenges.”
“Although we support the overall direction of travel, I think that is appropriate to reflect on the concerns that have been raised and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, practical and capable of delivering its intended outcomes.”
“If we are therefore serious about improving our aquatic environment, every source of pollution must be addressed. New legislative powers are meaningful only if the Department has the resources, the expertise and the personnel necessary to implement them effectively.”
“There is, however, a need for accompanying clear guidance and support and for regulatory consistency and prompt decision-making. Delays, uncertainty and excessive bureaucracy will undoubtedly discourage investment and undermine confidence in the sector.”
“Subordinate legislation should not become a substitute for proper democratic accountability. Consultation and engagement must be undertaken before regulations are introduced, and I cannot overstate the need for stakeholder engagement. <BR /> <BR />I will now talk about the Bill's proposed enforcement powers.”
“The DUP broadly welcomes the Bill. As has been said, it provides an opportunity to modernise legislation that, in some areas, has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Bill strengthens the protection of our fisheries, improves the regulatory framework for aquaculture and enhances the management of our water environment.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,597 lines we hold for Michelle McIlveen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 52.
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. As we have heard, bovine TB is a serious and persistent challenge. It has implications for public health and animal welfare and, perhaps more significantly, for the livelihoods and well-being of our farming families. While we recognise the problem, we also need to ensure that the Assembly is grounded in the realities that are facing Northern Ireland and that a response is shaped by the best available evidence. <BR /> <BR />The motion references the increase in human TB cases. We know from the Public Health Agency that there were 86 notified cases in 2024. However, it is important to place on record that the risk from bovine TB remains very low, with just three cases identified in Northern Ireland.”
“That is a recipe for further conflict and confusion. All of that is set against a backdrop of numerous other bodies already offering their tuppence worth on the very same issues. Moreover, there is no assurance whatsoever that any concerns that the commission raises will be heeded not only by the Minister but across all Departments. This raises a fundamental question: what is the point of creating yet another body if its advice can simply be ignored? <BR /> <BR />In summary, the regulations do little to address the fundamental flaws in the wider climate framework that is being imposed on Northern Ireland. They do not provide clarity, certainty or the realistic, balanced pathway that our economy and people deserve. For those reasons, we cannot support the regulations.”
“We will therefore not agree to regulations that simply raise expectations of a fairness that, frankly, is unrealistic and undeliverable. <BR /> <BR />On the structure of the proposed commission, the requirement for a minimum of 15 core representatives deviates from the expert advice of the UK Climate Change Committee. That is something that we have seen happen before. How can businesses and communities have confidence in there being coherent decision-making when so many sectors and voices are to be gathered around the table, all of which will be attempting to interpret a just transition principle that is in itself so broad as to be almost meaningless in practice. Even more concerning is that, beyond those 15 representatives, the Minister retains the power to appoint additional members without there being any guarantee of sectoral balance.”
“Sadly, what is perhaps most concerning is that other parties in the House choose to press ahead with the draft climate action plan while refusing point-blank to agree to quantify properly and assess fully its costs and impacts. That was a moment when realism should have prevailed. Instead, climate ideology won out over evidence and common sense. <BR /> <BR />It is easy to sign up to ambitious targets, but it is far harder to explain to our constituents how those targets will be paid for or what they will mean for jobs, competitiveness and living standards. What has been signed up to is not just ambitious targets but unachievable targets. Without making decisive and radical legislative changes, the current emissions targets cannot be sufficiently mitigated. Two weeks ago, there was no support in the Chamber for our measured motion.”
“Let us be honest: the draft regulations are somewhat of an afterthought, given that the Minister and the Assembly were content to press ahead with interim targets and carbon budgets that continue to shackle Northern Ireland to net zero, all in the absence of any meaningful focus on a just transition. <BR /> <BR />The DUP's position has remained clear and consistent, and it is that net zero in Northern Ireland in unachievable and unjustified at a time of profound upheaval for businesses and households across our Province. Families are grappling with rising costs, key industries are facing mounting pressures, and our infrastructure is crying out for investment. The draft regulations are inextricably tied to a target that is simply pie in the sky.”
“It should go without saying that AFBI ought to be held to a high degree of scrutiny and accountability. There should not be a view that it is one rule for AFBI and another for the local farmer. That said, is the intervention time-bound? I am concerned that, ironically, effectively bringing AFBI in-house in the long term would be detrimental to both AFBI and the wider industry.”
“Yes, absolutely, because the Member is dancing on the head of a pin. His party certainly did not table an amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />This is not a sixth-form debating club where our decisions do not mean anything; what we decide impacts on every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. We need to restore common sense to government. Climate ambition should not come at the expense of economic stability, public safety and the well-being of the people whom we are elected to serve.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion calls for a recognition that aspirational climate targets are impeding the delivery of essential infrastructure and public services, the withdrawal of the current draft climate action plan 2023-27 until its proposals are fully quantified and properly assessed and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies across every Department and arm's-length body. It is a sensible, transparent and, importantly, honest approach to the issue. There needs to be demonstrable commitment to responsible governance, fiscal prudence and a truly fair transition that protects households, businesses and the agri-food sector while still enabling progress towards environmental sustainability.”
“we can ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and deliver genuine value for money. Good intentions alone do not make good policy; evidence and accountability do. The question for Members is straightforward: are they prepared to support transparency, or are they content to proceed on the basis of unquantified assumptions? Supporting the motion is not about abandoning environmental responsibility; it is about ensuring that climate action is fair, realistic and deliverable. The debate is not about choosing between the environment and the economy; it is about ensuring that we strike the right balance between environmental ambition and the practical needs of our people.”
“There needs to be transparent and evidence-based policymaking, and when I say "transparent", I also mean honest. <BR /> <BR />By tasking:”
“<BR /> <BR />In the overarching financial, social and economic impact assessment, it is claimed that the draft plan will be financially neutral, but it is also acknowledged in that assessment that implementing the plan will require trade-offs that will potentially crowd out investments in other priorities. The A5 legal judgement provides a clear illustration of that risk. If left unamended, the Climate Change Act could require Departments to divert funding away from front-line services such as roads, schools and hospitals in order to meet emissions targets. When climate policy begins to compete with patient care or classroom provision, we should pause and reassess our approach. The current net zero target is unworkable for Northern Ireland.”
“Encouraging a modal shift to public transport is the right thing to do, but measures associated with achieving that are largely unquantified. Setting overly ambitious targets without having the infrastructure to support them is not leadership but wishful thinking. The DUP believes that it was premature to advance the draft plan without first establishing the just transition commission and the just transition fund for agriculture, both of which are legislative commitments. A just transition cannot be an afterthought. Rather, it must be the foundation on which climate policy is built. We cannot ask people to make sacrifices without first providing them with the support to help them adapt.”
“Proposals such as methane-suppressing feed additives, alternative fertilisers and changes to livestock management may have merit, but they must be economically viable and evidence-based. A sustainable future for Northern Ireland cannot be built by making family farms unsustainable. <BR /> <BR />Of the estimated £718 million of capital expenditure that underpins the draft climate action plan, almost 47% is allocated to transport. That is largely predicated on the rapid phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles. A transition to cleaner transport is desirable, but it must be realistic. In other jurisdictions, it has been accepted that such a timescale is not realistic. In addition, electric vehicle infrastructure remains inadequate, particularly in rural areas.”
“Farmers are being asked to shoulder the burden while other major sectors appear to escape scrutiny. That is neither fair nor sustainable. Agriculture is not just an economic sector but a way of life. It is vital to the nation's food security. The draft plan estimates that there will be a £70 million capital cost for measures affecting the sector, but it provides little clarity on who will bear the costs. Even more concerning are the assumptions that the proposals could lead to a reduction of 81,000 beef cattle and 25,000 dairy cattle by 2027. For many farming families, those are not abstract figures but representative of their livelihoods and the future of rural communities.”
“Furthermore, the quantification report acknowledges that Departments use varying methodologies to estimate emissions reductions, with some relying on external scientific expertise and others conducting in-house analysis. That inconsistency raises serious questions about the reliability of the data underpinning the plan. If the numbers cannot be compared, how can they be trusted? <BR /> <BR />There is a glaring absence of a level playing field. We have noted that to be the case, time and again, with policies coming from and approaches taken by the Department. While the agriculture sector faces extensive obligations, Northern Ireland Water, which is one of the region's largest landowners, is not associated with any specific policies or proposals.”
“Central to the motion is the call for the withdrawal of the draft climate action plan 2023-27. The DUP engaged constructively with the consultation process, and our conclusion is clear: the draft plan is built on shaky foundations. It is estimated that it will cost over £1 billion between now and 2027, yet a significant number of the policies to reduce emissions across nine sectors are not quantified at all. Assessments of the likely impact on emissions of measures such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP), the shift policy for reducing vehicle emissions and changes to building regulations are lacking. In any other area of government, proposing billion-pound spending without clear evidence would be considered unacceptable. Why should climate policy be any different?”
“Across Northern Ireland, our roads are deteriorating. Potholes are no longer an inconvenience but a hazard, and motorists are left to foot the bill for vehicle damage. When families are dodging potholes on their way to work, it is hard to justify the ring-fencing of funding for projects that do not address the most urgent needs. Flexibility, not inflexibility, should guide our investment decisions.”
“Investment in walking and cycling should be made where it is appropriate and beneficial, but imposing a rigid spending quota regardless of local need is simply poor governance.”
“We should take a moment to think about that: a road designed to save lives and support economic growth is being jeopardised by targets that largely exist on paper. When climate policy begins to block life-saving infrastructure, it is time to ask whether we have lost sight of common sense. <BR /> <BR />The implications do not end with the A5. The A4 Enniskillen bypass and other vital projects now hang in the balance. Communities in the west should not be told that their safety and prosperity are negotiable because of unworkable emissions targets. Climate ambition should not come at the cost of connectivity and safety. <BR /> <BR />The motion highlights the statutory requirement to allocate a minimum of 10% of transport budgets to active travel.”
“Mr Justice McAlinden warned that, if the road is to be built while emissions targets are being met:”
“The legislation was a political compromise in response to an even more extreme proposal, and, while amendments secured by the DUP helped to protect agriculture and taxpayers, it ultimately embedded a net zero by 2050 target that we had consistently opposed. We did so not out of ideology but because independent scientific advice indicated that such a target for Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor deliverable. I very much welcome the UUP's recent Damascene conversion in recognising the folly of the net zero by 2050 target, but I note that it co-sponsored a Member's Bill that was intended to mandate a net zero by 2045 target. <BR /> <BR />The consequences of the legislation have become painfully clear. The recent court ruling on the A5 western transport corridor laid bare the stark reality.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the motion, which speaks directly to the everyday concerns of constituents across Northern Ireland. It is about why a number of parties in the Chamber took the decision to hamstring functionality in the race to virtue-signal and still seem determined to limp on instead of addressing the problem. <BR /> <BR />The DUP supports environmentally responsible policies and recognises the UK's long-term ambition to reduce emissions. We believe in a fair — not a fast — path to net zero. Fairness means ensuring that climate ambition does not come at the expense of working families, rural communities or the infrastructure that underpins our economy. It is abundantly clear that the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 has created precisely that imbalance.”
“I am coming to a conclusion. <BR /> <BR />Taking the Bill through to Committee Stage would not change that fundamental flaw, as the Committee has no role in allocating budget and certainly has no business raising unrealistic expectations. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to work at pace to introduce a targeted package of support that is fair, effective and sustainable.”
“In the current mandate, those farmers have been treated shamefully by Sinn Féin. Their land was illegally vested, literally ploughed through and completely destroyed. Farmers throughout West Tyrone still have no certainty about the future of their land whilst the Department for Infrastructure, run by Sinn Féin, continues to progress shambolically with that project. It is absolutely disgraceful. <BR /> <BR />Reintroducing ANC support without additional funding would redistribute already limited support in the sector, create inequality between farm types and undermine confidence in the sustainable agriculture programme. It risks setting farm businesses against one another, in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
“Next Tuesday night marks the closure of the first year of the suckler cow payment scheme. For the first time in 20 years, farmers throughout Northern Ireland will receive £100 per eligible cow as a direct payment. Surely, if Sinn Féin really wanted to maintain cow numbers, it would lobby for that payment to be increased. However, over the past few weeks, Sinn Féin has politicised the issue in carefully selected constituencies through posters and leaflets, so let us have a quick look at how Sinn Féin really supports farmers. Sinn Féin continues to refuse to engage in a conversation to amend climate change targets that directly impact on our farming community, placing on it unrealistic net zero targets. What about the farmers in West Tyrone, where farms are directly impacted by the A5?”
“We support the need for a designated sheep scheme, for example, which would have a significantly positive impact on SDAs, where over half our sheep are located. Those farmers already contribute significantly to the environment and to rural communities, providing employment on farms and across the supply chain. The sector is also a multiplier for the Northern Ireland economy more generally. We want to see tailored support, building on previous work by the Northern Ireland sheep task force, to safeguard those family farms for the next generation, but that also means providing them with help to invest in infrastructure, equipment and technology, which will increase productivity and lead to improved animal health and welfare.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, but we know that businesses can also access support through the beef sustainability package and the Farming with Nature package. <BR /> <BR />Between 2018 and 2020, only 705 of the 4,256 farm businesses in receipt of support through the environmental farming scheme (EFS) were exclusively in lowland areas, so how does that fit with the narrative that those in SDAs struggle to access funding streams? <BR /> <BR />Rather than seeing further regressive area-based payments that are not linked to productivity, we want to see programmes focused on efficiency and resilience in order to support profitable and sustainable agricultural activity across Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is also important to address the misconception that farms in seriously disadvantaged areas are deprived of financial support or have found themselves in a worse situation than was previously the case. Since the ending of ANC payments, I understand, there has been no significant change to agriculture in LFAs relative to lowland areas in Northern Ireland either in livestock numbers or, indeed, in farmed areas. The move to a flat-rate, land-based payment has, in fact, seen more funding under the basic payment scheme moved from lowland areas and DAs to SDA land types, more than compensating for the loss of the old ANC scheme.”
“Not only would a mandatory ANC scheme have to be funded from within the existing Agriculture budget, reducing financial support for other farm businesses under the farm sustainability payment, but that disparity in treatment would deepen, as there is a proposal in the PMB to link ANCs payments to inflation. That link is not afforded to any other element of the sustainable agriculture programme. In essence, what is proposed is a hierarchy in agriculture, and where is the fairness in that? Is it Sinn Féin policy to move money from suckler cow and sheep farmers in lowland areas to large landowners in severely disadvantaged areas?”
“Indeed, when the sponsor of the Bill came to the AERA Committee last Monday, he said that the ANC scheme should not come out of the earmarked Department of Agriculture budget: if it is not to come from there, where will it come from? Let me be clear: there is no reference to ANCs in the Sinn Féin draft Budget. Those playing fast and loose with the truth on the issue are promising a false dawn for the farms affected and wrongly downplaying the concerns of those in lowland areas, who rightly fear for the future of their direct support payments.”
“At that time, there were budgetary pressures, and it was a challenge to fund the scheme. Fast-forward 10 years, and we can only dream of having those types of budgetary pressures. We were also working in an entirely different context for farm support. It is clear that much of the public support for the Bill that has been voiced to date is predicated on an expectation of additional funding that is not grounded in fact. While the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) appears to support the reinstatement of the payment, it has stated a clear caveat:”
“As we know, when she was Agriculture Minister, she continued with the ANC scheme, contrary to the advice of her officials. It did not meet the requirements of 'Managing Public Money', and a ministerial direction was given to proceed. When she acted to extend those payments, she did not do so permanently, because the business case did not support that, so should we really be surprised that Sinn Féin has introduced a Bill that would not deliver value for money? In fact, if enacted, any new scheme would not restrict support to the businesses that last received the grant when the old ANC scheme closed in 2018; it would be much more expensive. <BR /> <BR />At the end of 2016, when I was AERA Minister, I announced a one-year transitional scheme: the 2018 ANC scheme that is referenced in the Bill.”
“In Westminster, if a private Member's Bill proposes spending public money on something not previously approved by Parliament, a money resolution must be agreed to. Perhaps a version of that needs to be considered by the Assembly moving forward; in fact, it is essential that such a mechanism be introduced. <BR /> <BR />I speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party to oppose the Second Stage of the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill. That is not because we do not want to support growth in agriculture or provide financial aid to farmers; rather, it is because we feel that the Bill does not deliver either and could adversely impact on both. It has been 10 years since we had a substantive debate on an ANC scheme. That came after the actions of the now First Minister.”
“We are at a stage of the mandate similar to the situation in 2021, when Members brought forward poorly drafted pieces of legislation that were often vanity projects and raised expectations of change in the public sphere. In their eagerness to please, Members and parties in the House, who, frankly, should know better, rush through the Lobbies to approve legislation that has unintended consequences and, importantly, no business case, which means no budget. Do Members need to be reminded of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 or, indeed, the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2002? Of course not. Tomorrow, the Minister of Health will move the Consideration Stage of the Hospital Parking Charges Bill to defer its introduction again. Why? It is because the Department of Health cannot afford to fund it.”
“I am yet to hear a reason why I should support the establishment of another body and risk the squandering of public resources when it overreaches and is unanswerable for that overreach. I am yet to be convinced that the existing oversight mechanisms could not do their job properly if they were properly funded and supported by their sponsor Department. I am also yet to be convinced on why we should expect the situation to be any different with the new body that we are being asked to establish —.”
“No, I will not. <BR /> <BR />Add to that the fact that the Alliance Party is, once again, showing its disdain for the cross-community protections that are provided under the Belfast Agreement and St Andrews Agreement. It wants them discarded, simply because it is not getting its way. Instead of working within the perfectly legal framework that exists, the Alliance Party wants to run to the Secretary of State to attempt to override it. So much for minority protections. <BR /> <BR />At a time when the public purse is stretched, I am yet to hear a cogent argument for why I should support spending further money on an unaccountable quango, simply to cover the Minister's blushes.”
“Getting to the point, again, it was distraction, deflection and insult. It seems that the Alliance Party prefers no openness, no transparency and, certainly, no accountability.”
“I asked what safeguards have been suggested to prevent the mission creep that has been seen with other independent bodies that were established through statute. I gave the valid example of the Equality Commission in the Ashers case. It was reasonable to highlight the actions of a publicly funded body that cost the public purse £250,000, an amount that could have been more if Ashers had pursued its costs. However, the Alliance Party's deputy leader saw fit to accuse me of engaging in a homophobic dog whistle. That was distraction, deflection and insult.”
“It appears that the answer is the magic money tree. If the money has not been available to fund adequately the bodies that the Minister has currently, it will not be available to fund this new body, unless it is taken from somewhere else. If we add the additional layers of governance required to operate an NDPB, it will only cost the public purse more, which means that somewhere else will suffer.”
“There are around 120 arm's-length bodies (ALBs) in Northern Ireland, excluding those such as the NIEA that are Executive agencies in Departments. There are around 80 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), advisory bodies, tribunals, boards and cross-border bodies. That is an awful lot of government that is not part of government. In the motion, the Alliance Party refers to things being "undemocratic". Arm's-length bodies are the definition of undemocratic, yet the Alliance Party is asking for the establishment of an undemocratic body, with accountability being pushed away from democratically elected MLAs to an appointed board. <BR /> <BR />When the Minister made his statement to the Assembly on the independent review of environmental governance, I asked:”
“Passing powers to an independent agency is yet another attempt by the Alliance Party to absolve itself of any responsibility or accountability for the failure of the Departments under its control. An independent environmental protection agency will not clean up Lough Neagh or improve the quality of one drop of water. What it will do is afford the Minister scope to say that it should do better rather than accepting that it is he who should do better. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party's agitation for an independent environmental protection agency is a distraction to deflect from DAERA's, and, by extension, the Minister's, failures. As I said in the Chamber in November:”
“The Alliance Party talks a lot about openness and transparency, but, whenever it comes under scrutiny from other politicians or, indeed, from journalists, it distracts, deflects and insults in order to avoid dealing with the hard questions. That is the opposite of openness and transparency. It is simply gaslighting of the public. <BR /> <BR />The attempted establishment of yet another quango in Northern Ireland is another way of placing accountability elsewhere, which seems to be one of the Alliance Party's favourite pastimes. From looking at the Alliance Justice Minister's responses to questions for written answer, one might wonder whether the Department of Justice is responsible for anything. It seems that the Alliance Party wants to use that as the blueprint for its other Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are unhappy with the lack of an exemption for Northern Ireland that is similar to that for Scotland, if there are concerns about the economic impact on Northern Ireland consumers, if we are unclear about the CBAM argument, if there are clear competitiveness concerns and if there is no clear decarbonisation pathway in place, is it responsible to proceed? Is it more prudent to ask Westminster to come back with a revised proposal that properly reflects Northern Ireland's economic realities and amends the legislation to take account of our reasonable concerns? If the answer to all of that is yes, that should be reflected in how we vote today. There is no reason why the legislation cannot be amended so that Northern Ireland is treated in exactly the same way as Scotland; it just requires the will of the Assembly.”
“A statutory instrument cannot be amended; Members can either approve it or reject it. However, given that serious concerns remain about economic impact, policy design, evidence gaps and regional fairness, there is a strong argument that the Assembly should ask Westminster to reconsider the proposal. It is my understanding that Ministers in Westminster are openly discussing a new statutory instrument that would address our concerns. Stena and the UK Chamber of Shipping have asked for reasonable adjustments: a 12-month delay to allow them to prepare; a Northern Ireland-specific economic assessment; a phased introduction period; and the targeting of ETS revenues towards maritime decarbonisation.”
“The Minister referenced the fact that other regions have supported this, but we know that Scotland has an exemption, that Wales has no domestic ferries and that Labour has a majority in the Commons. Why would they object? <BR /> <BR />We are aware that this is under review by the EU, as member states already affected are unhappy. We are also aware that the rules of the game will be changed again when the Order is reviewed in 2028. At that point, the tonnage is likely to be changed to incorporate ferries over 400 tons, which will include one of the Strangford ferries. What will that mean for DFI and for the passengers who use it daily? What other changes will come about as a result of the impending review? <BR /> <BR />Despite the uncertainty surrounding the proposal, we have limited options under Assembly procedure.”
“Without transparent evidence, the CBAM argument remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated fact. <BR /> <BR />We now turn to the Scottish exemption. The UK Government have already recognised that some maritime routes face disproportionate impacts. That is why the Scottish island communities have rightly received exemptions. No wonder Scotland voted for this: it is protected through those exemptions. Their existence demonstrates that flexibility is possible within the policy framework. It is not unreasonable to ask why a similar case was not advanced for Northern Ireland, given its complete reliance on maritime transport. Northern Ireland's circumstances, I argue, make it even more structurally dependent on ferry connectivity than many places served by Scottish routes.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officials have also suggested that, if Northern Ireland does not adopt the ETS maritime extension, the costs arising from the CBAM could be higher, but there are problems with that argument. First, CBAM is not contained in the statutory instrument and does not apply directly to shipping; secondly, there is clearly no quantified estimate of CBAM costs for Northern Ireland; thirdly, Northern Ireland operates in a complex regulatory environment; and finally, if ETS-CBAM alignment becomes relevant in the future, that does not mean that the current policy design is correct. What evidence supports the claim that CBAM costs would exceed ETS costs? What modelling has been undertaken specifically for Northern Ireland? What would UK CBAM costs be in any scenario?”
“The Frontier Economics study that is often cited was commissioned in 2023 by Whitehall Departments, not DAERA, and does not take into account many of the current market developments. It mentions Northern Ireland only six times and provides no quantified estimates of the impacts on Northern Ireland's consumers or businesses. It also uses examples such as cruise shipping rather than analysing the full implications for NI-GB freight routes. While the UK Government's analysis acknowledges that Northern Ireland is more exposed to cost transmission through maritime freight, it does not quantify the real economic consequences for Northern Ireland households or businesses. That raises a reasonable question: why has no dedicated Northern Ireland economic impact assessment been commissioned for a policy with such obvious regional implications?”
“At present, alternative fuels remain extremely limited and cost up to four times more than conventional maritime fuel, and shoreside electricity infrastructure is largely unavailable across UK ports. This will require considerable investment. Yet, despite the additional revenue being proposed, there is no guaranteed mechanism to reinvest ETS revenues into maritime transition infrastructure. Without those enabling measures, the policy risks raising costs without reducing emissions. As Daniel McCrossan noted during the Committee's discussion on Thursday, it risks putting the cart before the horse. <BR /> <BR />On a specific economic impact assessment to look at the GB-NI route, DAERA officials have suggested that the impact on Northern Ireland has already been assessed. However, the available evidence raises significant questions.”