Member

On 19 February, officials gave evidence to the relevant committee. Mr Richard Coey from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs specifically pointed out that this was, as we thought, a stand-alone SI. DAERA’s evidence was unpersuasive and the committee unanimously, as we heard, decided to take evidence from the two expert bodies, the Chamber of Shipping and Stena Line. It was at this point, just a fortnight ago, that officials trumped everything they said in another place and introduced a major issue that had not been debated and did not appear in the statutory instrument or the analysis behind it. DAERA officials sent an email on 25 February to the Chamber of Shipping and Stena, highlighting that CBAM “has come to light” and urging them to reconsider their positions. CBAM considerations had been absolutely dismissed as out of scope in another place and are not present anywhere in the impact assessment. Indeed, page 12 of the impact assessment states: