Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Thursday 16th October 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will implement obligations in the United Nations BBNJ agreement in UK law and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement. I am sure the Bill will be welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. I recognise the contribution of Members, particularly those on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, who have kept oceans high on the parliamentary agenda. In all fairness, I pay tribute to the previous Government, who did a lot of work on the Bill.
I am personally proud that we are turning words into action. In April 2024, I was the shadow Minister on a debate on this topic, and I made the commitment that if Labour were lucky enough to win the election, we would ratify this treaty, so I am very pleased to be able to say that we are going to. People in civil society, academia and industry will be delighted to see the introduction of the Bill. Organisations such as the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum have provided invaluable support to the UK delegation. I also thank the High Seas Alliance and the World Wide Fund for Nature, as well as many other environmental non-governmental organisations, for their unwavering commitment.
The BBNJ agreement is the result of years of dialogue and negotiation involving stakeholders from all around the world. In fact, I heard just this morning that negotiations started in 2012, so it has taken quite a while to get to this point. The UK’s role in these negotiations was informed by the expertise and passion of marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates, and I thank them all for their contributions.
The BBNJ agreement has achieved the 60 ratifications required for its entry into force, which will happen on 17 January 2026. We expect the first meeting of the conference of the parties to take place later in 2026, and the UK can attend that meeting as a party only if it has ratified the agreement at least 30 days previously.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right to say that there is support across the House for this really important Bill. She is right also to pay tribute to the previous Government for some of the work they have done, but it is true to say that, despite the fact that in the last Parliament there were many times when this Parliament did not have a great deal to debate, we never actually got this on the statute book. Just over one year into this Government, when there is a tremendous amount of legislation, we have managed to find the time to get this through. I pay tribute to the Minister. I think it is worth taking that bit of credit because we are doing something that has not previously been done.
Emma Hardy
I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend on that, can I? I thank him for his comments. As I said, it means a lot to me to be able to stand here today and say that I have fulfilled in government the commitment that I made in opposition.
We need to pass the Bill and the associated secondary legislation before we can take the next steps to ratification, so it is about not just the passage of this Bill but the statutory instruments that will follow it. I know that all sides of the House will want to see the UK playing a leading role in future discussions at the conference of the parties, and that is why we must maintain momentum.
The Bill marks a significant step in the UK’s commitment to protecting the two thirds of the world’s ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of a single nation. From one of the heaviest fish, the sunfish, to the delicate sea butterfly, this vast expanse of ocean is home to extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet. It sustains fisheries that feed billions, and it underpins weather patterns, coastal protections and the livelihoods of people across the globe, but these areas of the ocean are vulnerable to exploitation, degradation and irreversible harm.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I agree with the Minister that her engagement with various stakeholders—environmental NGOs, academics and universities—is crucial. I also acknowledge the parts of the Bill that underline the role of devolved Administrations and the important work that has to be done. Will her officials work closely with the devolved Administrations on the international impact of the Bill and that that will continue throughout this legislation?
Emma Hardy
I can offer the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. That is an important point well made.
The BBNJ marks an historic breakthrough. It is a multilateral treaty adopted under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea that is designed to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The agreement delivers on four critical fronts. First, it established new obligations to share the benefits arising from research into and the use of marine genetic resources from these ocean areas. Secondly, it created a mechanism to establish area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, which was an essential step to safeguard fragile ecosystems.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is great that the UK is finally ratifying the treaty, and it is also great to hear the Minister talk about the benefits of marine protected areas, but if the Bill is to signify a new and invigorated Government focus on protecting our precious marine environment, does she not agree that the terrible, destructive fishing practice of bottom trawling obliterates vital habitats on our seabed? It makes a mockery of the entire term “marine protected area” that the UK Government have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s advice to ban bottom trawling from our own marine protected areas.
Emma Hardy
Of course, domestic marine protected areas are not within the remit of the Bill because we are talking about areas beyond national jurisdiction. What I can say is that the UK Government have introduced a consultation looking at banning bottom trawling in 41 of our marine protected areas. That consultation is out now. We are showing our commitment to oceans on not only an international scale but a national scale.
Thirdly, the agreement strengthens the framework for environmental impact assessments by building on the provisions of the UN convention on the law of the sea to ensure that new activities in these areas are sustainable and responsible.
Fourthly, it reinforces capacity building for developing states and promotes broader technological transfer. The journey to the agreement started with an ad hoc informal working group in 2006, before it progressed to a preparatory commission that worked through 2016 and 2017 and culminated in a formal inter-Government conference that negotiated the text between 2018 and 2023.
The UK has already played a leading role in shaping the agreement over the course of more than a decade of negotiations. In September 2023, we were one of the first countries to sign the agreement when it opened for signature at the UN, and today, through the Bill, the UK takes a major step towards ratification.
I will now outline the structure of the Bill, which is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 are designed to correspond and give effect to the three core sections of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for her deep interest in this subject. We are all very impressed by what the Minister does and we thank her for it. Further to intervention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins)—he and I both represent coastal communities—I would like to say that marine biodiversity is the lifeblood of the fishing industry and that, as we have often said, fishermen are the greatest natural caretakers of the sea. Does the Minister agree that the input and the generational knowledge of the fishing sector is essential as we move forward?
Emma Hardy
I pay tribute to all the fishermen throughout the United Kingdom who play such a vital role in helping to feed our nation.
The Bill also ensures that the UK has the necessary powers to implement decisions adopted at future meetings of the BBNJ conference of the parties, beginning with the marine genetic resource provision. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the requirements related to the collection and use of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction and digital sequence information generated on those marine genetic resources.
These measures mean that UK researchers conducting collection activities from UK craft or equipment, such as royal research ships or autonomous systems, will need to notify a national focal point within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office before and after the collection of these resources. Additionally, any users of marine genetic resources or digital sequence information will need to notify the national focal point once results of utilisation are available and make those results available in publicly accessible repositories or databases. The results of utilisation, including publications such as journal articles and patents granted, should detail the outcome of research and development on these resources. These notifications will provide valuable data on material collected and on the results of research in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These notifications will be passed on to a clearing-house mechanism—a core part of the future architecture of the BBNJ agreement.
The clearing-house mechanism will act as a global online notification hub, where parties to the agreement will submit their notifications, allowing researchers from the UK and elsewhere to see what is being collected from where and how it is being used. That function is key to the benefit-sharing mechanisms under the agreement, enabling researchers from developing countries to work from the same scientific data as a researcher in the UK. That will also facilitate the development of cross-national research groups crucial to supporting breakthrough scientific discoveries.
The measures in the Bill also require repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. That will apply to bodies like the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information from marine genetic resources will need to ensure public access. Marine genetic resources may hold the key to future medicines, enzymes and sustainable technologies. This is a fast-growing global sector, and our universities and biotech firms are world leaders. Taken together, the measures will allow our researchers and companies to remain at the cutting edge of marine genetic discovery, benefiting from and contributing to global research in this space.
Part 3 of the Bill provides powers to allow the UK to implement internationally agreed measures in relation to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Any such measures will be agreed in meetings of the conference of the parties and will aim to manage activities in geographically defined areas of the ocean to achieve conservation and sustainable use objectives. Part 3 also ensures that the UK can implement any emergency measures adopted by the conference of the parties to respond to any natural or man-made disasters in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may require, for example, restrictions on navigation of UK ships or discharges from UK crafts.
Part 4 updates domestic marine licensing legislation to meet the environmental impact assessment requirements set out in the agreement. These changes apply to licensable marine activities that take place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It provides the power needed to adapt the UK’s domestic marine licensing and related environmental assessment system as new international standards and guidelines are agreed by the BBNJ conference of the parties. For example, that may include applying the latest standards for environmental assessments or for the ongoing monitoring of impacts. In short, it will future-proof the UK’s marine licensing legislation, ensuring that we can keep pace with emerging technologies and activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
In addition to the Bill, secondary legislation is required before the UK can formally ratify the BBNJ agreement. We will need to make changes to domestic legislation to implement the BBNJ agreement provisions relating to environmental impact assessments and to define digital sequence information. Those issues require engagement with stakeholders, and statutory instruments will be laid before Parliament after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Once the secondary legislation is in force, a standard six-week process will allow us to finalise the instrument of ratification, which includes signature and formal submission to the United Nations.
The provisions in the Bill may appear to be narrow and technical, but once implemented, they will enable the UK to participate fully in global efforts to conserve and sustainably use the ocean beyond national jurisdiction. Working with our international partners, the BBNJ agreement will allow us to safeguard fragile ecosystems, protect endangered species and ensure that scientific benefits are shared fairly and responsibly.
The Bill is rooted in this Government’s broader environmental and international goals. We are protecting and improving the marine environment at home and internationally to meet the global commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and this Bill is a key instrument in delivering that goal. The Bill supports our efforts to maintain multilateral agreements and international governance as the bedrock of our global community, and to address collectively the biggest issues of our generation: climate change, food insecurity and harm to marine environments—issues that affect not just the UK, but every nation on Earth. I hope that Members will recognise the urgency and importance of this moment. The ocean cannot wait, and the consequences of inaction are profound. This Bill is an opportunity to act, to protect marine life, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of the ocean are shared fairly and responsibly. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I thank her for acknowledging that it started under the previous Government. I hope there will be a consensus, but there are many questions to be answered, and we need to go into this legislation in a lot of detail to ensure that there are not unintended consequences.
Nobody in this House doubts the importance of protecting our oceans. The high seas belong to us all, to every nation on this planet, and the United Kingdom, as a proud seafaring nation and a world leader in natural sciences with no less than 16 overseas territories spanning—for now at least—all five of the world’s major oceans, has always led the world in safeguarding them. The protection of our oceans is one of the defining challenges of our age. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation, and those waters are home to a vast array of life that sustains the planet’s ecosystems.
Britain depends on the seas for our trade. They have been a moat for our national security and are our bridge to the wider world. We therefore have not only a moral duty to protect them but a strategic one. One of the core values of the small c conservatism that I believe in, as the name suggests, is to conserve things that truly matter. That applies not only to our institutions and our way of life here in these islands, but to the preservation of our green and pleasant land and, in this case, that of the marine biodiversity, so that we can hand on to our descendants the natural beauty that I know we all cherish. That principle is certainly not in question today by anyone in this House of any party.
Nowhere is our record clearer than in the crown jewel of our leadership on the environment that is the blue belt programme. Through it, the United Kingdom and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million sq km of marine protected areas from the South Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian ocean. These waters safeguard king penguins on the Falkland Islands, green turtles on Ascension Island, grey reef sharks on the Pitcairn Islands and countless other species across the globe. I have had the privilege to visit the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island and see the amazing biodiversity that we are responsible for, and the oceans around those territories are vital to protect. The blue belt is one of the largest networks of protected ocean on Earth, and it exists because of British leadership alongside the Governments of the British overseas territories. We granted those creatures and their habitats protection from exploitation by others, from industrial fishing fleets and from countries that would plunder our resources without a second thought. That is something this nation should be immensely proud of.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member is saying, and he is absolutely right on the blue belt. Does he therefore regret that in all the debates we have had about the Chagos Islands, the Conservatives have not raised the importance of the conservation of the fish stocks and the biodiversity around those islands?
Andrew Rosindell
The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, I am afraid, incorrect. We have raised those issues on many occasions, and I have personally raised them on countless occasions over the years. Before too long, the right hon. Member will hear a bit more about the Chagos Islands and the importance of protecting marine stocks and biodiversity in that part of the world.
Despite what has been said today, I fear that at this stage the Government are riding roughshod over that record and undermining those very principles through their abject surrender of a marine protected area. The British Indian Ocean Territory might look like a scattering of remote atolls in a far-flung region of the planet, but they are home to 640,000 sq km of ocean—one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on the earth, an area of ocean the size of France. Within it live more than 1,000 species of fish and over 200 species of coral.
I had the opportunity to see it for myself in 2019 when I visited the Chagos islands, in particular the atoll of Peros Banhos, where I was greeted by the wonderful Chagossian coconut crabs, as I jumped out of the dinghy and walked on to the beach and into the uninhabited island—where we shamefully forced the people to leave their homes all those years ago and refused to allow them to return. Its waters shelter seabirds, turtles and dolphins. It is an environmental treasure that the world envies and that Britain has rightly protected over so many years.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mauritius was one of the early signatories to the UN global ocean treaty? If so, I am not sure what his point is.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice.
In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?”
Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems.
Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief.
We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation.
That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate.
When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty.
Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness.
Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer?
What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?
Emma Hardy
I wonder if I could offer some helpful clarity. This debate is on BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, with the word “beyond” giving a clue to the fact that it does not relate to British waters. The points the hon. Gentleman is raising, about what impact the high seas will have on offshore wind development here, might therefore not be entirely valid, and his points about the impact on British fishermen fishing in UK waters might not be covered by the global ocean treaty. I wonder if it might be helpful for him to read the explanatory notes alongside the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention.
What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape.
Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification.
If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Rosindell, can I check that you are nearing your conclusion?
Andrew Rosindell
I was literally about to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If Ministers will not do so, I and others will oppose any step that weakens Britain’s hand. I end where I began. As Conservatives, our principle is that we want to conserve, to keep safe, to steward and to defend what we are responsible for. We must be true to that principle. We must continue to act as custodians of the seas in a way that respects our sovereignty, honours our obligations to our descendants and protects the livelihoods and ecosystems that depend on the United Kingdom.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am really proud to be standing here today, because it is an historic day for ocean conservation. Let us make no mistake: the world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that if global warming reaches 1.5°, 70% of coral reefs will die. If temperatures rise by 2°, as now sadly looks likely, 99% of the Earth’s coral reefs will die. Coral reefs are not just a pretty thing that we go diving on; they are incredibly complex and important ecosystems. They are fish nurseries, but they also provide significant protection for islanders from both adverse weather and sea level rises.
Other threats include illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is decimating fish populations across the globe, and deep-sea mining, which threatens to cause damage from which ecosystems will take decades to recover. Currently, two thirds of the ocean lie outside the jurisdiction of national states, and that is what the Bill focuses on. For the health of oceans and the planet as a whole, it is crucial that the international community develops ways of ensuring that these areas are not subject to lawless exploitation, as is currently happening.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
In January this year, as Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend wrote to the Government to push them to ratify the global oceans treaty. As a member of her Committee, I thank her for her efforts on this front. If I recall correctly, our Committee’s work highlighted that the UK had to work globally because there are 3 billion people who depend on the oceans for work, especially in poorer, smaller developing nations. Does she agree that this is a vital step forward for the future, especially of small island developing states, and that the Government must push others who have signed up to this treaty to ratify it?
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing.
The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman.
In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that.
As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies.
As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned.
The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can.
The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it.
The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in support of this Bill. This is a hugely important step that, as the Minister laid out, will finally allow the United Kingdom to ratify the high seas treaty and play its full part in protecting our shared global ocean. That is something that I hope Members across the Chamber will support. I share in congratulations to the Minister on keeping her word that she gave as shadow Minister. That is really good to see.
The Bill comes at a crucial time. After more than a decade of negotiation, this treaty is one of the greatest biodiversity conservation victories in history. It is a landmark moment for global ocean governance, setting out for the first time a clear legal framework for establishing ocean sanctuaries and area-based management tools on the high seas, two-thirds of which lie beyond national borders and are therefore currently lawless. We refer to our rainforests as our planet’s lungs, but our oceans are just as important for biodiversity, regulating our climate, absorbing almost a third of human-made carbon dioxide, and sustaining billions of people around the world. As we have heard, they are also under extraordinary pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and the growing threat of deep-sea mining. The treaty is currently the only viable pathway to meeting the global 30 by 30 biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Currently, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected, so time is running out to meet that goal by the end of the decade.
I welcome the Bill, which provides the legal framework for the UK to deliver on the high seas treaty’s three central pillars: first, the fair sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, the DNA and data of ocean life; secondly, the creation of marine protected areas and area-based management tools on the high seas; and thirdly, stronger environmental impact assessments to prevent harmful activities before they happen. This has to be fair for developing nations, and capacity building and technology transfer is central to that.
This is personal to me. Before entering Parliament, I spent over a decade working professionally on the creation of marine protected areas in east Africa and South America. I helped to create the first ever multiple-use marine reserve, together with fishermen and Government in Zanzibar on Misali island. I then spent several years mediating conflict and reaching consensus between fishermen, tour operators, the Galapagos national park, and the Government, to help create the Galapagos marine reserve, which at that time was one of the largest MPAs created. Since then I have been involved in work towards international marine governance beyond national jurisdiction, the high seas treaty, as well as the UK’s Blue Belt programme, and I worked with communities and officials on all those overseas territories. I have seen at first hand what is at stake, from working with fishermen to prevent the destruction of coral reefs by dynamite fishing, to the terrifying news that we have reached the first climate tipping point, with our precious and beautiful warm-water coral reefs now in irreversible decline, putting at threat the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.
I have also mediated negotiations with the fishing sector on deep-water fishing to find sustainable fishing quotas and standards for tuna fishing, while protecting vital marine corridors for our endangered marine mammals and birds. I have dived along those, tagging whale sharks to understand the routes that they take across the high seas, beyond national jurisdictions. That is often the wild west, where we are facing the “tragedy of the commons”, and there are no agreed rules or governance to stop everyone in the race from taking as much as possible before someone else does.
That is why it is so important to highlight that the global ocean treaty could provide a legal mechanism to address the “blue hole” in the south Atlantic—a region requiring agreements about what is sustainable fishing practice, and ways effectively to deter terribly unsustainable activity. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a coherent ocean policy, and an ocean strategy that links the global commitments we make through the Bill to stronger domestic action on marine protection, sustainable fishing and pollution at home.
The UK was instrumental in securing an ambitious treaty text at the UN, and we should take pride in that. However, as other Members have said, we must be honest: the UK was not among the first 60 nations to ratify that treaty, and that matters because where Britain leads, others follow. The commitments being made today must be matched with commitments to sustainable fisheries management and marine conservation back in our own waters. Our credibility and moral authority on the world stage is under threat when Ministers seem to say that we might not implement an outright ban on bottom trawling, despite pledging earlier this year to extend the ban on bottom-towed fishing gear to offshore protected areas.
I was a member of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into marine governance, which recommended the ban on bottom trawling ahead of the UN ocean conference, and we commended the Government on their announcement at that time. I fully support the Committee Chair’s response, which repeats the Committee’s call to completely ban bottom trawling within offshore MPAs, and pleads with the Minister and the Government to take the right decision on the back of the consultation that is happening now, and not to undermine the integrity of our protected waters.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are clear: we support the Bill, and we urge the Government to bring forward ratification swiftly—I hope Members across the Chamber will support that—so that the UK has a seat at the table when Ocean COP1 takes place, and going forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Like others, I very much welcome the Bill, and I hope it swiftly passes into law so that we can play a full role at Ocean COP1 next year. If we look back beyond recent years, we had people such as John Kerry, and David Miliband as co-chair of the Global Ocean Commission, spearheading efforts on this front, but it then felt as if the issue dropped off the agenda. Next year will be important for ensuring that it becomes a priority again.
I will start by saying why the oceans matter, why they are under threat and why protecting them is so important. As we have heard, oceans are a massive carbon sink. They absorb over 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, as well as around 25% to 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions. They host around 80% of all life forms, many of which are still waiting to be discovered. They are under threat from plastic pollution, ocean acidification and the bleaching of coral reefs, and from overfishing on an unsustainable industrial scale. The largest factory trawlers have net mouths of up to 1,200 metres wide and 200 to 300 metres deep that sweep up hundreds of tonnes of fish and seafood in one trip, much of which is bycatch, not for human consumption, that is then discarded. Oceana has called this
“marine deforestation—akin to clear felling an entire rainforest when you’re only looking to harvest one type of tree”.
The Environmental Justice Foundation has done some brilliant reports in the past into slavery and labour exploitation as part of this industrial-scale fishing, particularly in the Thai seafood sector. The fish stocks in territorial waters are depleted, but the further afield those ships go, the higher the risk to the workers that are kept at sea for years at a time.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, between 35% and 37% of assessed fish stocks are being fished beyond biologically sustainable levels. That figure is much higher in the high seas and in straddling fish stocks, with two thirds classified as over-exploited or depleted. That includes iconic species, such as sharks, that are a crucial part of the ocean ecosystem. It is estimated that there has been a 71% decline in the ocean population of sharks and rays since 1970. Some 77% of oceanic shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. Roughly 100 million sharks a year are killed by humans through targeted fishing, shark finning and bycatch.
Many of us will have seen “The Blue Planet” series that did such a brilliant job at highlighting, among other things, the threat of plastic pollution and at spurring calls to action. I want to give a shout out to BBC Bristol’s natural history unit, which has been hugely influential, as well as giving great enjoyment to all the people who have seen its programmes. It is a great shame that agreement still has not been reached on a global plastics treaty, and we must keep up the efforts on that front.
I hope that Sir David Attenborough’s latest production, “Ocean”, will have a similar impact when it comes to bottom trawling. As Sir David says:
“What we have done to the deep ocean floor is just unspeakably awful.”
He says that the trawlers tear the seabed with such force that
“the trails of destruction can be seen from space”.
It was reported that some of the material filmed for the programme was deemed too shocking to be shown.
Due to climate change, more than half the world’s straddling fish stocks will shift across maritime borders between economic exclusion zones and the high seas by 2050. In the high seas, fisheries management is much more challenging and stocks are much more likely to be over-exploited, as I said earlier. That makes the need for marine protected areas in the high seas even more important. As we have heard, as well as being an island nation ourselves, because of our overseas territories the UK is the custodian of a fifth of the world’s territorial waters. That means that we are the neighbour, which is the next best thing as a custodian, of much of the high seas, including the Sargasso sea.
Greenpeace is calling on the UK to take a lead in working with our overseas territory, Bermuda, on developing an ocean sanctuary proposal for the Sargasso sea, ready to present it at the first Ocean COP next year. The Sargasso sea is a uniquely biodiverse and important ecosystem. The floating sargassum mats are known as the “golden floating rainforest”, and they are a haven for juvenile fish and turtles, a spawning ground for a rich range of species and an important migratory pathway for humpback whales. As a generator of massive carbon sequestration and oxygen production, the Sargasso sea is vital in tackling climate change and planetary health, but it is at risk of overfishing, pollution and shipping traffic. There is much support in Bermuda for the proposal, and I hope that we will be able to take that forward next year.
Given our strength as a global financial centre, the UK is uniquely well placed to play a role in developing innovative financial instruments that will help finance marine protection, building on what countries like Seychelles and Belize have done with their blue bonds and their debt restructuring. At COP29 last year, we launched our six principles for high integrity carbon and nature markets, and they have been out for consultation this year.
In a world where public sector resources and donations are dwindling, the world is looking to make progress on leveraging private sector finance in a meaningful and sustainable way. That could be of huge benefit to climate-vulnerable coastal countries and small island states, but could also be applicable to funding marine protected areas in the high seas, making it economically viable to protect our seas rather than to plunder them. I have heard that the Treasury may be less enthused about the nature side of these voluntary markets than the carbon side, but I hope that is not the case. I will certainly keep up the pressure on the Treasury to take this forward.
I want to speak briefly about deep-sea mining, to which I am totally opposed. Deep-sea mining could cause irreversible damage to deep ecosystems and a loss of undiscovered biodiversity. I understand that the current UK position, as confirmed by an FCDO ministerial answer last month, is that we back the suspension of deep-sea mining and support a moratorium on the granting of deep-sea mining contracts by the International Seabed Authority. The Minister said that we will not grant licences for exploitation unless
“there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep sea ecosystems, and strong enforceable environmental Regulations, Standards and Guidelines”.
However, it is not clear what powers we will have through this international collaboration to stop other countries issuing such licences, so I hope that the Minister will clarify that in her summing up. I am a little concerned that the measures in the Bill about marine genetic resources will open the door to deep-sea mining. I accept that there is a case for exploring the potential of such resources, if carried out under strong safeguards, but I would resist any attempt to allow deep-sea mining to occur.
Finally, while I welcome international initiatives and, as has been made clear, the Bill addresses areas beyond national jurisdiction, we need to lead by example with stronger protection for our own territorial waters. As has been said, there has been some progress, notably around our overseas territories, but perhaps it is easier to act when those areas are thousands of miles away and do not have the same economic interests. There has been great work around Ascension, Pitcairn and South Georgia, but there is more of a mixed picture around the UK coast.
Dogger Bank in the North sea is one of the largest marine protected areas. Since it was established in 2022, it has benefited from a 98% reduction in bottom trawling, supporting the recovery of marine species like halibut, cod, angel shark and eels. As it says in the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, all marine protected areas must be well managed, enforced and effective, not paper parks. We could start by moving faster to end all bottom trawling in our marine protected areas.
The recent excellent report “Blue Carbon”, published by the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, set out a blue carbon mapping project carried out with the help of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. We are the first country to undertake such mapping. We know about the importance of kelp forests, seagrass meadows and mangroves, but it is the less glamorous sediment on our seabed that is the true hero in carbon sequestration. The report found that 224 million tonnes of organic carbon was stored in just the top 10 cm of seabed sediments and vegetated habitats, and 98% of that was in the sediment, such as the mud.
In my role as Minister for climate, it frustrated me that we talked so much about the role of trees and forests in carbon sequestration, but we did not talk about the oceans at all. I was told that that was because it was difficult to quantify, so this project is a great example. If this is the amount of carbon work that is being done by the seabed around the UK coast, just think about the amount that the seabed of our high seas is doing. We must have action on that at Ocean COP. I hope that the Bill will be enacted very soon, and I look forward to next year’s discussions.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Less than 1% of the high seas are fully protected; there could not be a more important time for this treaty. It is the world’s only viable pathway to meet the global biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward this legislation. It is disappointing that the UK was not among the first 60 countries to reach the threshold to get the treaty ratified, especially given the long cross-party support for the subject in this House, but I hope ratification will be swift to allow the UK a seat at the table at Ocean COP. We Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically, including through the ratification of the global oceans treaty.
The Bill is welcome, but we must not be complacent. Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years, and more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean every single year, putting countless species at risk of extinction. In 2023, the BBC reported that there were more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is simply shocking and totally unacceptable.
Biodiversity relies on healthy oceans, but plastic pollution, climate change and unsustainable fishing practices are destroying our marine biodiversity. With 10% of marine species at risk, we must act now. Communities across the world rely on the oceans for their livelihoods, jobs and food security—indeed, we all rely on the oceans for our livelihoods—but we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished, with 90% of big fish populations depleted and 50% of coral reefs already destroyed.
The first Ocean COP is on the horizon for next year, which will give the UK an important seat at the table if we ratify the treaty in time. While there, the UK should champion further measures to protect our oceans, including a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a most terrifying practice that damages the seabed, kills animals and plants indiscriminately, and releases carbon from the sea floor in very large proportions, which drives climate change.
If Members have not watched the documentary “Ocean with David Attenborough”, please do—it is terrifying. Once I watched it, I made a pledge that I would not eat fish until we had at least signed the ocean treaty, so there is a personal reason why I push the Government for early ratification. I love fish, and this should not be a call not to eat fish; this is about protecting the oceans. If Members watch the David Attenborough film, they will see that a good and positive thing is that the oceans can recover very quickly if we give them the option to recover. That is why today is such an important day.
The British public are with us; some 81% of British adults say that they would like to see bottom trawling banned in MPAs, according to polling from Oceana. The Environmental Audit Committee backs the call to ban bottom trawling. In September, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Environmental Audit Committee that it would not roll out an outright ban. I implore the Government to reconsider.
We must manage our territorial waters effectively, and we could start by implementing the Fisheries Act 2020 in full. Through that, we could reform the fishing quota distribution to phase out the fixed quota allocation system, which largely rewards those with the deepest pockets. It could be replaced with a system that rewards and incentivises lower impacts from fishing that deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to communities around our coast.
We must also look more closely at illegal and unregulated fishing. Hidden overfishing—when illegal discards are unaccounted for in fishing quotas—is driving stocks into severe decline. Marine groups are urging the Government to introduce a strategy to tackle overfishing by the end of 2026, including catch limits and a fair deal for fishers adjusting to lower catch limits.
The transparency around enforcement and monitoring of fishing activities in UK seas is not adequate. The Marine Management Organisation is not even required to publish data on the enforcement of fishing regulations. We were told that post Brexit, the UK would establish best-in-class fisheries management as an independent coastal state, but we have not taken advantage of that freedom to strengthen our regulations.
I welcome the Bill as an important starting point, but if we are serious about protecting the blue heart of our planet, this must be just the beginning of real action to restore the health of oceans across the world and here at home. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for a coherent oceans policy.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am delighted to rise to support the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. The introduction of this legislation marks the beginning of a process for the UK to ratify and implement the global ocean treaty. This vital agreement enables the protection of international marine life. No protection currently exists for wildlife such as fish, turtles and dolphins that inhabit the high seas, over which no one country has jurisdiction.
The ocean, which covers more than 70% of the surface of our planet, is a vital shared resource. It provides us with sustenance, oxygen and genetic resources for food, medicines and research. It is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change, as the largest carbon sink on the planet. However, it is an ecosystem under perilous threat. Increased ocean temperatures are symptomatic of the warming climate, and endanger us on land through a decreased capacity to absorb carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rising sea levels and the loss of vital marine life and resources.
The introduction of this legislation reaffirms this Government’s dedication to protecting global marine life as well as mitigating climate change and improving our natural environment. In the current moment, when the environmental consensus is at risk and there are those who would retreat from the world, pretend that we can draw up a metaphorical drawbridge and keep safe behind the safety of political castle walls, this Bill is a significant marker of this Government’s commitment to multilateral processes, which are in fact the only way to address some of the great challenges of our time.
This debate is one of many on the environment and nature that I have attended in recent weeks and months to which not a single Conservative Backbench MP has bothered to turn up. I do not say that to thumb my nose at them; I say it because it is profoundly depressing. I oppose the Tory party with every fibre of my being, but it is one of the great political parties of western Europe over the last 100, 200 and more years, and it has just given up.
His Majesty’s official Opposition is just not interested. That is not just today; it is in debate after debate that I attend. Some hard-working Opposition Front Bencher turns up, but not a single person sits behind them. I say to them, in the most earnest sincerity, that election defeats are disappointing, but the Tory party has to man up. It must turn up and start taking this seriously, because these are matters of the most supreme importance, and we cannot have the official Opposition just refusing to engage.
I have to say that the comments from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) were pretty lukewarm. I understand that the previous Government looked at this issue for quite some time, but they never got as far as legislating. In listening to what he said, I was left uncertain of how supportive the Opposition actually are of the proposed measures; we will find out more in Committee. I hope that, having committed to this issue in government but never actually legislating on it, they will get behind this important legislation.
As we have heard, this Bill fulfils the commitment made by the Labour Government at the UN ocean conference and in opposition. The oceans need UK leadership and action. The evidence that the EAC received during our recent inquiry, “Governing the marine environment”, painted a worrying picture of the state of the marine environment. It is under threat globally from global warming, pollution and overexploitation, leading to a 49% decline in populations of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish species according to the Living Planet Index. UK seas are also in poor condition, failing on most of the indicators of good environmental status in the most recent assessment by the Government.
However, there is some good news: marine conservation efforts are effective. When we do them, they work. While only 9% of the ocean is currently protected in a marine protected area, remarkably half of all catalogued marine species have been reported in those areas. Some 72% of species facing extinction have found refuge in marine protected areas.
The Government are taking important action to better protect the 38% of UK seas already designated as marine protected areas. I repeat what has been said by other colleagues: we want to see the Government going further. Damaging activities can still take place in those areas, but the consultation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) is vital. Nearly two thirds of the ocean is considered high seas or international waters, which poses a governance and logistical challenge: how is it possible to protect areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any one nation? That is why the global oceans treaty of 2023 was so significant—a landmark moment in providing the legal foundation for establishing MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The creation of protected areas in the high seas is essential to making 30 by 30 a reality.
This Bill, which establishes the legal framework necessary for the UK to meet its obligations, is vital. Its Royal Assent will lay the groundwork for the UK to ratify that agreement. As we have heard, 60 countries have already ratified the treaty, so it will come into force next January, and the first UN ocean conference will be held within the year. As such, it is vital that the UK gets on with ratifying that treaty so that it can be party to discussions and can shape agreements. Setting out a timeline for the UK’s ratification of the global oceans treaty was one of the key recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee, so we welcome the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice having kept their word on that.
This is a narrow Bill that allows the UK to fulfil our global commitment. I caution well-meaning allies against extending the process or undermining the commitment that the Government have made by attempting to attach to the Bill other commitments that are not relevant to it and create division—in this incredibly important area, what we need is unity. However, the ratification of this treaty is just the start. We have much more to do to protect 30% of the oceans by 2030 and establish marine sanctuaries where marine life can thrive.
To conclude, I strongly support the Bill. I look forward to its passage through Parliament, and I thank the Government for prioritising this issue despite a heavy legislative workload. It is a welcome development that provides the powers and regulations needed for the UK to ratify the treaty, working with other nations.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The oceans have long struggled to get the attention they deserve—there are no voters out there on the ocean. Thanks are owed to Sir David Attenborough and the many filmmakers and photographers who, over the years, have brought the oceans into our living rooms and helped us to get to know them and care about them. Most of us only get to experience oceans from a beach, or from 30,000 feet—looking down from an aeroplane window at a vast, endless blue expanse—but I have spent months and months alone on the ocean, a long way beyond national jurisdictions, rowing across oceans to raise awareness of the environmental crisis facing our world, particularly the parts of it that are blue. I was trying to bring a human face to the plight of our oceans.
Out there in the middle of an ocean, when you have not seen dry land for several months, thousands of miles separate you from the closest land mass and the nearest human beings are on the International Space Station, it feels like you are well beyond jurisdictions, and often beyond justice. It was out there in that lawless place that I came to understand both the power and the fragility of the ocean—you see its beauty and its bounty, but also its vulnerability to what we humans choose to do. The ocean has no voice in this place, so today, we are being its voice.
The ocean may seem boundless, but it is not indestructible. We have polluted it, overfished it, and warmed it. The deep sea is home to some of the most extraordinary forms of life on Earth—I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister refer to sunfish, which are surely the weirdest creatures I have ever seen—but it is increasingly targeted for exploitation. We know the surface of the moon better than we know the bottom of the ocean. There is a real danger that we could destroy species before we even know they exist.
More than 60% of the world’s surface and nearly three quarters of its ocean volume lie out there in the places beyond any country’s control. For centuries, the high seas have been treated as no one’s responsibility—beyond the environment, a lawless expanse—and still today, only 1% is properly protected. Meanwhile, overfishing, pollution and deep-sea mining are degrading ecosystems that we barely understand. The ocean is becoming more acidic, threatening the existence of plankton—the base of the entire marine food chain—and weakening its capacity to absorb carbon and regulate our climate. That is what is at stake. The health of the ocean is the health of our planet.
That is why the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty matters so profoundly. It is the first global treaty to bring order, fairness and protection to the high seas. It offers a framework for managing those shared waters responsibly and ensuring that the benefits of ocean science are shared globally, not hoarded by the few. Earlier this year, when I brought the Climate and Nature Bill before this House, I further pressed the Government to commit to ratifying the BBNJ, and I am pleased and thankful that they are now delivering on that promise. I particularly thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for her long-term persistence and commitment to this cause. It shows that when we work together across the House, we can turn ambition into action.
However, ratification is only the beginning; turning this treaty into a practical reality will demand co-ordination, funding and focus. As such, I would like to ask the Minister a few practical questions about implementation from the FCDO perspective, questions that I have sent to her office. First, on institutional co-ordination, how will Departments such as the FCDO, DEFRA and the Department for Transport work together to manage marine genetic resources, environmental assessments and new conservation tools under a single, coherent system? Secondly, on enforcement, what mechanisms will ensure compliance by UK vessels and research institutions operating beyond national jurisdiction, given the real challenges—of which I am keenly aware—of surveillance and jurisdiction at sea?
Thirdly, turning to resourcing and capacity, have the Government assessed the staffing, budget and technical resources needed to set up the new repositories, databases and administrative systems required by the BBNJ? Fourthly, on transparency and fairness, what plans are in place to ensure that the data held by repositories such as the Natural History Museum and the National Oceanography Centre are accessible and interoperable—especially for developing countries, including small island states—in line with the BBNJ’s principle of equitable benefit sharing? Finally, on international engagement, with the first oceans COP expected in 2026, how will the UK prepare to shape the operational details of the agreement at the international level, and who will represent us at that table?
These questions matter because they will determine whether the Bill delivers real protection, rather than just good intentions. Our scientists are ready to lead. The National Oceanography Centre, with its cutting-edge research and fleet of autonomous submersible vessels—including one known as Boaty McBoatface—is already mapping deep sea currents and gathering the knowledge we need to understand and protect the ocean. Under the BBNJ, that vital work will become part of a global effort to heal the seas.
The ocean is the blue heart of our planet. It gives us half the oxygen we breathe, shapes our weather, and sustains life on a scale that defies our humble human imaginations. If that heart falters, everything we depend on will be at risk. We often think of oceans as dividing nations, but actually, they connect and unite us; we are, so to speak, all in the same boat. As the great American oceanographer Dr Sylvia Earle said,
“We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depended on it. Because they do.”
By ratifying and implementing the BBNJ, we can help turn the tide—sorry, I just cannot help it. Let this be the Parliament that gave the ocean a voice and a future.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It has been almost 19 years since I first met Professor Alex Rogers at a two-day conference at Somerville College, Oxford, convened by the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment. The subject was international law on the high seas. The young postdoctoral fellow inspired us about the amazing biodiversity of our global ocean— I use the singular deliberately—but he also frustrated us by explaining that the international community lacked any legal framework to protect it.
The ocean accounts for 99% of our planet by volume and nearly two thirds by surface area. Every second breath we take is supplied to us by the ocean. Some 90% of the excess heat in the climate system has been absorbed by the ocean. The ocean is our greatest nature-based solution to climate change, and it is only by restoring the health of our marine ecosystems that we can deliver on our promise to meet the 30 by 30 target in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. The BBNJ treaty is the missing part of the jigsaw. That is why today’s debate is so important, and why the Bill is so important.
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill is welcome and necessary, but we must recognise what the treaty is and what it is not. We must do so not in order to understate what the Bill does, but to understand clearly what action we must take following its passage. We will need secondary legislation to implement the treaty, and—dare I say this before the Budget statement?—it will require adequate funding. The treaty creates a framework for the establishment of protected areas on the high seas, but it does not, in and of itself, create those protected areas. It is therefore important that the Government start to develop proposals for high seas MPAs, especially in regions of the world where the UK is a party to the relevant regional fisheries management organisations.
I commend DEFRA for the work that it has already done in its stocktake of area-based management tools in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a really important baseline. I ask the Minister to set out in her response to the debate what further work is planned to identify, support and deliver specific MPAs. I am particularly keen to hear how she might develop the supplementary report that has already been prepared on the Sargasso sea. Will she confirm that this internationally significant ecosystem is a priority for the development of an MPA? It has now been 13 years since the Sargasso sea was recognised as an ecologically or biologically significant area, having met all seven EBSA criteria.
Our country’s history has left a legacy. That legacy is our exclusive economic zone, which is the fifth largest in the world, largely due to our remaining overseas territories, but that legacy brings responsibilities with it. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Conservative Administration, who expanded the blue belt programme to nominally protect more than 4 million sq km of ocean, from Anguilla in the Caribbean to Pitcairn in the Pacific ocean. In the last year, the programme took satellite imagery of more than 100 million sq km of UK overseas territory waters, providing crucial monitoring and surveillance to crack down on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities. It is this very tangible knowledge and expertise that the UK should be at the forefront of delivering through the first BBNJ COP, which will take place within a year of the treaty taking force, from 17 January 2026.
I welcome the announcement, following the spending review, that the blue belt programme will receive increased funding for 2025-26. However, given that £2 million of this £8.6 million comes from official development assistance, which itself is being cut, I hope it will not seem churlish if I ask that the programme be ringfenced for the future.
For much of human history, we did not need the BBNJ treaty. The high seas were protected from the worst impacts of human activity by the simple reality that they were so far from land and too difficult to access. The dawn of the industrial age and motorised ocean-going vessels changed all that. Even species that lived their whole life hundreds or thousands of miles from land were no longer safe from human exploitation.
Nothing epitomises that sad reality more than the slaughter of the great whales. Industrialised whaling caused the deaths of nearly 3 million whales. Even the blue whale, the largest animal that has ever lived, had its numbers reduced by more than 90%. Whales’ size and the fact of spending most of their lives in inhospitable and hard-to-reach parts of the open ocean had kept them safe for millennia, but the introduction of new and more powerful technologies meant that even they became the victims of massive over-exploitation. Today, there are fewer than 400 North Atlantic right whales left in our ocean. And why was it called the right whale? Ironically, it acquired its name because it was rich in blubber and baleen, it moved slowly and it floated after being killed, so it was easily towed in to be butchered—so it was deemed the “right” whale to hunt.
The history of these great mammals shows just why we now need the BBNJ. Biodiversity is no longer protected by its remoteness from land. Human greed will destroy it wherever it is found on our planet, unless we act decisively to regulate our most destructive activities. Today, although the international whaling ban is still ignored by a few countries, whales are no longer threatened by hunters, on the whole, but they are killed by ship strikes and they are entangled in fishing gear.
I emphasise the importance of the international ban not just because I believe that it is one of the most important conservation achievements of the 20th century, but because it was a great achievement of multilateralism —something that is not much in vogue at the moment. It shows how, by acting in concert with other nations, we can mobilise popular support around environmental objectives with both a clear ecological and a clear moral purpose, and we can achieve results. I regard it as an inspiration and a template for what we are now doing in the BBNJ.
The huge factory ships that once slaughtered whales have largely gone, but in their place, equally large factory ships now plunder the ocean as if it were a bottomless pit of profit. There are longliners setting fishing lines tens of kilometres long, each with up to 15,000 hooks, and huge purse seiners using nets that are 2 km long and 200 metres deep. Imagine a net that is twice as deep as Big Ben—the Elizabeth Tower—is tall, and which stretches out so far from this House of Commons that it takes in the whole of Buckingham Palace and most of its gardens. These fishing enterprises devastate the very populations that they are targeting. That is why we need this Bill.
Earlier this year, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—the Government’s own marine experts—found that more than half of the UK’s key fishing quotas were set above the levels recommended by scientists. Overfishing has led to a 98% collapse in Celtic sea cod populations since 2012, with an 84% collapse in haddock, an 85% collapse in whiting and an 80% collapse in herring. Just two weeks ago, the scientific assessment of mackerel showed that the species has declined by 78% in the past 10 years. Despite continued advice from scientists to reduce catch quotas, that reduction has not happened.
While the UK has been a world leader with the blue belt programme, at home we continue to practise the opposite of what we preach, most notably through disastrous sustainable catch limits and quotas. Worse, we have driven out small fishing fleets, leaving our seas vulnerable to the monstrous mega-ships whose bottom-trawling scrapes away the existence of all life in their path. The inequitable quota allocation that was formalised in 1999 has resulted in more than 90% of the quota for mackerel, herring and blue whiting being held by just 20 companies, most of them not even British. Half of the English quota is held by Dutch, Icelandic and Spanish interests, more than half of Northern Ireland’s quota is held by just one trawler company, and 85% of Wales’s quota is held by Spanish companies.
The system has been rigged against the UK’s inshore fleet and its independent fishers. All of this was done by UK companies selling their quota abroad, but it is the awful consequence of the privatisation of a public good—our fisheries—and the UK taxpayer has received not a penny in benefit as a result. If the UK is truly to be a leader in the implementation of the BBNJ and to demand of other nations that they curb their rapacious plundering of the high seas, we must at the very least begin to stop the over-exploitation of our stocks at home. Our ability to make our voice heard internationally will sound hollow if we continue to ignore the science and set politically led quota allocations at home.
High seas fisheries often have unimaginably high levels of bycatch. This is particularly true of tuna fisheries, because tuna often school with other pelagic species, such as dolphins, manta rays and billfish. Indeed, many tuna species inhabit the same surface mixed layer of the ocean that is inhabited by vulnerable species such as silky sharks or turtles. It is estimated that 100 million sharks are caught every year—most as bycatch in high seas fisheries—so it is no wonder that the number of large open ocean sharks has declined by at least 70% in the past 50 years, almost entirely due to high seas fishing, where they are either targeted or caught as bycatch beyond the reach of national jurisdictions.
The leatherback turtle, the largest turtle in the world, is threatened with extinction because it is so often caught as bycatch by purse seine fleets of fishing vessels on the high seas. In the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of endangered species, published just last week, only one of the 22 species of albatross is not threatened with extinction through being caught as bycatch on hooks on longline fishing fleets in the open ocean.
Distance from land once provided protection for many species in the pre-industrial era, and the same can be said of the deep seas. Until recently, the deep ocean was out of reach for human activity. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Industrialised fishing fleets are now able to fish deeper and deeper, but many deep sea species are slow-growing. An orange roughy reaches sexual maturity only between the age of 20 and 30—much older than shallower water fish. These factors make deep sea species uniquely vulnerable to overfishing, and as many of the deepest waters are on the high seas, we need to ensure that the BBNJ agreement protects them and their habitat better.
Deep sea fishing, especially on seamounts, poses an existential risk to many deep-sea ecosystems, and bottom trawling, which is devastating in coastal and shallow seas, is arguably even more so on the high seas. Bottom trawlers tend to focus on seamounts, as these underwater mountains act as biodiversity hotspots in the open ocean. I seek the Minister’s assurance that, in considering the next steps after ratification, establishing protections around seamounts on the high seas will be one of the Government’s priorities. I ask for the same assurance in relation to the issue of deep seabed mining—I trust that the Government will continue to oppose any developments of this on the high seas.
The Bill before us is excellent. It will delight the now Professor Alex Rogers, who I suspect is not at his desk either in Oxford or at the National Oceanography Centre, where he is now the science director. Most probably, he is out somewhere in the Antarctic ocean in a submersible exploring the deep ocean, as he has been doing for more than 30 years. If he were to take a break from his mission to discover 100,000 new marine species in the deep ocean in this decade and send us a message, I suspect that it would emphasise the importance of getting this Bill enacted quickly. If we do not ratify the treaty at least 40 days before the first COP, the UK will not have a seat at the table; we will merely be a spectator as others set the ambition, or the lack of it, as they roll out the implementation of the treaty.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House for its Second Reading, and trust that we are able to see the whole ratification process completed in time for the UK to make strong proposals at COP1 next year.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Venerable Bede first wrote of the “Isle of Eels” back in the 8th century. He explained that the Isle of Ely is known as such because it was surrounded by water, with an abundance of eels, but these eels do not spend their whole life in Ely or, indeed, in the UK.
The biological story behind eels is a quite remarkable one. They breed in the Sargasso sea, which, as we have heard, is so important to many other species as well, and they drift across the ocean for two or three years as tiny and fragile eels. They adapt to freshwater and mature in rivers—sometimes growing up to 1 metre in length—before swimming all the way back to the Sargasso sea to reproduce once more before dying. These eels face many dangers in their life cycle, including the impact of climate change on ocean currents, pollution and poaching.
European eels are considered a critically endangered species, so it is imperative that we take action to protect them now. At a local level, the creation of eel passes—not, as it might sound, a passport, but ladders or passages—has been welcome action to allow them to get from the sea into freshwater habitats and back again. However, much more needs to be done to protect them and other endangered species on a global scale, so it is really good that the Government have proposed this Bill.
Ely holds an annual eel festival, which not only recognises our history but celebrates biodiversity and nature. The festival celebrates our heritage and is always tinged with concern about the decline in the eel population, but also with a determination to see eels return to our rivers in abundance. They are not anywhere near as common in the River Great Ouse as they once were, owing to all the factors I mentioned, but the good news is that in 2022, over 74,000 eels were recorded as making the 3,000-mile journey from the Sargasso sea to Cambridgeshire.
Measures like banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas would be a good way to protect endangered species like eels and others, as would the provision of greater resources for international environmental co-operation. I hope the Government will take on board calls for a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. We cannot possibly have the moral authority to call for such a ban on the global stage when we have not done it in our own waters.
Like our eels, all wildlife depends on our oceans, as indeed do we as the human race. The speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) was shocking and depressing. For a party that once hugged a husky to now be questioning its support for our oceans is shameful.
Twenty-five centuries ago, Aristotle questioned where eels came from, but if we do not take urgent action to protect them and other marine wildlife, we will not be asking where they came from; we will be asking where they have all gone. I therefore welcome this Bill and the international co-operation of which it is a part. Let us get it through the House as quickly as possible, so that we can sign the treaty and make sure that it delivers what we all hope it will deliver.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that the FCDO has paid to the importance of marine conservation. The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty represents a transformation in the way that we protect nature in the high seas. I commend the Government for being an early proponent of the agreement, and I am so pleased—in fact, I am thrilled—to see that we are finally going to ratify it.
I feel that I have been witnessing the Chamber at its best this afternoon. To hear such passion and such well-informed expertise on both sides has been a real honour. It reminds one what an honour we all have in being Members of this place and sitting in a room to listen to such speeches, which has been wonderful. Let me confess that I am one of those people—I remember that when I came back from seeing sperm whales I was still weeping, and I apologised to the organiser of the trip that I seemed to just not be able to stop weeping, but she said, “Don’t worry, dear. We see lots of people like you on these trips.” I feel as though I have found my people, given the passion that has been expressed today for the high seas and for biodiversity.
Today, I want my speech to have a particular focus—please forgive me for this—because I believe that our commitment to this treaty can be tested by how we treat our current responsibilities. I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in using the Chagos islands as a test. I apologise for not recognising that the Opposition have been talking about the biodiversity of the Chagos islands. Perhaps I was only focused on the considerable amount of time they have spent on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. I have since spent the time available looking up their references to biodiversity, and there have been three of them, so I apologise for saying that there had not been any.
I have had a number of exchanges in this House with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has responsibility for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, about the vital importance of safeguarding marine protected areas around the Chagos islands. I am grateful for the assurances he has given me that the Government are committed to the continued protection of the unique and unparalleled environment of the Chagos archipelago.
However, the FCDO’s assurances, although welcome, really do not go far enough, but before I say why, I want to explain why these waters matter so much—not least because of their role in replenishing the high seas—and the extraordinary obligation that the UK owes the world to ensure that they remain protected. As has been said, these 640,000 sq km of near pristine ocean are among the most pristine in the world. They are home to the largest living coral atoll and to 58 islands. They are the breeding site for more than a quarter of a million pairs of seabirds, as well as the vital and unexplored deep-sea ecosystems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) talked about with such passion.
The vast no-take zone that the UK established in 2010 provides a vital sanctuary for numerous endangered species. If this marine environment were damaged, it would do huge damage to the seas generally and to species already on the brink of extinction, such as the endangered hawksbill turtle, which forages in the waters of the Chagos islands and nests on their beaches, or the unique population of reef manta rays, which use the protected waters as a refuge and which would soon disappear if those waters became unprotected. This is exactly the kind of marine life that the BBNJ agreement seeks to protect through the establishment, among other measures, of marine protected areas in the high seas.
The vast marine protected area around the Chagos islands provides a safe corridor and foraging ground for vital migratory species and apex predators such as tuna, sharks and whales, and without it we would see their numbers crash much more widely across the world. In a warming world in which coral is dying at a terrifying rate, the coral in the Chagos archipelago is relatively healthy and acts as a reseeding bank for other reefs in the Indian ocean through larval dispersal. The reefs and marine life of the Chagos archipelago help to replenish degraded reefs and depleted fish stocks from east Africa to Indonesia. The coral in the Chagos archipelago has shown an extraordinary degree of resilience and an ability to recover even from bleaching events, and it is not known why. This resilience and the undisturbed nature of the Chagos ocean make it a really important site for scientific study. It could give us an important insight into what we can do next to save our coral reefs, and a proper insight into how healthy marine ecosystems function and the impact of climate change.
For the last 15 years, the UK has protected those waters and taken seriously its duties as the steward of those ecosystems, just as the BBNJ agreement invites the entire international community to do as stewards of the high seas. As the UK now hands them over to Mauritius, we have an equally serious duty to ensure that they remain protected. That brings me to the terms of the Chagos deal and the Minister of State’s evidence to my Foreign Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful to him.
The Minister noted that the UK and Mauritian Governments are committed to promoting the conservation of the environment of the archipelago. I obviously welcome that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Mauritius for their clear determination to protect nature. Nothing I am about to say is intended to cast any doubt on that commitment. The problem, however, is that Mauritius is a democracy—a vibrant democracy—in which Governments have historically had different attitudes to protecting the ocean. It is therefore not good enough for the Minister just to point to the commitment of the current Mauritian Government to marine protection; we need a basis for lasting confidence and mechanisms to ensure that these ecosystems remain protected for future generations. My principal concern is that there is no funding mechanism in place to ensure that Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos archipelago and to incentivise it to do so. That stands in contrast to the treaty we are discussing.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to say sorry to the shadow Minister for misunderstanding, when I intervened earlier, why he thought it was so important to mention the Chagos islands. I hope he will accept my apology.
Emily Thornberry
I must say that we are all behaving so well this afternoon.
I was saying that there is no incentive or funding mechanism in the Chagos archipelago deal, yet the treaty we are talking about—the subject of the Bill we are giving a Second Reading today—does have that very funding mechanism. Why does it? Because we know that that is needed for it to work. Without a dedicated funding mechanism for Chagos marine protection, in which a transfer of funds is contingent on the continuing protection of the marine environment, there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue. The Mauritian Government want to allocate resources for doing so, but they operate in a resource-constrained environment. It is therefore deeply regrettable that both parties did not reach an agreement on future arrangements for environmental protection across the Chagos archipelago before signing the treaty. They should have allocated dedicated funds to it, or agreed a funding mechanism that would have been a proper basis for confidence. In short, the Chagos agreement should have followed the lead of the BBNJ agreement.
I remain concerned that there is a lack of concrete action on the future conservation of the Chagos archipelago’s unique marine environment and biodiversity. I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has given to the House and my Committee, but now actions need to be taken, drawing on the example presented by the BBNJ agreement. The ratification of the high seas treaty is testament to Britain’s renewed global leadership on climate and nature. That reputation risks being undermined by a failure to invest in the protection of the unique and extraordinary marine environment that is the Chagos islands.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government and the Minister’s leadership on this issue in bringing the Bill to the House to enact the UN high seas treaty. I, too, am a member of the APPG for the ocean.
I know that people in Exeter care very deeply about our natural environment, particularly the seas and oceans, and rightly so. The world’s oceans are vital to the health of our planet and to our people. They produce over half of the world’s oxygen and absorb a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, helping to regulate our climate. They support an immense diversity of life, providing food for billions of people and supporting enormous ecosystems, which contain knowledge that we have only just begun to tap.
After decades of industrial damage, this landmark legislation and the treaty will go some way to protecting two thirds of the world’s oceans, and it represents a massive step forward by nations across the world to protect marine life and ecosystems beyond our national borders. By providing the legal framework necessary to implement the BBNJ agreement domestically, the Bill includes provisions for marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and the sharing of benefits from the collection and use of marine genetic resources, and will help us to meet the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. I also welcome the Bill as a core part of re-establishing the UK’s role in providing global leadership on climate and nature, both at home and around the world.
Just as the UK is a leader in marine and climate science, so is Exeter. I was delighted this week to host in Parliament the Met Office, which is based in Exeter, to showcase the range and depth of its expertise. The Met Office is not just a specialist in our weather. It is also a specialist in space weather, our oceans, and the connection between climate change and forecasting. Its work on ocean biogeochemistry—studying how carbon and other gases are absorbed, transported and exchanged by the oceans, the mechanisms involved and the impact changes have—is pioneering. It researches the risks of rapid loss of sea ice, and is studying the rise of sea levels and the impacts on communities, the environment and the economy.
The Met Office also provides a vital service in generating risk assessments of rapid changes to the meridional overturning circulation, which I am told—I am literature graduate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not a science graduate—plays an important role in regional climates. It is also part of the National Partnership for Ocean Prediction, bringing together world-class expertise and research, as well as developing beneficial marine products and services.
In addition, the University of Exeter has a wide-ranging research community working on projects related to our oceans. These come together under the Exeter Marine research network, and their ocean research runs from pollution and conservation to governance and human health. In June this year, Exeter University’s Professor Callum Roberts was the lead author of a report in Nature supporting the UN high seas treaty. His paper highlighted that the high seas are the Earth’s largest and most secure carbon sink. Protecting them is critical to preserving the biological and nutrient cycles that draw down and keep atmospheric CO2 in check. They welcome the UN high seas treaty, saying it offers a pathway to greater protection, but they are concerned about the length of time for implementation. The report’s authors also argue that a full and permanent ban on extractive use of the oceans is both feasible and necessary, modelled on the successful precedent set for Antarctica in the 1950s. Will the Minister comment on what more can be done, beyond the treaty as we bring it in, to protect our oceans above and beyond this legislation?
Finally, I want to pay tribute to my constituents Mary Attewell, Debbie Thomas, Sue Down and Lizzie Waler of Exeter’s Greenpeace group, who have been doggedly campaigning for the UK’s ratification of the treaty. I thank them for all their work and for keeping this issue at the top of the political agenda. I hope they will be celebrating this evening, if the Bill passes its Second Reading. They have asked to question how the treaty will be enforced. I would welcome comments from the Minister on that, too.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) that we want there to be cross-party and cross-House agreement on this issue. While it is disappointing that the Conservatives are not here, it is also disappointing that Green party MPs, other than one small intervention at the beginning, are not here to participate substantially in the debate.
I commend the Bill. I am extraordinarily thrilled and pleased to support it. I know that the ratification of the agreement as soon as possible supports the UK’s broader climate and nature agenda, and will mean that we can take our seat at the top table at the first COP. That will ensure we remain at the forefront of global efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change through multilateral co-operation. This will strengthen the role of international law—so important in these times—and multilateral institutions as the foundation for ocean governance.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill for what it seeks to put into law, but also for what it signals about the approach of the Government, and hopefully this House, to national and international obligations and interests. It is a testament to the continued survival and delivery of multilateralism in global affairs. In an age of continued and heightened global strife, conflict and antagonism, the Bill is proof that there still remains hope for global co-operation and that joint endeavours with shared purpose can deliver common goods. Institutions such as the United Nations can still be practical and effective forums to facilitate states coming together to work out collective solutions to collective problems. There are those who seek to withdraw from international agreements, seeing multilateral institutions and processes as threats. We must eschew such an approach, because it ultimately does not serve our national or global interests. Such an approach of withdrawal and isolation will not further our interests effectively.
In this case, the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, which the Bill will bring into the framework of UK law, will be one of the most important strides forward for biodiversity and the marine environment. For the first time, the United Kingdom will have a legal framework to help us to protect large expanses of the seas that are beyond our national waters. The establishment of such protections will help to ensure that regions of the high seas are safeguarded from harmful extractive and destructive practices. The protections will help to restore biodiversity to these regions and help maintain the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 produced by human activity, thus helping to mitigate the impacts of global warming.
As has been mentioned, the oceans absorb about 30% of man-made CO2, and this treaty will help to ensure that they are fit to continue doing so. The ratification of the treaty must not be the be all and end all for protecting the biodiversity of the world’s oceans. It must be a means through which the UK and allies globally can continue to advocate for greater protection of our shared marine environment. One means of doing that through the treaty will be the first conference of the parties—or Ocean COP1. This will be the first forum for the treaty’s signatories to discuss and action its implementation, such as agreeing proposals for the first generation of high seas sanctuaries. The treaty is welcome and the Bill is welcome, but implementation is necessary to deliver what we need.
As the Minister said in her opening comments, the COP will take place within a year of 17 January 2026, which is when the treaty comes into force. As has been said, if the UK has failed to ratify at least 40 days before that date, we will not have a seat at the first COP. That is why I urge the House to pass this legislation at pace. Already, there are reports that the first Ocean COP could be as soon as August next year. The Government have rightly spoken at length about the importance of the UK bringing its soft power to bear. With this being the first COP of its kind, it is essential that we bring UK expertise and influence to the event while the treaty is in its infancy. We have seen the importance of conferences of the parties as a means of promoting collective action on climate change and nature. We cannot miss this chance to be a part of the first Ocean COP to do the same for our world’s oceans. Multilateral agreements implemented by collective action are the way forward on this issue. I am therefore more than content to support the Bill enthusiastically today.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Two thirds of our planet is ocean. Our oceans, which sustain life on Earth, cannot be left unguarded any longer. After years of international negotiation, the world finally agreed to the high seas treaty. With the Bill, we will turn that treaty into action and show that Britain is serious about delivering on its promises.
There is no response to the climate crisis that does not also respond to the nature crisis. That is why it is important to protect biodiversity in this country, beyond our border and beyond the seas. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond national borders, and until now they have had almost no real protection. The Bill gives us the power to protect international waters by establishing marine protected areas, by demanding proper environmental assessments before deep-sea mining or destructive fishing can go ahead, and by making sure that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. The Bill underpins the global goal of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030—a goal that Labour put in its manifesto and one that we should be proud to be delivering on. The high seas absorb carbon, regulate weather and produce half the oxygen that we breathe. If we do not get biodiversity right, we will not get climate change right either.
We have all heard the tedious lines often repeated by Members on the Conservative Benches—where no one is currently sat—that we cannot act because other countries are not acting, but to lead in addressing climate change we have to do precisely that: take action, do something meaningful and lead other countries in making a difference. Hon. Members may wonder why I, from the most landlocked constituency of Calder Valley, am speaking on the Bill, but in Calder Valley we know the cost of climate change as floods devastate our towns. We also know that protecting nature is our first line of defence, and whether that is restoring our moorland at home, insisting on biodiversity net gain in developments or safeguarding oceans abroad, the principle is the same.
I commend the Government for introducing the Bill, which is a vital step in turning the international commitments into real action. The next challenge is to ensure that the Bill not only passes but is properly enforced and resourced, as many colleagues have said. I look forward to hearing more detail on that from the Minister. Let us see this as the first day of Britain’s leadership on our seas.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
On land and at sea, our natural environment has suffered a soul-crushing collapse over many decades, putting the future of iconic species and entire ecosystems at risk, as was so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) in a tour de force of a speech. The Government were elected on a clear promise to end that catastrophic decline, the long-term consequences of which, if we do not reverse that trend, will be profound. Our food security depends on healthy ecosystems, the bedrock of our economy is our natural capital, and the public—our voters—cherish our seas, rivers, coastlines, ancient woodlands and national parks. They will not be forgiving of a political system that fails to protect and restore our shared natural inheritance.
The Bill is a particularly vital step towards the renewed protection of our natural environment. It recognises that biodiversity does not obey national borders or jurisdiction, so neither can our duty to safeguard it. As obvious as that truth may seem to the public, let alone conservationists, successive Governments have failed to give the high seas the attention they need. The Bill begins to put that right by at last creating a legal framework for the UK to ratify the UN BBNJ agreement and meet our international obligations in full.
As has been noted, just 1% of the high seas have full protection, and there is still much research to be done on deep sea ecosystems, but they are increasingly recognised as a key global reservoir of biodiversity, so the crucial task is to move the legislation forward quickly and end the crisis engulfing our oceans. Industrial fishing practices such as bottom trawling—the underseas equivalent of ploughing a bulldozer through a wild flower meadow—are tearing apart fragile seabed habitats while trawl nets indiscriminately catch and discard countless non-target, endangered species. Once those species are gone, they will be gone forever, and their entire intricate web of connections will go with them, unravelling irreplaceable ecosystems with profound knock-on effects that we can neither predict nor prevent.
As has been mentioned, if we fail to pass the Bill urgently, the UK will not have a seat at the table for the treaty’s first COP. That would not only represent a dereliction of our international obligations—we have as great a responsibility as any nation to protect global biodiversity—but silence our voice in safeguarding our own national interests, such as the protection of the UK’s 8 million seabirds, over half of which are already in decline. Species such as the albatross and the petrel spend more than 80% of their lives foraging on the high seas. We cannot protect them with action on our own coastlines alone, yet Britain stripped of her seabirds would hardly be Britain at all. Other countries will have their own priorities and national interests to pursue, so our Government must be at the table playing its part in securing the long-term future of the many species that play such an important part in our culture and identity.
I welcome the Bill and the opportunity it creates to discuss nature and biodiversity in this place: a topic of serious debate right now for the public and for the Government. I close by saying again that decisions driven by an ideology that prioritises profit over people and the environment did not just undermine our economy; they wrecked our natural world and our social cohesion. National renewal must mean economic revival, but also once more cherishing those things that make life beautiful, and that means protecting nature. I thank Ministers today for doing just that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Cannock Chase may be one of the most landlocked constituencies in the country, but that has not stopped my constituents from writing to me in support of the Bill, and rightly so. If anyone does come across a marine genetic resource in Staffordshire, I would be impressed and also slightly concerned, but the point is this: what happens in the world’s oceans matters just as much to the people of my constituency as it does to those living on the coast. As the wise Franklin D. Roosevelt once said,
“The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
I would like to extend that to say that the world that destroys its oceans destroys itself. The UK has long positioned itself as a global leader on marine protection, and with the BBNJ agreement about to enter force—on 17 January—we must not give up our status on marine conservation. That is why I speak in support of the Bill: legislation that gives the Government the ability to ratify that vital United Nations agreement and take part in the world’s first ocean COP next year.
As the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, I want to emphasise how vital the Bill is in protecting the long-term health of our global food systems. The high seas—those vast areas of ocean beyond any single country’s jurisdiction—are essential to our food security. They are home to rich marine ecosystems, and globally over 3 billion people rely on fish for at least 20% of their animal protein intake—for many coastal and island nations, that figure is much higher—yet the vast majority of these waters have long been unregulated and are vulnerable to a multitude of threats including overfishing, unrestricted oil drilling, pollution and deep sea mining, which directly threaten not just ocean health but global food security. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) that, to ensure the agreement has real impact, the Government must rapidly push for new marine protected areas in international waters.
The Bill will enable the UK to play an active role in addressing all those threats. It will extend marine licensing requirements to British activities beyond our waters and mandate environmental outcome reports for potentially harmful activity. It will also ensure greater transparency in the collection and use of marine genetic resources, the biological material from marine organisms that holds immense promise for medicine, biotechnology and food innovation. It is often said that the world’s rainforests hold countless discoveries to come that could cure many illnesses and enable advancements that will enrich our human existence—as well as, I certainly hope, our stewardship of the natural world. However, although they are often overlooked, the same is very much true of our oceans. These scientific and ecological discoveries must benefit all nations and not simply be the preserve of the already wealthy. I therefore very much welcome the emphasis on open access repositories and databases that is so prominent in the BBNJ agreement. The agreement also embeds vital safeguards like the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle. I hope it will pave the way for international action that will finally turn the tide—pun absolutely intended—on the reckless destructive practices that nations across the world have perpetrated.
I could not let the opportunity to speak on the high seas go by without mentioning the global plastics treaty, on which I hope we can find international agreement soon. I pay strong tribute to the Minister and the British delegation to the Geneva talks. We know from her recent appearance at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that she deeply regrets the collapse of those talks without an agreement, and I know that she is already redoubling efforts to find a way forward so that we can start to halt and reverse environmental catastrophes such as the great Pacific garbage patch. I urge the Government to do whatever they can alongside fellow members of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution and advance international action on this urgent issue.
As we have heard, the Government have committed to protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030. The Bill makes good on that commitment on an international level, not just as an environmental ambition, but as a foundation for international co-operation, sustainable development and global food resilience. I commend the Government for their leadership in bringing this legislation forward, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, in a packed legislative programme as we seek to get our country back on its feet. It demonstrates this Government’s commitment to and prioritising of the health and sustainability of our oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and I urge colleagues across the House to support it.
Whether we live by the sea or in Cannock Chase in the heart of England, a healthy ocean is essential to a secure and sustainable future for us all. The oceans cannot wait, and nor should the United Kingdom.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Our oceans are teeming with complex life, but today they are also in a state of crisis. Climate change, pollution, overfishing, habitat destruction and plastics are all placing our oceans under strain like never before. Our oceans are paying the price, with more than a third of UK fish stocks currently overfished and more than a third of marine mammals at risk of extinction.
The high seas treaty, which the Bill will ratify into UK law, represents a significant and much-needed step forward. For the first time, the treaty creates a legal mechanism to establish marine protected areas in international waters—a crucial tool to ensure that by 2030, and in accordance with the global biodiversity framework, 30% of the world’s land and sea will be protected. However, the success of the treaty will depend on whether it is enforced, so I urge the Government to ensure that adequate funding is provided to help to protect these newly created marine protected areas.
We must also do our bit at home to protect marine life here in the UK. Some 38% of UK waters are now designated as marine protected areas. However, during our inquiry into the marine environment, the Environmental Audit Committee heard that these sites lacked sufficient protection to contribute towards our targets of protecting 30% of land and sea. While Government proposals to nearly triple the amount of seabed protection from bottom trawling are welcome, I therefore urge the Government to enact the recommendation from the Environmental Audit Committee and ban bottom trawling in all marine protected areas; without a ban, it is hard to see how we can claim that these areas are protected at all. Bottom trawling is a highly destructive practice that tears up the seabed, destroys habitats and releases carbon stored in the ocean floor. As David Attenborough said in his film “Ocean”, the idea of bulldozing a rainforest causes outrage, but we do the same underwater every day.
We also cannot protect our oceans without addressing the climate crisis. The oceans have absorbed 90% of all excess heat caused by climate change, and this excess heat is resulting in widespread marine heatwaves that are killing marine ecosystems and causing our oceans to acidify. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been clear that if we allow warming to reach 1.5°C, the vast majority of coral reefs will be lost forever. The willingness of some of our opponents to abandon climate commitments means that it is on us to go further and faster and to do all that we can to protect nature and stop the climate crisis. This Bill represents a welcome move in that direction.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
“It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement, the greatest source of visual beauty, the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living”—wise words by David Attenborough. They are words that everyone can relate to, whether that is a university professor in Oxford, a 12-year-old watching “Blue Planet” on the BBC or, indeed, the specialist in ocean conservation I met yesterday as part of my role as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean. Everyone in this room, in this country and on this planet has an interest in ensuring that our oceans are protected.
When we stare down from space at our blue jewel of a world, it is simply unfathomable that 230 million square kilometres of it are at present effectively unmanaged. It is a free-for-all. It has been allowed to become so because of history, but we now have the obligation to create a system of management, both in this room and across multilateral agreements with other countries. It is the wonder of our democracy in this country and other countries around the world that we can finally introduce a piece of legislation where we can manage many of these locations.
I stand as a proud MP for Medway, in particular Chatham, which has an historic dockyard that served much of our maritime trade and provided support to the Royal Navy. Many in my community have a proud history and legacy of serving on the oceans, from working on fleets supplying freight to participating in our royal naval tradition.
Our country has a proud history of conservation through the National Trust and other terrestrial organisations. We also have a number of third-party sector organisations that are committed to delivering on ocean conservation, not just through this treaty but through the many there have been in the past. Such organisations include Oceana and the Marine Conservation Society.
There is also excellent work being done by Plymouth University and Southampton’s National Oceanography Centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year. Our Natural History Museum, with its work in London and across the country, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have all advocated for this in many ways and continue to do so. In many cases their work is not high profile; they do their work quietly and behind the scenes, such as by engaging with DEFRA—I am sure the civil servants can attest to this—and ensuring that they are safeguarding our fisheries and world.
This Bill is extremely welcome and timely. The high seas treaty reached its required 60 ratifications on 19 September, and the 60th ratification triggered a 120-day countdown, after which the treaty comes into force. If we want to be at that multilateral table to deliver for our residents in our communities and our country, we need to deliver this legislation. I welcome the Bill being placed before the House, and I welcome the debate with Members across this Chamber—from those who are fascinated by the sperm whale or the right whale to those who have rowed across oceans and seas.
The contents of the Bill are critical. Genetic heritage has not been mentioned much today, but it is a critical element as it can lead to cures for cancer and heart disease. Genetic heritage is a marker for our future on this planet. If there are cures that come as a result of this legislation, it is today that we give security and licence to it. The designation of marine protection areas has been much debated across this Chamber with regard to UK controls, and I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more domestically to protect our MPAs, make them fit for purpose and allow them live up to their designation.
This legislation creates the licence for marine protection areas in international waters, which will support our heritage and legacy for future generations. It is a pathway to the goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The Bill also gives scientific protections around licensing. We know that there are significant challenges for both our biotic and abiotic resources. Much time has been spent this afternoon discussing the damage caused by international industrial fisheries, with new technologies and industrial-sized trawlers coming from many nations of the world. The damage caused by these monsters, as I refer to them, is decimating not only our biological resources directly in that location but sea birds, species and any food chains associated with it.
There is also a debate about mining and drilling to be had in the next 10 to 20 years as we begin to get access to our deep-sea resources. Whether it is hydrates or base metals that we need, we need to have that conversation, so I implore the Government to look very closely at any moratorium. Then there is climate change, which is not to be denied by many across the world. It is happening. Species are under threat, and the destruction of habitats as a result of the warming and acidification of the ocean is impacting both coral reefs and seaweed beds.
To conclude, I still have a number of questions around the use of the Marine Management Organisation in this country and regional fisheries management organisations. How much extra resource will they need, because I certainly have questions at present around the MMO and its oversight? How do we know that this is going to be enforced? The UN has calculated that to make this effective we might need to look at figures of around $170 billion annually. Where is that money going to come from?
There are serious questions about who will enforce overfishing protection and marine protection areas when we have fishing piracy going on around the world. What are the measures for dispute resolution? We know that there are United Nations convention on the law of the sea disputes around the South China sea with China, and disputes are also ongoing over the Arctic, so what measures and mediation will this treaty introduce? This treaty tells everyone watching about our values, whether they be a 12-year-old “Blue Planet” watcher or a professor in a submersible in the Arctic. It sets the tone for the next hundred years. It is necessary that we do this and I implore colleagues to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings
With the leave of the House, it only remains to say that we have heard, across the Chamber, impassioned and professional expertise. We have also heard about the importance of working together, not only in terms of multilateralism—[Interruption.] I hope that Members on the Conservative Front Bench are listening. We have also heard about the importance of working across the Chamber, on something that is so vital to all our constituents, our allies across the world and those in our overseas territories to finally fill the gap of the lawless part of the oceans through a global ocean governance that we can all agree on collectively.
That will be hard. As hon. Members have heard, I have worked with artisanal and industrial fishermen and with researchers, scientists and conservationists. It is not, and it will not be, easy to come to an agreement about area-based management plans and the ocean sanctuaries and MPAs that we are looking to create, but we can do it if we all work together. I implore hon. Members, across all parties and Benches, that we get to ratification in a timely fashion so that we can be part of the new global ocean movement, sit at the table at the first global ocean COP and take a leading position going forward. We owe it to ourselves, to the children of everyone we know and to the future of the planet.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
This has been a wide-ranging and important debate on a vital Bill. There have been many valuable and informed contributions, not least from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) is rightly proud of the great academic institutions in his constituency, highlighting the important role that UK research plays in the world.
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) making one of the first Back-Bench contributions. She reinforced the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made about the destruction of the marine environment. I know that she speaks from a position not just of expertise but of passion, and she has shown that over so many years, with a commitment to our oceans and with the work that she has led on.
May I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), that she shows why it is so important that we have people in this House with such wide-ranging experience, who have had lives outside this place? She has brought expertise to the debate and I am sure that many of us envy her in what she has been able to do, the intellect that she has applied to the argument and the fact that we can all listen carefully to what she has said.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said something important when she talked about marine deforestation and some of the mainstream media shows that had footage that she had heard had been too shocking to show. That represents a real problem in this debate. Are we wrapping this up in cotton wool for some people, to not show exactly what we are trying to deal with? She made the important point that we should not hide from what is going on in the world.
Kerry McCarthy
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to an extent. It was reported in The Guardian that some of the footage was deemed too shocking to be shown. I do not know whether he has seen it, but what remains in the film is incredibly powerful. I have read about bottom trawling in the newspapers for a long time, so I knew about it from a factual perspective, but it was only when I saw those images that it was brought home to me how terrible it is.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that important intervention.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) raised the importance of mainstream media. We are grateful for her apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for misinterpreting his drive about the importance of the Chagos islands.
It is disappointing that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is no longer in his place, felt that not enough of my colleagues were in attendance, but those of us who were here have stayed here—Mr Speaker has commented on many an occasion that I can often be more than enough. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) pointed out how little we know about the oceans. That is an important point. It has often been said that space exploration gets lots of coverage and we talk about it very much—indeed, we are talking about manning the moon again, and maybe using it as a launch pad to go to Mars—yet so much of our own planet is completely unknown and unexplored.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who has a genuine interest and expertise. He gave a wide ranging and important speech and made an important point about the ocean being one of the biggest solutions to climate change. He is indeed right that the European economic zones are a legacy from the days when we owned half the world. One of the great achievements of the last Conservative Government is the work we did on the blue belt and on ensuring that we protected important marine environments. I do not know whether he will expand on this in later debates, but I noticed that he did not appear to be fully supportive of giving up on the fisheries from the EU with the EU reset. I wonder whether he may have things to add to that debate at another time, but perhaps now is not the time and place. However, he does make an important point that we can only do what we have to do as a country if we have the ability to do it in those waters.
The way that the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) approached the subject of the Conservative party’s record in this area was a real pity. I am proud of some of the work we did on the blue belt, including working on this Bill, and as we have seen during the debate, there is wide support for it across the House.
The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) pointed out her genuine delight in the fact that this House has so many experts to speak on such an important issue. She echoed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford on what will happen with the Chagos Bill. I do not want to go into great detail on that, because we are going to be here a long time on Monday evening debating that Bill, but I think she was driving at the fact that the assurances in the Chagos Bill do not go far enough in protecting the blue belt. I welcome her clarification that my party has raised the issue of the blue belt. She comes with expertise and deserves to be listened to when she is raising these important points.
The Minister opened the debate by talking about the urgency and importance of this moment. That is true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Romford spoke, he made some very serious points, not least about how we can ensure that the responsibilities that the United Kingdom has always taken towards marine fisheries do not get overridden if we cannot control our work entirely. He made the point that, in the scheme of things, we must ensure that we do not hand over the ability to other countries to stop us doing that work.
The reality is that—again, I will touch briefly on this because it is not part of the debate—the UN Security Council, set up for a reason, finds it hard to react to what is happening in Ukraine because Russia can override anything with its veto. We must ensure that we have the ability, as a Government and a country, to employ the laws and protections that we need to put in place. We will raise these areas in Committee, even if that is through probing amendments, because we want to ensure that the Bill can do exactly what it intends to do.
The reality of the Bill also comes into some of these situations that we see on the horizon. We know about the opening up of the Arctic, the melting of the sea ice and the opening of the north-east passage, which for many months—certainly weeks—of the year is fully navigable; the ice has gone away by that much. At the same time, we know that President Putin and the Russians have said that there are hydrocarbon resources in that ocean that they want to mine. That would be devastating for the fragile ecosystems that exist in that unique area of the world, which is almost completely untouched.
I had the pleasure back in May of being part of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly visit to Svalbard. The University Centre in Svalbard has dozens of countries, universities, academic institutions and hundreds of nationalities studying that region, climate change and the effect it has on the Arctic, and the effects on ecosystems. It is absolutely vital, as we see the geopolitical tensions forming in areas where they have not been before, that we have those strong protections in place.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I was about to finish, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Barry Gardiner
The right hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about the opening up of the Arctic and the geo-strategic threats that we face there. In that respect, would he support my earlier call that the Government should release the Joint Intelligence Committee’s report on the link between biodiversity, sustainability and national security?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I will not be drawn quite into that trap about releasing Joint Intelligence reports. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, because there is no doubt that we are talking about sovereign security if we do not get this right, and that applies to all countries around the world. If we allow climate change and not the protection of valuable ecosystems, as has been described by many hon. and right hon. Members across the House, it is all of us who will suffer.
We have our concerns about some areas of the Bill. We will be tabling some amendments in Committee and probing those areas, but on the whole we hope that we can support the Bill, and it is important to carry on the work that our Government started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I thank the shadow Ministers and hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to the debate. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for this important piece of legislation, and to hear the expertise, both from Members’ life experience prior to coming to this House and from the extensive work of our Committees over a long period of time.
I want to recognise the work of a number of the key stakeholders involved in informing the debate, some of whom I was able to speak to in the course of preparing for today, including the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, Oceana, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Blue Marine Foundation. I want to make a cheeky remark towards the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for whom I have a lot of respect, in that he suggested he could make up for the fact that there were no Conservative Back Benchers here during the debate, but indeed he made a useful contribution. That is important, because this should be a whole-of-House debate. It is important to recognise that we are continuing work that was started under the previous Government and that we supported all the way through. It is important that Members from all parties are present as the Bill starts its passage through the House, because as I will set out, it is important to inform the implementation and the ongoing debate.
I will draw on and respond to the contributions that have been made during my remarks. In particular, I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—whose comments, based on her extensive experience, were very much respected by the House—will make a great contribution during the passage of the legislation. She also talked about the importance of multilateralism and how we play our part with others around the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has experience of chairing a number of APPGs and has made a long-standing contribution. I will come back to some of the points she raised, but it was helpful to hear from her early in the debate.
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)— I will come back to some of the points she raised—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for Exeter (Steve Race), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). That goes to show that we have had a whole-of-nation debate.
Before I turn to my more detailed remarks, I want to make a point about young people and the next generation. The important point was made that the oceans do not have voters, but when I think about the issues that are most important to young people, including in primary schools in my constituency, the health of our oceans and how we protect our environment are very high on the agenda. The oceans have their supporters across all generations, and that is important.
Let me start by reminding the House why this Bill and the BBNJ agreement matter. The BBNJ agreement is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will enable greater conservation of the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdictions and will support the delivery of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, which includes the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. Environmental degradation could lead to huge economic costs globally, making ocean conservation a long-term economic imperative, too. The agreement supports the UK’s wider climate and nature agenda, ensuring that we remain at the forefront of global efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change through multilateral co-operation. It also strengthens the role of international law and multilateral institutions, and reinforces the UN convention on the law of the sea as the foundation for global governance.
There are also clear opportunities for the UK, which has one of the world’s leading marine scientific research communities. World-renowned institutions in the UK, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our leading university marine science departments, are at the forefront of ocean research and will greatly benefit from provisions in the agreement that promote transparency and data sharing around marine genetic resources. The Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will follow, will deliver on our commitment to ratify this historic agreement.
Let me turn to some of the points raised in the debate, and I will aim to answer as many questions as possible. In relation to the Chagos islands, this deal will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. Both the UK and Mauritius have committed to protect what is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and that commitment will be supported by an enhanced partnership between both countries, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago. The UK’s support for this will be agreed in a separate written instrument as part of the implementation of the agreement, and Government officials have already begun discussing with their Mauritian counterparts what it will involve. This has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London, and both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
It is worth mentioning that under the treaty, the UK will continue to manage environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles. That shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable international law and with due regard to applicable Mauritian environmental laws. The Minister for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is at the heart of these discussions and has been leading on maritime protection in the overseas territories through expansion and confirmation of funding for the blue belt programme and our work in the polar regions. He has met scientists in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda last month and on board the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough to discuss their crucial work in the Antarctic and Arctic. We are doing crucial work on the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, which I am sure will be the subject of further debate in the House.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for speaking about the points made about the British Indian Ocean Territory by myself and others, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The marine protected area was established by the Government of Gordon Brown at the tail end of the last Labour Government. It is a vital area that we need to protect. What guarantees can she honestly say we are getting that, if we are to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, Mauritius will protect it in the same way we have done under both Labour and Conservative Governments?
Seema Malhotra
I reiterate what I said: both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity. Indeed, the UK will still have responsibility for managing environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles, and discussions are ongoing in relation to the establishment of the marine protected area, which will be the subject of a separate written agreement. I cannot speak further on that, because I want to go through other points, but I am sure the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will be happy to discuss this matter further in the House.
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised the issue of protecting intellectual property rights. The Secretary of State will not transmit information to the clearing-house mechanism that would be protected under intellectual property or trade secrets law. I am sure the hon. Member will be aware of that from his reading of the Bill.
A number of Members spoke about the process and implementation. This is a very significant step, as we move to ratify the agreement at the United Nations, which will happen following the passage of the Bill and associated secondary legislation. Indeed, it is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will provide the legal framework necessary to implement the BBNJ agreement domestically, ensuring the UK is able to comply fully with its international obligations under the agreement. The Bill and subsequent statutory instruments will ensure that we can implement and enforce future decisions of the conference of the parties.
At international level, a preparatory commission has been established to prepare for the convening of the first conference of the parties. The UK has been fully engaged in the work of the preparatory commission, including co-chairing a working group on the design of the clearing-house mechanism with Barbados. That will lay the groundwork for a successful first conference of the parties, which will enable parties and stakeholders to progress work on the ambitious implementation of the agreement.
In her opening remarks, my the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), referred to the consultation that we have had on bottom trawling, as well as to the work we are doing on proposals to restrict bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. The Government have outlined plans to restrict damaging fishing activity in marine protected areas, where that is needed to protect designated species and habitats. A number of Members mentioned plastic pollution, and the Government participated in the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution to develop an international legally binding instrument. It is disappointing that an agreement was not reached at the resumed fifth session in Geneva in August, but we continue to work on it. Indeed, we are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised the matter of institutional co-ordination, and I confirm that the FCDO ocean policy unit will be the national focal point, working closely with DEFRA and the Department for Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East asked about deep-sea mining. The UK supports a moratorium on the granting of exploration contracts for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. That means that we will not sponsor or support the issuing of such contracts until sufficient scientific guidance is available.
On the polluter pays and the precautionary principles, parties to the BBNJ agreement are guided by such principles and approaches. It is therefore our view that there is no specific need to include those principles in the Bill.
Seema Malhotra
I am running out of time, but I will be happy to pick this up with the hon. Member afterwards. Ministers will have to abide by the principles that I mentioned, and the Environment Act 2021 places a duty on Ministers to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy; we need always to abide by those principles.
I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. I have sought to address as many of the points raised as possible, but I am happy to speak to colleagues about those that I did not reach. I am encouraged by the strong cross-party support for this important Bill. This landmark piece of legislation ensures that the UK can play its full part in the international movement to ratify the treaty. The measures it contains will not only strengthen and safe- guard our marine ecosystems, but will strengthen our environmental security and deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. The Bill represents the UK taking decisive action, protecting the ocean that sustains us all, while empowering scientists, innovators and institutions in shaping its future. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A (7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges or fees under or by virtue of the Act.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Monday 17th November 2025
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 17 November 2025 - (17 Nov 2025)
21:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
The Agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss to following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”.
This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 15 to 23 stand part.
Government amendment 3.
Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Powers of the Secretary of State: review—
“(1) Within three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) a description of the powers used,
(b) the purposes for which they have been used,
(c) an assessment of how effectively they have been used,
(d) an assessment of how their use accords with the objectives of the Agreement.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by this Bill.
New clause 2—Reporting requirements relating to the Act—
“(1) Before the end of the period of two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) data on access to samples;
(b) information relating to the number and nature of DSI views and downloads;
(c) information about the amount and nature of enforcement actions taken;
(d) an assessment of the impact of the Act on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry;
(e) a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Act;
(f) an assessment of the impact of any such regulatory changes.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act.
Schedule.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair, and to open this debate in Committee of the whole House on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Before turning to the detail of the clauses and of the amendments that stand in my name, I want to underline why it is so important that this House sends a clear signal today by progressing this legislation. This Bill will, along with subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement obligations in the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement into UK law, and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement.
The House may also have seen that the BBNJ agreement was recognised by the Prince of Wales’s Earthshot Prize Council last week, which is a testament to the broad support for it. The BBNJ agreement is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement covers roughly two thirds of the world’s ocean, which is home to ecosystems that regulate our climate, support fisheries, drive weather patterns and sustain the livelihoods of millions around the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is such an important subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on behalf of those I represent who are involved in fishing. The Bill and the international treaty it implements will affect the fishing industry primarily through the creation of marine protected areas and through the imposition of stricter environmental impact assessments. Does the Minister agree that this means engagement with our fishing sector is essential, and can she confirm that the viability of fishing and food security will be a priority for this Government?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know from previous conversations that we continue to engage with the fishing industry on all areas of policy. Fishing falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it is important that the Government maintain that dialogue.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome and support the Bill, which is an important step forward. It is a shame that it was not passed before the election so that it could have been dealt with in the wash-up of the previous Parliament. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will provide the necessary resources, and that the UN agencies are sufficiently funded, to ensure that this law becomes an effective protection for the natural world and the oceans that we all rely on?
Seema Malhotra
As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill’s enhancement of biodiversity and the protection of our oceans and natural world. How will the Bill help to unlock innovation in marine science?
Seema Malhotra
I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill.
The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she speaks about the importance of the UK taking global leadership. I welcome the Bill, but will the Minister complement it and show global leadership by announcing a new international taskforce dedicated specifically to protecting at least 30% of the Atlantic ocean by 2030?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady will know that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but the measures will protect the world’s oceans—as I have said, the agreement covers roughly two thirds of them. Indeed, in all areas of our international work, we do all we can for the environment around the world.
Seema Malhotra
I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience.
The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution.
Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it.
In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing.
Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared.
Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading.
Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation.
Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Antarctic treaty, which was long and hard fought for in this House and other places, has been important and, generally speaking, very successful. But there are issues about the increasing access to the Antarctic, the pollution that this causes and the need to clean up after the substantial number of visitors that go there at present. Is the Minister confident that the resources will be available to ensure that the Antarctic treaty is fully adhered to?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that the UK also made a declaration upon the signature of the BBNJ agreement stating that the Antarctic treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations that are unique to that region, and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. It is important to recognise that it is also about the international management of the Antarctic, to which we are committed as part of the international community. I thank the right hon. Member for his comments.
In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 11 to 13 implement the provisions relating to area-based management tools, including areas beyond national jurisdiction designated as marine protected areas. Clause 11 contains provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations to implement decisions adopted by the BBNJ conference of the parties under part 3 of the agreement. Many activities under UK jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as fishing, are already regulated domestically, and where existing powers suffice, the clause 11 power will not be needed. However, where new measures are adopted by the conference of the parties, where they require additional controls or restrictions, the clause ensures that the UK has the necessary legislative mechanisms to comply. Clause 12 sets out the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 11.
Clause 13 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to UK craft, without the need for secondary legislation in order to implement emergency procedures adopted by the conference of the parties. As emergency procedures may require immediate action to prevent serious harm to marine biodiversity, regulations alone may not provide sufficient responsiveness. The clause enables swift operational steps, such as directing vessels to avoid a particular area. Clause 13 is modelled on existing direction-making powers available to the Secretary of State’s representative under schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Given the nature of any scenarios that could arise, it is power-limited in scope and emergency in nature.
Part 3 of the Bill ensures that the UK can meet its obligations and exercise leadership in protecting ecologically important areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech, and I pay tribute to her work and that of the Government in showing UK leadership in this important environmental area. Could she also briefly touch on the importance of working in a multilateral way with partners from around the world, and—perhaps she will move on to this point later in her speech—could she outline how the UK will work with other countries to protect these areas and carry out other important work?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an area where obviously no nation can work on its own. It has to be done through being influential on the world stage, working through and with the UN, and with our international partners and other nations. Indeed, through the course of all of our conversations, be that in the FCDO, DEFRA or other Departments, we maintain dialogue on this and other important matters in relation to our environment and climate impact around the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it is another example of where being outward facing as a nation, as this Government have chosen to do, is incredibly important for not just what we achieve at home but our responsibilities on the world stage.
I will make some progress on part 4 of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 19 implement the environmental impact assessment provisions of the agreement, where relevant to marine licencing, and ensure that UK marine-licensable activities and areas beyond national jurisdiction are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Clause 14 amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure it can be used effectively to regulate planned UK activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Government amendment 1—a minor amendment—has been tabled to omit the heading “on the continental shelf”, which will adjust the 2009 Act so it more accurately reflects the content of this section, including the section that is amended by clause 14 in part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 15 updates the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to bring them into alignment with the BBNL agreement. Government amendment 2 would add “or person” to subsection (5)(b) as a minor clarificatory amendment to the regulations. Clause 16 allows regulations to be made to implement the standards and guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties under article 38 of the BBNJ agreement. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that equivalent provisions exist for Scotland, amending the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and enabling Scottish Ministers to make regulations where it is a devolved competence, and to implement environmental impact assessment obligations for Scottish regulated marine activities.
Clause 19 amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to ensure that any future environmental outcomes reports can apply to licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The BBNJ environmental impact assessment provisions closely replicate our existing domestic arrangements for marine licensing, which operators are familiar with. These are minor technical changes to align our existing regime with BBNJ processes. Together the provisions deliver a coherent and modernised framework for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of activities linked to the United Kingdom on the high seas.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill. As chair of the Channel Islands all-party group, I was interested that the Minister tabled an amendment that covered just the Isle of Man. Before the Bill goes to the other place, could her officials please consult the Channel Islands one last time to make sure that they do not also need to be included in the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and yes we will continue those conversations with the Channel Islands.
To conclude, provisions in the Bill would be extended only to British overseas territories and the Isle of Man with their agreement. Clause 25 sets out when most of the Bill’s provisions come into force, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to appoint entry into force and dates for other provisions. In summary, the Bill provides the legal foundation for the United Kingdom’s participation in the new global regime for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. It will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, provide certainty to our scientific and research communities, and demonstrate once again the UK’s leadership in marine conservation. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and look forward to engaging with hon. Members during the debate.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.
The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.
However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.
The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.
Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself
We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.
New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.
Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.
This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.
Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I want to speak on this Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill both as the Member for a coastal community, and as someone who is truly fortunate to have dedicated environmental campaigners locally. I want to thank one constituent in particular, Viola. Her emails cover everything from ocean acidification to regenerative farming and the health of our chalk streams. Although I cannot always provide the answers that she needs, I thank her for her valued, informed and tireless campaigning.
Much of what Viola raises is exactly why this Bill matters. It matters for the important issues of pollution, harmful algae blooms in Langstone harbour, and the need to protect local bird species and our drinking water. We must be proactive on ocean heating, bottom trawling and the worrying tipping points we face in ocean acidification, as well as on regenerative farming, reducing pesticides, and protecting soil health, so that rivers, seas and pollinators can recover. Although this Bill focuses on biodiversity beyond the national jurisdiction, the principle is the same. What happens in our oceans—from the south coast to the high seas—affects us all. That is why the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and provide clarity and accountability.
I particularly note Government amendment 1, which updates section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it accurately reflects the extended conservation responsibilities created by this legislation. This may seem technical, but accuracy matters, especially when we are embedding in law stronger protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those far beyond our waters. Through this Bill, we will ensure that the UK plays a serious, leading role in implementing the high seas treaty, tackling the over-exploitation of shared oceans, and improving transparency and reporting. Government amendment 2, which tightens the environmental impact assessment provisions, will help to ensure that the framework that we set up is robust, enforceable, and capable of delivering real biodiversity gains beyond our borders.
While stakeholders may not always agree on how best to align planning reforms with environmental goals, we have a shared mission to restore nature, not merely preserve what is left. This Bill is one part of that mission. By strengthening the UK’s hand in protecting biodiversity on the high seas, the Bill reinforces the protection we all want to see everywhere from Langstone harbour to Antarctica. It demonstrates leadership and this Government’s commitment to restoring nature on every scale.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.
I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.
The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.
We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.
The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.
We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As my hon. Friend well knows, 94% of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the waters of our overseas territories. Just north of the Falkland Islands is the so-called blue hole, an area of unregulated fishing beyond national jurisdiction. It is an area where trackers are turned off and illegal fishing takes place. Does she agree that the ratification of the BBNJ agreement may provide the opportunity—the common cause—to tackle intractable geopolitical issues that have led to that lack of regulation, and may point to a way forward for the international co-operation of which she speaks?
Dr Savage
I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.
While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.
This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.
As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars.
I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the Government can do at COP1 when it meets next year is to establish a regime with the other members of the conference of the parties on how enforcement of the new treaty will take place?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. That is a very good intervention, and I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have to bring into the enforcement regime those countries that are the worst polluters, the ones that are most guilty of overfishing and those that are most guilty of turning a blind eye to fishing companies that do that. It is not an easy gig, but it is very important to do it. If we do not do it, fish stocks will reduce, biodiversity will reduce and pollution will get worse. Ultimately, those who eat fish will be eating plastic fish.
Seema Malhotra
In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed.
On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him.
On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports.
Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Supplementary provision
Amendment proposed: 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”—(Andrew Rosindell.)
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If there is one message that Members should take from today’s debate, it is that this Bill is essential—essential to protecting the ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the UK continues to lead ocean protection efforts on the international stage. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It will, along with the subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement to protect marine biodiversity in the two thirds of our ocean that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
The Bill means that the UK can play its full part in shaping a fair, science-based international system for areas beyond national jurisdiction, one that balances conservation, sustainable use and global collaboration. It delivers on our international commitments and ensures that British scientists, institutions and innovators remain at the forefront of ocean research and biotechnology.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions and scrutiny of the Bill at every stage. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean and of environment Committees has been crucial to keeping the Bill high on the agenda. I am grateful to those who spoke on Second Reading, have taken part in the Committee of the whole House and have engaged constructively throughout. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding for her support throughout the passage of the Bill.
I also thank officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, whose expertise, along with that of parliamentary draftspeople and other officials across Government, has underpinned the Bill. I thank, too, the devolved Governments for their engagement on the Bill and legislative consent processes. Finally, I acknowledge the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre to the National History Museum, and our universities, which have been pivotal in presenting the need for this legislation.
Let us be clear why this Bill matters. The ocean regulates our climate. It sustains global fisheries. It provides half the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not just an environmental choice; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. The previous Government began this process by signing the BBNJ agreement in 2023, but they delayed bringing forward legislation. This Government are now finishing the job, taking the necessary steps to implement their obligations in UK law and to ratify the treaty.
By passing this Bill, the House will send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to lead the world in the protection of our shared ocean, that we stand with our partners to deliver a healthy, sustainable ocean and that we will do so grounded in science and international co-operation. This is our responsibility today and for future generations. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.
On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.
However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.
The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.
The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.
As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:
“If we save the sea, we save our world.”
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Tuesday 18th November 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 17 November 2025 - (17 Nov 2025)
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Tuesday 2nd December 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 17 November 2025 - (17 Nov 2025)
Lord Whitehead
That the Bill be read a second time.
Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember; namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair our oceans—which will be greatly enhanced by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am introducing today.
I would like to commence my remarks, however, by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships’ House so warmly and have assisted with my introduction to it. My thanks go to the Garter King of Arms, to the clerks of the House, to Black Rod and, of course, to the esteemed doorkeepers of our House. Indeed, my thanks go also to the marvellous supporters at my introduction—my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Blake of Leeds—both former council leaders in their cities, as I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I have lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its Members of Parliament for some 27 years. I have spent much of that time in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low-carbon energy, and I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place.
I have taken the title of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s in the City of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted. St Mary’s is the parish in the centre of Southampton and, remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute: the St Mary’s Stadium of Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute mainly in the minds of its supporters—one of which, alas, I am—but the latter really is a centre of international repute. It has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s approach to the matter following, I hope, the adoption of the Bill.
This is a Bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction—the BBNJ agreement—and allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK’s ratification. This is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy. It concerns nothing less than the future of the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.
These vast areas of ocean—remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on earth—regulate our climate, sustain fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty, yet they are increasingly vulnerable to overexploitation, pollution and the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world’s collective answer to this challenge. The Bill gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.
The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two-thirds of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly, transparently and with a shared sense of stewardship. The Bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement, relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessments. It provides for regulation-making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance in the years ahead.
The Bill is divided into five parts, with Parts 2 to 4 aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJ agreement. Part 2 introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources. UK researchers operating from UK craft—for example, our royal research ships—will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdictions will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access.
Those who make use of such material, whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of such research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism, an open-access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected and where, and how it is being utilised. This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement’s benefit-sharing regime. It ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies.
Marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow’s medicines, new sustainable materials, novel enzymes and breakthroughs that we cannot yet imagine. The UK is proud to be home to world-leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre—there it is again—and our many outstanding universities. The Bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework.
Part 3 gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement. These measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part enables the UK to implement emergency measures—for example, in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, Part 3 ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly.
Part 4 updates the UK’s domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement as they apply to licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Bill grants powers to update domestic legislation as new standards and guidelines are developed by the Conference of the Parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly—new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK’s regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice. Put simply, these measures future-proof our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.
In addition to this primary legislation, a small number of statutory instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent. Once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations.
As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on 17 January 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications. The inaugural Conference of the Parties is expected later that year. Importantly, the UK can attend that conference as a state party only if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why timely passage of this Bill is of genuine importance.
The Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and the rules-based international system at a time when both face increasing strain. It allows us to address global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss and food security—not in isolation but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.
The UK’s leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment. Their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition.
Allow me to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the Chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK’s approach to the BBNJ agreement. In the spirit of cross-party relations, I pay tribute to the Ministers in the previous Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team that signed the treaty on behalf of the UK Government in 2023. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for International Development for the opportunity to open this debate.
The health of our ocean is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, as the first to speak after the Minister from the Government Benches, it is my honour to welcome my noble friend Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to the Dispatch Box and to congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. I pay tribute to his joining the esteemed ranks of those who have made their maiden speech from the Dispatch Box.
My noble friend has had a distinguished career. As leader of Southampton City Council, he championed innovative energy projects and was the first MP to have solar panels and even, I believe, a wind turbine installed on his constituency home roof. His Private Member’s Bill on climate change may have been talked out in his early days, but much of it was incorporated into Labour’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008. Climate change affects so much of the planet’s precious biodiversity, especially in the marine environment, which is the subject of today’s Bill.
My noble friend’s former constituency has within it St Mary’s Stadium, home of Southampton FC, and he is a prominent member of the Saints Foundation. Southampton’s is one of the three furthest stadiums to visit from Everton FC, but I well remember happy visits —especially when Dave Jones, a dependable right-back who used to play for us, was Southampton’s manager. Southampton was the last team to visit Goodison Park last season. I look forward to welcoming that team and his support at Everton’s new stadium, as soon as they resume their rightful place in the Premier League.
While in the Commons, my noble friend was No. 1 in the parliamentary football team—the position of goalkeeper—and was part of the famous team to play in the Portuguese Parliament in 2006 as part of the 2006 FIFA World Cup curtain-raiser. I met my noble friend not on the football pitch but on the Front Bench in statutory instrument committees, he from the Commons and me from the Lords, on many energy orders. To change sporting analogies, I like to call us the tag team partners on energy matters.
I am very glad to welcome my noble friend to your Lordships’ House and look forward to his many innovative approaches on energy, not least on fuel poverty matters, where there is now an opportunity to utilise DCC’s smart meter network to improve identification and tailor timely, accurate and cost-effective interventions for fuel-poor households, such as direct to the meter credit and the development of a social tariff. I look forward to his many further contributions to our debates and his leadership on energy policy developments.
There could be no better debate for my noble friend to make his maiden speech in than today’s Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill—a Bill that, like the Climate Change Act, will be universally acclaimed and world-leading in supporting one of the greatest challenges in protecting the high seas outside national jurisdictions. These areas of no recognised national authority cover half the surface of the planet and are already threatened, not least from claims in the Arctic for valuable minerals and in other areas from overfishing, pollution from abandoned fishing nets, plastics and the impacts of warming sea temperatures. Some 90% of the heat from greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed by the oceans, 30% of CO2 emissions are absorbed by them and 90% of global trade is transported through them, yet only 1.2% of the oceans are currently protected. Species such as whales have constantly been under attack, and the threat of ever-deeper sea mining and excavations only increases.
It is imperative that the UN, through its Convention on the Law of the Sea, has provided this framework for international maritime law, and defines the high seas as international waters where all nations may fish, navigate and conduct research under shared principles. Since the UK’s accession to the convention in 1997, the UN General Assembly has focused on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in those areas, including the oceans and the seabed. The COP 15 Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework of 2022 established targets and culminated, in 2023, in the formal adoption of binding agreements established and developed by consensus. This framework established the 30 by 30 biodiversity target—conservation and protection of 30% of sites by 2030—to which the UK is committed. The BBNJ Bill is drawn up to align UK law with this international agreement and consensus on biodiversity.
I welcome the Bill. It sets out the requirements for UK-based activity and affiliated projects, vessels and equipment processes, and collecting and researching marine resources, in international waters. It includes advanced notification, post-activity reporting and public access to reports and information. Aside from two clauses relating specifically to Scottish law and Ministers, the Bill will apply to the whole of the UK and can be extended to British Overseas Territories by Orders in Council. This is very promising.
The Bill establishes a system of support to undertake co-operative arrangements among projects, teams, countries and alliances through capacity building and technology sharing. It also establishes an ability to create emergency protected areas in any disaster scenario. It has as an example the workings of the Antarctic Treaty system, which already operates as a framework for international management of the Antarctic for conservation.
The other place has welcomed the Bill. The Government have already adopted a 30 by 30 approach as it refers to domestic national jurisdictions on land and sea up to 200 nautical miles offshore, and established a network of 297 marine protected areas covering some 210,000 square kilometres, representing 23% of the UK’s domestic waters.
Here I declare my interest as serving on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee, which reported on 30 by 30 in July 2023. This report found that, even on the domestic front, there is a long way to go beyond declarations and drawing areas on a map. On land, what sites will count towards 30 by 30 when perhaps less than 10% of England is covered by designations such as SSSIs, special areas of conservation, special protected areas and Ramsar sites?
The report found a widespread lack of clarity about the level of nature conservation and protection. There is a poor level of monitoring data, which limits understanding of current conditions. On land, only 22% of SSSIs have been monitored in the last six years. In UK waters, the position is even more precarious and unknown; MPAs are still at the rudimentary stage.
From this domestic background, the challenge of the high seas seems daunting. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm in her reply that at least the signatories to the BBNJ agreement are approaching the situation with the precautionary principle in mind? Can she give any indication of how conversations about the treaty and how it will work in practice are developing?
The practicalities of taking forward the work from this Bill seem extremely daunting given the approaches towards the latest COP in Brazil and from the Trump Administration and others towards climate change in general and deep-sea mining in particular. Will the Government develop a strategy behind the Bill regarding how they will undertake their approach, how they will develop a baseline of data from the UK’s MPAs into consistency with data on international waters, how they will develop monitoring plans around the world, and how they will encourage co-operation and support from the overseas territories? All this presents a costly challenge when budgets may find it difficult to maintain the required level of expenditure.
While welcoming the aspirations and imperatives of the Bill, I encourage my noble friend to define the practicalities of how the UK can set priorities and develop expertise of approach to achieve best outcomes. In this, I would welcome confirmation of extensive public engagement, which could be undertaken to encourage the proper accountabilities, and reports that the Bill is being taken seriously alongside climate change. The UK Government can be encouraged to take up the challenge from this endorsement of the shared stewardship of the planet into the future with the world-leading oceanography site in Southampton.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open for the Official Opposition on this important Bill. Before I speak to the Bill, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He served for many years in the other place and I know that he will bring that wealth of experience to his new role in your Lordships’ House.
Our oceans are home to more than 260,000 species, and their health is essential to the health of our planet. Unlike biodiversity within our borders, every nation has a responsibility to protect the high seas. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. They are wonderfully biodiverse, but we know that they are threatened by a whole host of harms, the most challenging of which include overfishing, manmade pollution and the impact of climate change. It is the duty of us all to take the responsible action needed to safeguard marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.
For many years, Britain has led the way on protecting our oceans. In our domestic waters we have established a network of 296 marine protection areas, protecting over 200,000 square kilometres of sea. Even more significantly, we established the Blue Belt programme, supporting our UK overseas territories to assist them in creating and maintaining healthy and productive marine ecosystems. That programme shows how committed we are to tackling the serious global problems of overfishing, species extinction and climate change. As noble Lords will be aware, the UK overseas territories are estimated to be home to up to 90% of known endemic UK biodiversity, hosting a huge range of unique and endangered species.
Consequently, we have a unique responsibility to protect that biodiversity. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million square kilometres of marine protected areas, from the south Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Can the Minister provide an update on work the United Kingdom Government are doing with our overseas territories to continue that excellent programme as part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to our overseas territories?
During the debates in the other place, serious concerns were raised about the impact of the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, on the protection of marine biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago. I know the Minister may feel that this issue is not directly concerned with the Bill, but we will be seeking to explore the impact of that agreement on marine biodiversity during the debates on the Bill. It is only right that noble Lords on this side of the House should be given the opportunity in Committee to probe the issue of marine biodiversity in the area around the archipelago.
Turning back to the Bill itself, we are firmly supportive of the Government’s ambition to boost protections for our global marine diversity. As the Minister mentioned, we signed the treaty in 2023 under the previous Government, and we are unwavering in our commitment to biodiversity. That said, as a reasonable Opposition we will scrutinise the Bill in detail to ensure that Parliament has had the opportunity to hear how Ministers intend to use the wide-ranging regulation-making powers contained in the Bill. We will also seek to understand more fully how the Government expect our involvement in the BBNJ’s Conference of the Parties to be managed. We are interested to know where the first marine protected areas under the agreement will be located. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an update on that matter.
On the Conference of the Parties, the agreement has now been ratified by 60 signatories, which means it will come into force in 2026. Once the Bill is passed, do the Government have a target date for ratification so we can play a full role from the moment the treaty comes into effect?
As many noble Lords will know, our UK fishing industry is struggling. The Government have already capitulated on EU access to our fishing waters. What impact do the Government expect the new marine protected areas to have on our domestic fishing fleet, and what steps will be taken to monitor this over time?
We are clear that the United Kingdom must uphold its obligations under this landmark treaty, but we must also keep our own domestic interests in mind at all times. Where MPAs include prohibitions on fishing, what representations will the fishing industry in both the UK and other affected nations be able to make to the Conference of the Parties so that the full impact of those prohibitions can be considered before an MPA is implemented?
We will also seek to probe the UK’s rights should we wish to leave the treaty. We do not expect to find ourselves in that position, but it is only right that we consider how we could practically manage an exit from the treaty should a future Government decide that it is expedient for us to do so. What thoughts have Ministers given to that, and can the Minister outline her expectations of how that process might be managed should the situation arise?
In conclusion, we are firmly supportive of the Bill’s intentions. The Government are right to press ahead with legislation that will allow the treaty to be ratified, and we are proud to have made the UK a signatory of this landmark treaty when we were in government. Marine biodiversity matters, and it is right that we should play our part in protecting it. But that does not mean that we should step back from our duty to do the work of a revising Chamber, to scrutinise the Bill in detail and propose improvements where necessary. We will do that work thoroughly and carefully to ensure that this is the best Bill it can be when it goes on to become law. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly glad that he gave several marketing plugs for the National Oceanography Centre, which I was responsible for setting up when I was the chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her helpful briefing session on the Bill last week.
I fully support the Government’s intention to ratify the high seas treaty by mid-January 2026 and can see no good reason for preventing this. As the legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States said, before the treaty, the high seas were known as the “wild, wild wet”. They are the classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Against this background, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what are we talking about when we refer to marine biodiversity? Secondly, what are the main threats to marine biodiversity? Thirdly, how will the treaty be enforced?
The treaty aims to protect marine biodiversity in the high seas outside exclusive economic zones, but no one knows how many species there are in the oceans. According to the world register of marine species, there are about a quarter of a million known marine species and new species are being discovered at a rate of nearly 2,500 per year. Most of these new species are microscopic benthic crustaceans, molluscs and annelids. It is estimated that there are probably between 1 million and 2 million species still to be discovered. In other words, about 90% of marine biodiversity is unknown, and if we include bacteria and other micro-organisms, the number remaining to be discovered is much greater. In short, we do not know what it is that this treaty aims to protect. Therefore, can the Minister assure us that the Government will support research efforts in our universities, museums and research institutes to fully document marine biodiversity so that we have a better idea of what we are aiming to protect?
My second question concerns the threats to marine biodiversity. There is widespread agreement that human activity is causing the extinction of many species both in the oceans and on land. The Marine Conservation Society lists overfishing, by-catch, climate change, pollution and other human activities such as deep-sea mining among the major causes of loss of marine species. Nearly 38% of the world’s stocks are overfished and an estimated 9 million tonnes a year of fish and other marine organisms are thrown away dead as by-catch. According to the latest figures from Defra, 54% of fish stocks in UK waters are currently overfished. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government will press for sustainable management of fisheries in the high seas and reductions in by-catch and, at the same time, set a leadership example by managing our own fish stocks sustainably?
Can the Minister also tell us whether deep-sea marine mining will be included in the treaty? Flora and Fauna International points out that the hotspots for marine biodiversity are often associated with deposits of rare minerals such as cobalt and manganese. These hotspots include the hydrothermal vents where tectonic plates meet and are home to extraordinary creatures able to survive in near-boiling water full of highly toxic chemicals.
I now turn to my third question, on enforcement. The Marine Biological Association says:
“If we have learned anything about marine protected areas within national jurisdiction, designating marine protected areas does not mean effective protection”.
As I understand it, the current regime for enforcement of the law of the sea is based on flag state responsibility. Countries are expected to create offences under national laws and prosecute if there is a violation. The difficulty is that under this regime, vessels can opt for flags with countries that have poor regulation and poor records of prosecution. Can the Minister therefore tell us how the Government envisage the treaty will be effectively enforced?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I plan to speak in favour of the Bill before your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, but first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his maiden speech. My first recollection of Southampton was visiting the Royal Research Ship “Bransfield” before it departed for the Antarctic. As a 10 year-old, it was so exciting to explore that ship before it travelled to some of the harshest high seas on the planet.
The world’s oceans support biodiversity, regulate climate, store carbon, sustain global food webs, and provide critical genetic and biological resources. Protecting them is vital not only for ocean health but for the stability and well-being of the entire planet. I thus thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for bringing this Bill and for seeking its speedy but well-scrutinised passage so that the UK can have a seat at the first Conference of the Parties to the UN BBNJ.
I start my observations with some medieval manuscripts. Many of the cathedral libraries of this nation contain wonderful collections and, over the years, I have been struck by the amount of graffiti in the margins of such documents—doodles by monks and scholars down through the centuries, which quite frequently are little drawings of scary sea-monsters. The leviathans jump out at you as you turn the vellum. These sea monsters and the mysteries of the recesses of the deep captured the imagination of our forebears.
The flood and Noah; the parting of the Red Sea; the exploits of Jonah in the belly of the whale; the trials of Job when he is asked:
“Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”;
the sea journeys of St Paul, with his dramatic shipwreck; and the Book of Revelation’s glassy sea—all have been analysed and interpreted, and, yes, doodled. Long has been the respect for the sea and the oceans: this place of chaos beyond our taming, of mystery with depths beyond human reach, and with glimpses of its wonders reported back by adventurous travellers. Indeed, 32 of the 150 psalms refer to the sea. For example, the psalmist speaks of how:
“Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters. They saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep”.
Those wondrous works in the deep are under threat. We have lost respect for the high seas in favour of an exploitative attitude. Deep-sea mining, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, oil and gas extraction are all threats being faced. Our oceans provide diverse ecosystems, including hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, with many endemic species within a small area. Our oceans act as the largest carbon sinks on the planet, storing it in deep-sea sediments, reducing atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. Our oceans are nursery grounds for commercially important species and play an important role in the lifecycle of many others, including creatures great and small—known and yet unknown, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined. Our oceans recycle nutrients that eventually resurface and support marine food webs. Our oceans are reserves of genetic and biological resources, including species with such unique adaptations that they can live in extreme pressure—in darkness and toxic chemical environments—all of which are potentially valuable in biotechnology, medicine and industry. The list goes on.
In ratifying the BBNJ agreement, though, we need to ensure that our own waters are conserved and well managed, particularly the biodiversity of our marine protected areas. That is why I urge His Majesty’s Government to publish their response to the consultation on bottom-trawling in marine protected areas. Can the Minister also update your Lordships on progress towards a complete ban on that seabed-damaging activity in these areas, as advised by the Environmental Audit Committee? Protecting our oceans is vital not only for ocean health, but for the stability of the entire planet and the flourishing of humanity. That is why the Government are right to bring forward the ratification of the high seas treaty, and I fully support them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the adoption of the high seas treaty in 2023 marked one of the most significant achievements in international environmental governance in decades. The treaty fills a crucial gap in ocean regulation by establishing a comprehensive framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. That area makes up nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean. I am proud that the United Kingdom played a decisive role in securing this agreement, with the UK Government helping to push the negotiations towards a successful conclusion. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me and my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon some credit. I think it is also worth crediting my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon on their role in the negotiations, even if I did modestly play a part in it myself. Also, Boris Johnson drove a lot of this environmental work in the previous Government.
I regret the five-minute advisory speaking time; it seems to be a habit of the Government to try and curtail speeches, though so few people have put in to speak on this very important Bill. Nevertheless, what I do not regret is seeing the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, in his place. He was a Member of Parliament for over 25 years and a shadow Energy Minister for over nine years. It is great to see him finally—it is not the first time he is a Minister—be an Energy Minister in this Administration. I know from the work I enjoyed with him when I was in the Commons how thoughtful, considerate and competent this new Minister truly is. I look forward to working with him on many other issues affecting our planet.
While I am conscious the Minister mentioned a timely passage being important, I will not be churlish by saying that it has taken over a year to get the Bill to this stage. However, I want to ask the Minister why in this Bill we need further regulations to bring this into effect. While I had hoped that we would not need any amendments, I suppose I am giving due warning that I will be tabling an amendment to try and remove that. From my perspective, it seems entirely redundant, especially when we know that the treaty in effect will come into force not just next year but next month, as more than 60 countries have already ratified it. It is important that, having been at the leading edge of making sure that we have got this treaty with many negotiations that were, frankly, pretty tough at times, we continue to make sure we have a seat at the table when the COP first resumes.
One of the things that has been important in getting to this point has been demonstrating by our domestic leadership what we were able to do without threatening our economy, being fully mindful that, while the ocean has given so much to us, we have not recognised that until recently. It is absolutely vital to recognise that we have taken advantage of the ocean more or less for free. We now need to repay that and actually give the ocean a rest. The importance of biodiversity is critical in our oceans. That is going to be taking quite a lot of the relationships that we have developed over many years.
I also want to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Courtown referred to this—about the Blue Belt, which has been one of the most important elements of UK government policy in working with overseas territories in trying to enhance the biodiversity in our oceans. But I have noticed in this Bill no specific overseas territory is currently included. While an Order in Council can make that happen, in the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was published within the last week, only one overseas territory made any reference to the BBNJ, and that was Bermuda, in thinking about and particularly referencing the Sargasso Sea. I am very keen to understand what discussions the Minister has had with overseas territories regarding this because, candidly, we need to get the overseas territories fully engaged. By the way, that may mean us coughing up some cash. We certainly did plenty of that, never mind through the Blue Belt fund but also through a variety of other mechanisms, as my noble friend also referred to earlier regarding the Commonwealth charter. It is vital that we have them fully engaged in something which is so precious to our planet going forward.
Thinking through some of the other aspects of the Bill, I will not digress into other issues that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to, such as a deep-sea mining. I appreciate that this is not the role of this specific treaty, and certainly in this Bill we are referring to elements of the legislation that need to be adapted. But I wanted to clarify, in Clause 8, why this does not apply to the Antarctic. I am conscious that there is already an Antarctic Act and a treaty, but I appreciate that CCAMLR is precarious—no, that is not the right word, but I am conscious that it can be quite challenging considering the role of the Antarctic. However, I would have thought that this area of the world would lend itself massively to having a BBNJ MPA designation.
On other aspects of BBNJ—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I note the noble Baroness’s comment about the advisory speaking time, but I would be grateful if she could bring things to a close.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am grateful for the advice, but I will carry on with a few things. We get criticised in Committee for doing Second Reading speeches when we are trying to understand the passage of the Bill at this key point.
Another aspect that has been mentioned is: where could it be? It had widely been expected that the first BBNJ MPA would be waters between the Galápagos Islands and Ecuador, but there is a golden opportunity to consider those between Tristan da Cunha and a Commonwealth country: Namibia.
I am conscious of what the Whip has just said, but we need to explore why some of the other clauses are in here. Looking at other parts of Clause 25, can the Minister explain subsection (3)? Clause 25(5) seems to be the classic, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll shove this in here” part of the Bill. I would not like to think that that is what we need to do with this treaty, but I am sure that we will explore that in Committee, sadly —because I had hoped we would not need amendments. I want the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, but we need to remove some of the barriers currently in the way, making sure that we can be part of the first COP in 2026.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to his seat in your Lordships’ House and to the Dispatch Box. It was wonderful to hear such a green-minded speech; over the past few years, they have become more common here, but they are still very welcome. I particularly liked his commenting on protecting and repairing our ocean and high seas. It is absolutely crucial that we understand how much damage we have done already and that we try our best to recover it if we can.
The UK was one of the first countries to sign up to the UN agreement on the law of the sea, and we have been active in shaping the treaty, so it makes sense to pass this Bill as soon as possible. I want to flag up some reasons why this agreement is a good idea but also what protections Ministers should seek next. The good things are as follows. It is good for UK science: our very own National Oceanography Centre is one of the world leaders in ocean scientific research, and this Bill will ensure that marine science and technology can develop to further understand and meet the demands of a changing climate. It is good for marine life and ecosystems: our oceans are full of beautiful things, and protecting our oceans ensures that that beauty survives. We are far too careless about such a precious complex of ecosystems that we barely know anything about. It is also good for UK food security: a thriving sea is full of life, and some of that life can help to sustain our lives and our economy. We must regulate and manage the competition for marine genetic resources that can be used to support the development of new drugs, cosmetics, food and industrial processes.
But, currently, our oceans are collapsing under the strains of plastic pollution, bottom trawling, massive mining projects, toxic dumping and climate change. It is this combined assault on ecosystems that will collapse life in the seas. These problems make international treaties crucial and urgent. The scale of this agreement is huge. It will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans. It has the kind of vision that will help us to deal with the rapidly developing impacts of climate change. However, as is usual with this Government and the last, Ministers are trying to grab additional powers via secondary legislation. It would make sense to increase parliamentary scrutiny of secondary powers. Good policy requires accountability.
We need to ensure that our Government listen to a range of experts, not just to those people with loads of cash who can use money and personal contacts to gain access to the detailed discussions. My biggest concerns are monitoring and enforcement: I simply do not understand how those two things will happen in any sort of efficient way. I would like us to become a world leader in pushing for the establishment of marine protected areas in places beyond national jurisdiction. We should be aiming to protect 30% of the world’s marine areas by 2030—and I do mean “protect”. For example, Greenpeace has found that 90% of our marine protected areas are not really protected at all. There is no meaningful site-wide regulation of the most destructive fishing activity. Greenpeace says of our MPA protection that it is rhetoric over reality, and I think this treaty could be the same. Being a world leader means enforcing the strictest regulation of the existing marine protected areas in UK territorial waters, with an end to bottom trawling and devastating mining operations. I hope that the Minister will help us to do that in a very fast way.
So far, the Trump Administration have not ratified the treaty and have pursued issuing deep-ocean mining licences unilaterally, ignoring the UN-backed International Seabed Authority. The demand for mining minerals is rising, when we barely know anything about our deep seabed. We must also end the public subsidy of pollution within freeports, as we saw up in Teesside, when the dredging of industrial chemicals that had been buried for decades allegedly led to the mass deaths of crabs and lobsters along the north-east coast of England. More deregulation of freeports will mean more environmental problems and more taxpayer money spent cleaning up the mess at a future date.
While I am sure that most here would like this Bill to pass so that we can sign up to international law, 30 days before the ratification, I would say that it does not go far enough to protect our ocean. Can the Minister tell me how strongly this Government will live up to the rhetoric?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register and join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to our House—an environmentalist to the FCDO, which is wonderful. I also welcome this Bill which, as many noble Lords have said, will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans, but will also be a big UK contribution to supporting the 30 by 30 commitment made as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. I hope it will also be a positive statement about the UK’s leadership contribution on climate and biodiversity, although it would have been more convincing, perhaps, if we had shown similar leadership on future forests at the recent climate COP at Belém. But, while thanking the Government—I think I have just thanked the Government—can I do an Oliver Twist act and ask for more? I have got five minutes and I have got five asks.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have already stressed, can we keep the pressure up to get this Bill and the secondary legislation through, so that we can ensure a place at the first conference of the parties next year?
Secondly, can my noble friend the Minister ensure that UK actions at home and abroad reflect the values of the treaty? I will give two examples of where we should be demonstrating our commitment to these values. One has already been mentioned: progress so far in ending bottom trawling in all our marine protected areas here in the UK. What has been proposed at the moment is inadequate, and we need to do better than that. Under the Chagos deal, which is a cause close to my heart, because it involves one of the largest, most wonderful and most important marine protected areas, can the Minister tell the House what further progress has been made to make sure that the MPA around the Chagos Archipelago is properly safeguarded with the transfer to Mauritius?
My third ask is for the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s position on the moratorium on deep-sea mining and licensing that has already been referenced now that President Trump is going ahead and ignoring the International Seabed Authority. My fourth is for the Minister to urge her Defra colleagues to produce a strategy for overfishing beyond 2026, at the end of the current commitments for the UK.
The Fisheries Act simply is not working. Quotas are not based on evidence. I was convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place, was going to make a sturdy, evidence-based statement about that, but he did not, damn him, and I had not done the research in order to back that up—but he would have if he had thought about it. Some 27% of commercial fish stocks are critically low and a further 25% are suffering from overexploitation. More than half of UK fishing opportunities are being allocated in excess of scientific advice, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would have spoken about, and that is not only leading to heavy declines in key stocks but undermining the sustainability of fishing livelihoods. It is impossible to deliver economic growth within fishing if we continue to deplete the asset on which the sector depends.
The combination of declining stocks and increasing concentration of quota in the hands of a very few, mostly foreign-owned vessels means that the inshore fleet is now on its knees. This is causing job losses and hardship in coastal towns that are very important electorally, I say to my party. So will the Government commit to a full review of the Fisheries Act? My last call is, of course, one that has already been referred to. Last but not least, 145 countries have signed the Global Ocean Treaty, of which 73 have now formally ratified. Will my noble friend the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade those nations that have not yet formally ratified to do so?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his opening speech, his maiden speech, opening his scoring in this House. May his subsequent contributions be as good as this one: it will be a fine record.
The Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading today, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill, has a complex and difficult to understand title, and an equally complex content. Nevertheless, I argue that it is a necessary and desirable major step towards implementing some of the obligations the UK assumed when it signed two other important international treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention, known as UNCLOS, and the Biodiversity Convention, both of which we signed more than 30 years ago and subsequently ratified. I should perhaps admit that I was Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations when the negotiations of those two founding treaties were concluded. Both were concluded under a Conservative Government whose Prime Minister was John Major, who picked up the baton first held by the late Baroness Thatcher, who came to realise that collective global action was a necessity if the challenges of global warming and loss of biodiversity were to be reversed, or at least mitigated. So I suggest at the outset that this implementing measure deserves to be treated on a non-party basis. Whether it will be is for others to decide.
The urgency of the legislation we are discussing has been spoken to by several noble Lords. It will enable the UK to participate from the outset in the governance procedures of this convention, protecting the biodiversity of those sea areas that fall outside national jurisdictions—what is often known as the “open seas”. Those seas are open too to abuse amounting to plunder, and thus require protection, and Britain’s record justifies and requires its presence on these governance procedures, which, whatever we decide, will enter into force at the beginning of 2026. The historical record of those who fish in and otherwise exploit the resources of these waters is not, let us face it, a good one. Modern technology has facilitated overfishing of stocks, some of them to extinction, and the enlargement of the areas where exploitation can take place is an inevitable result of global warming, particularly in the Arctic, making the problem more extensive and the need for protective regulation, such as this convention provides the basis for, more urgent. That regulation cannot be successfully achieved on a national rather than an international basis, as the provisions of this Bill eloquently demonstrate.
We often hear in this House about the need to defend the rules-based international order. That catch-all phrase probably confuses as much as it persuades, but there can be little doubt that that order is under serious threat on issues relating to international peace and security, world trading rules and the environment. Here is an opportunity not just to circle the wagons around existing rules but to extend their scope, which is, in general terms, the Government’s policy and that of the Official Opposition. We need to take it up.
This debate would not be complete without a reference to one notable and substantial absentee: the United States of America. The US Congress has declined to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, despite its provisions being so valuable to its strategic interests—for example, in the South China Sea—that the US recognises UNCLOS as customary international law. It declined to sign the biodiversity convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and has sustained that refusal ever since on the erroneous grounds that it would damage the US’s biotechnology industries, even though the main failing of the biodiversity convention is that it is too weak, not too strong. America will decide for itself what is in its interest, but I hope the Minister will confirm, when winding up the debate, that we will continue to urge the US to join these conventions and to hold the door open for it, should it have a change of heart.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitehead on joining this House. He and I worked together in the 1997 Labour Government, when he was an enormous support to me. I know he will make a huge contribution to the House.
I was a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee when it wrote a report in 2022 called UNCLOS: The Law of the Sea in the 21st Century. Underlying its recommendations was the committee’s view that:
“As a major maritime power, the UK has a strong role to play in the development and maintenance of the law of the sea”.
As such, the UK must meet 21st century challenges to ensure the usefulness and relevance of UNCLOS. Many of the report’s recommendations related to issues that are not the direct subject of the Bill, but will the Government make a progress report on their more recent work covering these matters, including human rights and labour protections at sea? There are shocking examples of human rights law being broken, with forced labour and appalling working conditions. These include breaches of maritime security, including piracy and armed robbery at sea. Many such crimes take place partly because of the failure of regulation resulting from the system of flags of convenience, which cries out for reform. There is a need for an oceans strategy, as requested by Sarah Champion MP in another place. Can the Minister respond on that?
I turn to the central purpose of the Bill. The Select Committee also identified the importance of protecting biodiversity in the context of climate change and dangerous increases in the temperature of the ocean. In doing so, it pointed out the huge role the oceans play in absorbing carbon dioxide released since industrialisation. It also took evidence on the damage that land-based pollution causes to the marine environment, such as ocean acidification and changes to ocean circulations, which in turn can destroy marine species and the vital environments, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests, that support them.
I therefore welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I ask that it completes its enactment in time for the ratification of the treaty. The Minister has explained the urgent need to put into domestic law protections that apply to international rather than domestic waters.
The Bill is largely technical, but the section on marine genetic resources strikes me as particularly important. Valuable scientific projects on the high seas are being carried out by British teams, often in international collaborations. I support new regulatory requirements extending reporting to the Secretary of State and do not believe that responsible scientists should see this as overly intensive regulation. I also support the area-based management tools set out in Part 3.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, with their new powers to act in international waters, will UK regulatory bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation need to abide by principles set out in the Environment Act 2021, such as the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles? Secondly, how do the Government intend to work with non-signatories, in particular—following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—with the US, which signed up originally but will not ratify the treaty? It is surely vital that we try to persuade it to take into account the issues that the treaty raises.
I end by welcoming what the Minister in another place said about UK support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. I also welcome her statement that the UK will lead the world in the vital protection of our shared oceans, which was endorsed by my noble friend the new Minister in opening this debate. I am sure the Minister who winds up will want to say the same.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place and express my admiration that he has made his maiden speech in proposing such an important debate.
We know that the areas outside territorial limits, which we know as the high seas, belong to us all. Nobody would sensibly talk against the sensible proposals to protect the deep blue lungs of the world and the natural fauna and flora that live there. I have sailed across the Atlantic on a tall ship. I have sailed a Topper dinghy in the Sargasso Sea, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned. Probably few noble Lords have been as close to the briny as I have. Last week, I was highlighting deep-sea shipping in Trinidad, bringing 50,000-tonne deadweight tankers via ocean trade to the United Kingdom. Those are my bona fides.
I will focus on two themes. First, the deep ocean supports shipping, fibre-optics, pipelines and the connectors that sustain a global economy. This cannot be just about the turtles, important as they are. Secondly, among all the mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation in this Room, there is a proverbial elephant—or blue whale. I refer to the risks of the uninsured dark fleet, the Wild West which operates outside the conventions and rules of the sea. By omitting to mention these two items, the Bill is deficient. This Second Reading provides an opportunity for the Government to repair that defect.
The natural environment must be shared with the commercial environment, which is the medium across which ships pass between countries in pursuit of the global trade which brings 90% of goods to our nation. I am disappointed that the Bill does not realise the reality that London is the place where global shipping meets, trades and agrees rules and contracts. That is a missed opportunity and ignores the global expertise on our doorstep. I depart from my noble friend Lady Coffey in saying that the Bill should be amended; it should. I am concerned that Part 3 and Clause 11 in particular allow the Secretary of State to make proposals for the inclusion of certain areas and Clause 12 provides for enforcement, but neither in this part nor in the Bill more widely are the economy or London stakeholders mentioned or referred to.
I have read the treaty. It makes passing reference to the IMO, but I would have expected the Bill documentation to have made reference not just to the IMO, which is based in London, but also to Lloyd’s—marine insurers, the publishers of Lloyd’s List—based in London; the global P&I clubs, the regulatory syndicates, which are hosted in Leadenhall Street, in London; Clarksons and Braemar, the world’s leading shipbrokers, just around the corner in Trafalgar Square, in London; and the Baltic Exchange, in London. I have not even mentioned the whole panoply of other professionals, including specialist shipping lawyers such as Clyde & Co. In essence, we do not own ships any more, but the ships play by London’s rules. But you would never guess it from the Bill. We should rectify that deficiency.
Where are the statutory tests that will require the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the powers, to consider the important balance between the economy, shipping, our interests and our regulatory interest based in London? Failure to reach the appropriate balance could end up with the equivalent of another £100 million bat bridge or another useless £700 million fish disco. That is the jeopardy we face.
I said that the shipping world plays by London’s rules. For the most part, it does, but we are missing the reference to the “dark fleet”: a network of ships, often poorly maintained, transporting illicit cargoes, with obscured ownership, a lack of insurance, deceptive tactics, going dark, flag hopping, and bilge cleaning at sea—and full of hostile actors. We had a debate last week on that narrow point. I am mentioning it because the dark fleet poses significant risks of damaging not only maritime safety but the environment that the Bill seeks to remedy. Silence on our approach to the dark fleet and other hostile actors diminishes the effectiveness of the Bill.
I know it is the Minister’s maiden outing, but he has a huge amount of experience, having been a Member of Parliament in the other place for Southampton. I therefore respectfully ask him: how can we spend precious parliamentary time on only half the benefit, without considering those modern pirates of the high seas? If we are sincere about protecting our fragile ecosystems, we need to ensure that all ships, not just ships of compliant nations, recognise the objectives of the Bill. Once we slap each other on the back, we need to recognise that London—and, in its wider sense, the economy—is balanced between these well-meaning and important biodiversity objectives. But, without a strong economy, we will not be able to protect the environment in the way we want to, in a world that is full of bad actors.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, as the new Minister. I particularly agree with his comment on the excellence of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. There is another important maritime organisation based in Southampton, namely the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the regulator of the maritime sector and shipping. I declare my interest as its chair, and also as an honorary officer in the Royal Navy.
I am therefore prompted immediately to respond to some of the important points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I totally agree with his paean of praise for the importance of the maritime sector in the UK, although, in fairness, we have to accept that the scope of the Bill is restricted specifically to the implementation of the BBNJ treaty. I therefore interpret his speech as a call for a broader piece of maritime legislation in a future King’s Speech, which would enable us to tackle many of the vital points he has just raised.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is important, because I have read the treaty, which says:
“Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party”—
us—
“from adopting more stringent measures with respect to its nationals and vessels … with regard to activities under its jurisdiction or control in addition to those adopted under this Part, in accordance with international law and in support of the objectives of the Agreement”.
I therefore hear what the noble Lord says about scope, but we have the power in front of us to extend that scope—and I think we should, because London is the heart of global shipping. People look to London to set the lead, and we have an opportunity to do so, but the Bill does not.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I will come on to discuss that very point. I think the noble Lord is referring to Article 25 of the treaty, on which it would be worth testing the Government more.
Before getting to that, I start by saying, like other noble Lords, that we must recognise that the BBNJ treaty is an important evolutionary moment in international maritime law, going back to the debate that kicked off in the early 1600s between Grotius and Selden about open seas and closed seas. Here we have the common heritage of the oceans and a practical mechanism for making at least incremental progress. However, we should not get too carried away with optimism because, frankly, the scale and urgency of the challenge around what is happening in our oceans—our life-support system—demands, at the very least, the measures set out in this Bill, and probably more.
Therefore, the question that we will want to test is: as the Bill, and the treaty more generally, are implemented, what will be the practical impact? There are several areas that I will raise with the Minister. First, there is the question of the exemptions for intellectual property around marine genetic resources. There is a reasonable balance to be struck here. I believe that the Minister in the Commons, Seema Malhotra, has said that the Government will not notify for data that is protectable under IP provisions, but it would be useful to hear more from Ministers on how they think the IP regime will work in juxtaposition to the broader public goals of the treaty itself.
Secondly, a number of noble Lords have cited the links between the Bill and other maritime legal regimes, in particular the International Seabed Authority. The area does not correspond to the high seas, as we know. I totally endorse the point from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that mining, even if it is under the ISA’s exploratory category, will clearly have consequences for marine biology and diversity. Therefore, it would be of great importance to understand from the Government what influence and forcefield can continue to be placed around the ISA to ensure that, for example, it adopts the more rigorous environmental assessment standards implied by the BBNJ agreement, and to hear more about how that will work in practice.
Finally, on enforcement, the reality is that, under UNCLOS, as we have heard from other noble Lords, IUU fishing and overexploitation in coastal MPAs—and certainly in the high seas—are continuing. Flag hopping, flags of convenience and fake flags all stand in the way of the goals set out in the treaty. Coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, my question relates to Article 25.4, which states that parties can adopt measures over and above the flagging measure set out in our domestic Bill,
“to support the implementation of the decisions and recommendations made by the Conference of the Parties”.
Does that mean, for example, an enhanced role for constabulary or fisheries protection-type interventions in the high seas, where they are designated as area-based management zones or MPAs? An early test case for this might be the opportunity to develop an MPA covering the so-called “blue hole” north of the Falklands on the EEZ border with Argentina, where this is precisely the sort of mechanism that could correspond to a long-standing problem. If we saw action there, we would begin to believe that the Bill—the Act—has teeth.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a Member replacing the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Environment and Climate Change Committee and as a resident of the North Shields Fish Quay on the mouth of the Tyne—you will find it if you go to Newcastle and turn right—which is currently celebrating 800 years since its foundation. It is well worth a visit for anyone who has a day or two to spare.
I have never considered the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to have been an eco-warrior—but fair play to him. He was one of the early signatories, of the 145 representing different nations, to the agreement that gives rise to this piece of legislation. So credit where credit is due: without that signatory, we would not be where we are today. I also give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her role in that.
I welcome the return to Parliament of Labour’s own green-energy warrior, Alan Whitehead—my noble friend the Minister—who spoke with great authority, experience and expertise when making his impassioned maiden speech, for which he is to be truly congratulated.
Among others celebrating the regulation of the deep blue seas, which we are about to pass, will be the sharks, whales, turtles and other marine life that can be assured that nations recognise the need to exercise control over their own activities and craft sailing in the high seas. This is excellent news and the Government are to be congratulated on committing to this legislation. It is unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that some countries have not yet signed, but the door remains open for that to happen.
Our failure to pass this legislation—and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has some objections to it—would have a seriously detrimental effect on the UK’s ability to influence a wider community and would present a risk of reputational damage to our position as one of the leaders in achieving global biodiversity targets.
The Bill will achieve a number of important things. MPAs will be established on the high seas, meaning that they should benefit from protections, just as national waters do, and there will be fair and shared access to the benefits of research and discovery, which will benefit the health and well-being of all signatory nations, meaning that smaller nations and less economically powerful nations will not be disadvantaged as breakthroughs are made in medicine and agricultural fields. It will strengthen our environmental impact assessments in determining whether potential gains outweigh the risks of marine exploration. It will increase and improve capacity in building, and technology transfer is making for a sustainable and inclusive ocean economy and overcoming the unlicensed approach.
I have just one question for the Minister. How big a deal is the absence of nations such as the United States from the early signatories of this agreement?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap and congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his excellent maiden speech. As he said, the Bill is about ambition.
This important piece of legislation will protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans with the jurisdiction of a single nation—the home of precious inhabitants and the ecosystems that provide the delicate health needed. It provides marine protected areas for generations to come. As we all know, our world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Bill incorporates protecting and improving the marine environment in the UK, as well as internationally, to meet the global commitment of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
Oceans need action now from international communities helping to forge international relationships to ensure that exploitation is curtailed. Bottom-trawl fishing is highly destructive, damages the seabed and is still permitted. I vehemently hope that this practice can and will be halted.
The UK’s attention is drawn to hidden overfishing. Illegal discards and by-catch are unaccounted for in our fishing quotas as we continue to overfish and pollute our oceans, so action is very much needed. In the equation, too, is plastic production and waste, which have doubled in the last 15 to 20 years, to the extent that we now see plastic floating in our oceans. That has to be taken to task in order to breathe life back to protect our vital marine corridors for endangered marine mammals and birds. Oceans matter. They are host to almost 80% of all forms of biodiversity, which transcend our national borders.
It is pleasing that the figure of 60 countries having ratified the treaty was reached in September 2025, when Morocco and Sierra Leone deposited the 60th and 61st instruments of ratification. It will come into force next month, in January 2026, and is a huge step forward.
The Chagos Islands have vast marine protected areas around them and provide a safe corridor for migratory species. If we are to hand over the islands, what assurances have been given by Mauritius for marine protection, with ensured future funding?
The Bill will play a significant part in enabling and protecting our shared blue belt from further irreversible harm to enable healthy oceans for a healthy planet. I support the UK in meeting its international commitments, reinforcing its leadership in global ocean governance and supporting sustainable marine resource use. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Government; I used to work closely with him in opposition. I guarantee to him that if we can continue the co-operation that we had in trying to achieve the areas in climate change and energy that we often discussed, these Benches will be absolutely behind him. When he said he was going to resign from his seat at the next general election, I said to him that I was sure he would rebound back into this House, and here we are, so our congratulations from these Benches.
The Liberal Democrats and these Benches really welcome the Bill, and indeed the treaty, and it is always great to speak in the House when all sides of the House are pretty well at one. I just have a slight trepidation in that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is following me, has a reputation in this House for being quite combative. I will be interested to see what he has to say. I am still in some trepidation as to the unanimity of the House, but we will see. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, sounded positive, so that is something.
The way in which we judge this from these Benches—I have said this to Ministers before—is by looking at how ambitious the United Kingdom is, not just in ratifying this treaty but in making it work, do something and add to global biodiversity and the health of our planet. I am pleased that the Minister was very positive in that way. But like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I read the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was released last week, and there is just that one mention of the BBNJ in there. As she pointed out very well, it was mentioned only once in some 120 pages, on Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister, when she responds to this debate, about other specific areas, such as the Falklands, particularly as regards the Argentinian connection. That is an excellent suggestion. Let us have an agenda there that works.
One area in particular is not really covered by this biodiversity treaty—and we have to remember the major frustration that we cannot amend the treaty, only the legislation. I am sure we would all have liked it to be stronger, but we cannot change it. Ironically, one of the areas it really leaves out is fisheries, which are the biggest threat to biodiversity and have been over time, maybe apart from climate change and acidification, which others have mentioned. We are a member of five so-called regional fisheries management organisations, which span those high seas: two tuna ones, one in the Indian Ocean, a salmon Atlantic one, and the north-east Atlantic and north-west Atlantic fishing organisations. Because of the enforcement problems that we know we have, those organisations have great intentions and are important but are not as strong as they need to be. My question to the Minister is: do we have an agenda, a wish and a determination, apart from just ratifying this treaty, to make those regional fisheries management organisations work better and to be more effective to, if you like, surf the wave further towards helping biodiversity?
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the UNCLOS treaty, because like her I was on the International Relations and Defence Committee when we looked at it. In a way it is the Achilles heel of this treaty, because its fundamental status is to say, from way back in history, that outside territorial waters and certainly outside EEZs on the high seas, you cannot intervene on other flagged vessels without going through a very long process. That is a particular problem because of the way in which flag states operate.
Noble Lords will know that the major nations with the biggest fleets and tonnage are Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands. The UK is 27th on that list. We have 1,000 vessels of over 100 tonnes. Panama has eight times that number. However, when it comes to tonnage, we have only 1/25th of the tonnage that Panama has because operators and state companies choose their own flag of convenience and are often not able to respond in the way that they do. Fundamentally, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, to make the enforceability and effectiveness of this treaty much better we have to try to tighten up on that situation. The report that we referred to asked the Government to look again at the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. That was some time ago. There have been only 17 ratifications; it needs 40 to come into force. I would love the United Kingdom to re-energise that treaty and try to get it implemented. It would make a huge difference in terms of enforceability for the Bill.
Moving on to the genetic and digital sequence side, we have mentioned the United States of America, which, under the Biden Administration, did sign this treaty but will never sign it during the Trump Administration. We might talk strongly to the United States, but there is no way that it will sign this treaty. The International Maritime Organization that we have talked about, working on the other side of the Thames, is really important. Two months ago, through intimidation, America stopped an international agreement on carbon emissions of vessels on the high seas that was about to be signed. That treaty was sunk by the United States through very aggressive activity. There is no chance whatever of the United States signing this one.
My question to the Minister is: what stops the excellent data sharing and sharing of scientific information for genetic material and digital sequence information? If British companies or British people wish to do that, what is to stop them offshoring that activity to the United States and carrying it out there without having to comply with this treaty? That is a difficult one. I would be interested to understand whether the Government have thought about that and what they might do.
Internationally, we need to look in the mirror. A number of noble Lords have said this. We are not perfect at looking after our biodiversity within our own waters and our own EEZ. Defra’s recent draft strategic look at fisheries and biodiversity has pointed out that the north-east Atlantic is one of the worst for depletion of fisheries and biodiversity. We have that in our own backyard. We need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have often called for remote electronic monitoring—of not just our own fleet but anybody that comes within our EEZ. The Government have a consultation out on that. It is one of two trials that have had very little reaction from the fisheries industry, but this would be good for it as well as for us. Let us do that.
These Benches welcome this treaty. We want to get it through quickly. We want it ratified. We want the United Kingdom to be positive, an implementer and one of the nations that ensures that this treaty, difficult though it is, is a real success for the high seas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Government Front Bench. When I was a Minister in DESNZ and he was shadow Energy Minister in the other place, we often appeared on panels and at seminars together and very rarely disagreed on most of the issues. He understands the energy brief extremely well and I am sure he will be a great success in his ministerial position. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but we support this important Bill implementing a landmark agreement that we signed when we were in government, as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Courtown reminded us. Biodiversity is important both here and abroad, and the Government are right to continue our work to protect marine diversity both at home and on the high seas.
As my noble friend Lord Courtown said, in government we had a strong record on biodiversity. Beyond signing the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—quite a mouthful —we implemented our world-leading Blue Belt programmes supporting our overseas territories in delivering protection for endemic marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, we ensured that around 40% of the UK’s domestic waters are protected by appropriate marine protected areas. These efforts, which are a continuation of the policy started by the previous Government, put the UK at the forefront of the global effort to protect 30% of global seas by 2030.
Ministers will have our support as they work to protect the world’s oceans from the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change, but we need to get the details right, and we will be monitoring the Government’s approach to ensure that they really are doing the best that they can to protect marine biodiversity in our home waters as well as playing a full role in our worldwide effort to protect our oceans.
As we have already heard from a number of speakers, the UK is doing a great deal already to protect marine biodiversity, but protecting our oceans, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, cannot be achieved unilaterally. When she replies, will the Minister provide the House with an update on the work that her department and others in government are doing to ensure that our partners across the world are doing their part in also protecting our oceans? What processes, for example, exist under this treaty to ensure that signatories fulfil their obligations and what consequences would there be for a nation that is a signatory to the treaty which fails to fulfil those obligations? Without firm commitment from all signatories, we will struggle to achieve the benefits for marine biodiversity, so it is essential that the UK continues to play a full role in encouraging other global partners to step up to the demands of this treaty. Can the Minister also confirm whether the UK will support other signatories where they lack the necessary administrative or scientific expertise, for example, to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? If so, what form would that support take and how would it be funded?
The location of the new marine protected areas, as my noble friend said, is important. Any clarity that Ministers can provide on that would be helpful to the House as we consider this treaty. It has also been noted that it will come into effect in early 2026. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. Any other timelines which go along with the secondary legislation would also be helpful to the House.
How many of those MPAs will include prohibitions on fishing when they are introduced? We on these Benches are proud to back the UK fishing industry, so of course we need to get the balance right between MPAs that rightly prohibit overfishing and continuing to protect the sustainability of our fishing industry. I will not repeat the point on EU fishing rights in UK waters, but we are disappointed with the Government’s approach on this. We will continue to hold the Government to account. It is essential to get the balance right for our fishing communities, which have been, in our view, badly treated by the agreements that this Government have made.
My noble friend Lord Courtown summed up our approach to this Bill very well at the beginning of this debate. We will not seek to delay or undermine this important piece of legislation, and we want to support the Government in getting the Bill, which is necessary for ratification, on to the statute books in good time, not least to allow ratification to happen before the treaty comes into effect early next year.
That said, we will of course look at the Bill in detail as it progresses through its stages. In the other place, we sought to amend the regulation-making powers to improve parliamentary accountability, and a number of Members have referred to that. We sought to require Ministers to report to Parliament on the use of those powers under this Bill and the enforcement of the treaty. We will return to the issues of accountability and reporting in Committee, as well as looking at the impact of the treaty on UK-based businesses, particularly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our fishing fleet.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Redfern, mentioned the important issue of the UK’s approach to the Chagos Archipelago. We debated this extensively during the recent treaty legislation and the Minister knows well that we are extremely concerned about the Government’s political decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius. This means that the UK will no longer be able to play a full role, as we would have played previously, in protecting the rich marine biodiversity around those islands.
Mauritius is also a signatory to the UN agreement on marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the UK’s treaty with Mauritius establishes a marine protected area around the islands—although we are extremely concerned with its ability to enforce it. Will the Minister please take the opportunity to set out what levers and mechanisms the UK will retain and be able to use under the UN agreement to ensure that Mauritius fulfils its obligations on marine biodiversity?
We will not waver in our support for global collaboration on marine biodiversity. Healthy oceans are essential, and this treaty is, in our view, a real step forward in the fight against the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change. Ministers are right to continue the excellent work that we started in this area, but we reserve the right to scrutinise the Bill in detail—and perhaps disagree with some of the details—when it progresses to its next legislative stage.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin, as others have done, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Whitehead on his excellent maiden speech. He brings to this House a wealth of experience from his distinguished career in energy and environmental policy. I know that both the House, and the Government in particular, will benefit greatly from his insight in the months and years ahead. I speak personally in saying that he brings great insight and experience and an incredibly dry sense of humour. Behind his very serious demeanour, he has an incredible wit, and has had me in stitches on many occasions. I will leave everybody else to look forward to those moments ahead.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been thoughtful, constructive and rigorous. Many of the views that we have heard this afternoon reflect the House at its best. It has been particularly encouraging to hear broad support across all Benches for this important legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very important point, which I expect I shall be making on repeat as we move forward with the Bill: yes, there are many things that we might wish to see done around fishing, bottom trawling, protection and marine protected areas—all of these things—but this Bill is about implementing a treaty. The trouble with international treaties is that they have to be negotiated. The process is long, it can be fraught, and there are trade-offs. A treaty is never only what we would wish to see; there are inevitably compromises. This is about implementing the outcome of that process. It is good but it is not perfect, and there is a long way to go. Not everything that we may wish to do is in this implementing legislation, but it is still the right thing.
It is important that the UK is a signatory to this and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, says, that we get on with it and are able to take our place at the Conference of the Parties early next year. She wants assurances that we will do that. Without wanting to ratchet the pressure on noble Lords, that is kind of down to us. The UK cannot ratify any treaty until we have our own legislative house in order. That is what this Bill is designed to do.
Many noble Lords encouraged us to try to persuade others who have not yet decided to sign up to take part, including the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Lennie, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others. I think we should do that, and we intend to do that. Our ability to persuade others to become signatories will be greatly enhanced once we have done our implementing legislation and we are signatories to the treaty.
Allow me to return to first principles and remind the House why the Bill and the BBNJ agreement are vital. The agreement represents a landmark step forward in the stewardship of our shared ocean. It provides the international framework needed to protect the two-thirds of the global ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single state—areas that contain some of the most biodiverse, fragile and least understood ecosystems on the planet. The agreement will help deliver the ambitions of the coming Montreal global biodiversity framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. These ambitions are not merely environmental aspirations; they are economic necessities. The agreement also advances the UK’s wider climate and nature agenda. It reinforces our commitment to multilateral co-operation and strengthens the rule of international law. In doing so, it reaffirms the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as the cornerstone of global ocean governance.
The Bill positions the United Kingdom to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by this new international regime, something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and my noble friend Lord Whitehead got at in their contributions. We are home to one of the world’s leading marine science communities: the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our world-class university departments are at the cutting edge of global marine science. Provisions in the agreement promoting transparency, open data, capacity building and the equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources will help ensure that this scientific excellence continues to flourish. These reforms will foster collaboration, support innovation and deepen global understanding of the high seas, while keeping the UK at the forefront of ocean research and discovery.
If the House indulges me, I will answer a couple of questions that noble Lords raised about matters that are not in the Bill, because I know they are of profound interest to many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords asked about deep-sea mining. To make it clear, the UK supports a moratorium on deep-sea mining until robust environmental safeguards and appropriate regulations are in place. This means that the UK will not sponsor or support the issuing of exploitation contracts by the International Seabed Authority unless there is sufficient scientific evidence to assess the potential impact of deep-sea mining activities on marine ecosystems and strong, enforceable, environmental regulation standards and guidelines that have been developed and adopted by the International Seabed Authority. Noble Lords can take their own view on how likely that is to happen any time soon.
The issue of bottom trawling, which is not included in the Bill because it is not part of the agreement, is nevertheless important to many noble Lords and was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. The Marine Management Organisation has consulted on restricting bottom-towed fishing gear in 41 offshore marine protected areas, covering around 30,000 square kilometres of English waters. The consultation closed on 29 September and responses are now being analysed. This forms part of the Government’s ambitious programme to protect, where needed, all English marine protected areas from harmful activity to meet national and international commitments. The noble Lords’ points were well made and the Government take them on board, even though the issue is not, strictly speaking, part of the Bill.
Many noble Lords are understandably interested in enforcement, not least the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Stevens and Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The BBNJ agreement establishes an implementation and compliance committee to facilitate and consider the implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of the agreement. Part IX of the BBNJ agreement contains provisions on the settlement of disputes.
As far as domestic plans go, enforcement plans here differ within each specific measure in the Bill. For marine genetic resource measures, Clause 9 of the Bill includes a power to make provision about the enforcement of requirements in respect of marine genetic resource obligations. This allows for the imposition of civil sanctions, including monetary penalties, stop notices and compliance notices. For area-based management tools, regulations made under Clause 11 may include provision about enforcement. The nature of enforcement provisions may differ depending on the regulations made—I will say something about regulations in a minute—and the activities they are regulating. However, enforcement could include civil or criminal sanctions or powers to detain craft.
On ratification, we are making the necessary domestic legislative changes in this Bill, as I have said, and the relevant secondary legislation to ensure that we are able fully to implement our obligations under the agreement before ratifying very soon. Once this Bill and associated legislation is passed, the UK can proceed to ratify the agreement by depositing the instrument of ratification at the United Nations.
On delegated powers, it really would be the end of days to get through a Bill such as this without having a long discussion about powers and I am very sure that we will return to this in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Jones, and several other noble Lords referred to this. I am going to read out what I have here, and then we will return to this next time we meet.
Delegated powers have been taken to ensure that the UK can continue to comply with its international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The powers will, in many cases, be exercised following future decisions or determinations taken by the Conference of the Parties to the BBNJ agreement. Following the passage of the Bill and relevant secondary legislation and subsequent ratification of the agreement, the UK will be a party to the agreement and will have the opportunity to shape future decisions taken at meetings of the Conference of the Parties. What I think this means is that we need the flexibility in order to implement future decisions, but we can discuss the appropriate process that should be taken and the need for parliamentary involvement and oversight of those things. I am sure that we will do that thoroughly.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to scientists and researchers. Our impact assessments for the BBNJ Bill have not identified any significant costs for scientists and researchers. For example, the pre and post-cruise notification requirements mirror, to a large extent, the information that researchers are already required to provide as part of an application for consent to conduct research within the territorial sea or EEZ of a state. The BBNJ is not expected to have a significant or disproportionate impact on small or micro businesses. The number of UK-linked small or medium-sized businesses operating in the affected sectors is not expected to be high. The agreement offers important opportunities for the UK, which is one of the world’s leading marine scientific research communities.
On the cost of implementation, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about, I suppose at this stage it is difficult to say what the final institutional size and structure of the BBNJ will look like. It is realistic to look at something such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is based in Montreal. Using that as a model, the UK thinks that its contribution, including the standard assessed contribution, the institutional budget and the 50% top-up, could total around £1 million annually.
On the issue of the overseas territories, which I recall the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord Teverson, mentioning, it is important that we are clear about the extent of this. There are no immediate plans for the UK to extend the BBNJ agreement to the overseas territories or Crown dependencies, but if any of them were to decide that in future they wish for the BBNJ agreement to be extended to them, then they would need to have appropriate domestic legislation in place before doing so. That is why a permissive extent clause is included in the Bill which would enable part or all of this Bill to be extended to any of the British overseas territories or the Isle of Man in future, if they wished, as part of their domestic implementation of the BBNJ agreement. This clause has been included following relevant engagement with the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
Nobody asked about devolution, but I feel I should say anyway that we are working closely with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure legislative consent for the Bill. These discussions are ongoing, and we hope to have legislative consent Motions secured from each legislature by the time of the Lords Report stage of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Antarctica. As she knows, the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty system, which has placed the question of territorial sovereignty over the continent in abeyance. Article 5.2 of the BBNJ agreement states that it shall be applied in a manner that does not undermine other legal frameworks. The UK made a declaration on signature of the agreement stating that the Antarctic Treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations unique to that region and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. As such, the measures in this Bill with respect to marine genetic resource will not apply to marine genetic resource activities carried out in Antarctica, as defined in the Antarctic Act 1994, or to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information on these resources from Antarctica. It is for the Antarctic Treaty system to regulate these activities.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about the impact on UK fishing. The BBNJ does not contain any provision in respect of UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities. I appreciate that noble Lords have many views on this—and this is a great opportunity to express them—but this Bill does not have those provisions within it because these activities are governed under the Fisheries Act 2020. Fishing and fishing-related activities are exempt from the requirements of the BBNJ agreement relating to marine genetic resources. As such, the BBNJ Bill excludes UK fishers conducting commercial fishing activities from the application of its provisions on marine genetic resources. Requirements to conduct environmental impact assessments in relation to fishing are managed through existing legal frameworks and global and regional fisheries bodies. As a party to the agreement, the UK will be involved in the decision-making process for area-based management tools and will carefully consider any proposals to understand any potential impacts on UK fishing. That is why it is important that we are able to ratify so we can take our seat at the first Conference of the Parties and make sure that we have a say in these sorts of issues.
The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Teverson, asked specific questions on marine genetic resource. Article 10.2 of the BBNJ agreement is clear that the marine genetic resource collection provisions do not apply to fishing and fishing-related activities. Clauses 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of the Bill implement this exception. I am sure we can come back in more detail to these issues when we get to Committee.
I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to this debate. I have tried to address as many of the points raised as I can, but I am sure that we can come back to anything I have missed when we meet very shortly. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It ensures that the UK can ratify and take full part in the international BBNJ work at the United Nations. The measures it contains will not only safeguard marine ecosystems and strengthen our environmental security but will also deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. The Bill represents the UK taking decisive action, protecting the ocean that sustains us all while empowering the scientists, innovators and institutions that are shaping its future. I commend this Bill to the House.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Tuesday 16th December 2025
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (15 Dec 2025)
Lord Teverson
“Prevention of avoidance by offshoring of activities(1) This section applies where—(a) a United Kingdom person (“P”) arranges for relevant research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, to be carried out wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and(b) the effect, or likely effect, of the arrangement is that utilisation which would otherwise fall within section 3(1) does not do so.(2) Where this section applies, the utilisation is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as if it were a utilisation project to which section 3 applies and were carried out in the United Kingdom by P.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision—(a) requiring United Kingdom persons to take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements with non-United Kingdom persons for the collection or utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, are not entered into for the purpose of avoiding, or frustrating the operation of, this Part;(b) requiring United Kingdom persons to keep, and to provide to the Secretary of State on request, such records and information as may be prescribed about such arrangements;(c) for the application, with or without modifications, of enforcement provisions made under section 9 to failures to comply with regulations under this section.(4) In this section, “United Kingdom person” and “relevant research and development” have the meanings given by section 20.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to prevent UK companies and other UK persons from avoiding the information-sharing and benefit-sharing obligations in Part 2 of the Act by offshoring marine genetic resource research and development or commercialisation to non-Parties to the BBNJ Agreement.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was feeling quite confident that we would wholly outnumber the government Benches, but then I saw all the people at the back and thought maybe not. We will get good answers to our questions anyway, that is for sure.
As we all said at Second Reading, this is an important, good treaty, around which we need an implementing Bill. I will move Amendment 1 but will also speak to Amendments 11 and 20, to make matters easy for the Grand Committee.
Amendment 1 is very much a probing amendment. From our Benches, we very much welcome the information- sharing and benefit-sharing aspects of the treaty, particularly around marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This principle covers the sharing of those physical, biological and information resources to all nations. That is important and something we would very much agree with.
However, a number of nations will not ratify this treaty. At the moment the non-ratifiers include the United Kingdom—I am pleased to say the Government are soon to put that right—China, India, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, just to mention a few, and not least the USA. All those nations have signed the treaty, but the United States Administration have made it pretty clear that it they not going to ratify it, perhaps not surprisingly given that they have not even ratified UNCLOS. My concern is that there are ways of bypassing these provisions on information-sharing and benefit-sharing by offshoring, if I could use that phrase, to non-ratifying states, particularly the United States, which has a huge history and a good reputation on innovation, venture capital and all the other areas making sure that human progress moves forward.
My concern is that organisations or persons—whether companies or individuals—that would otherwise be British based will perhaps find a way to capture intellectual property and knowledge within other jurisdictions. My question is: have the Government thought about this and is there a way of approaching it? I am not saying that it is necessarily easy, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might move forward.
My Amendments 11 and 20 are about flags of convenience. Let us look at some of the issues. I am concerned about enforceability. As noble Lords will be aware, 45% of total marine tonnage—vessels above 100 gross tonnes in weight—are registered to just three nations: Panama, the Marshall Islands and Liberia. All of them have already ratified the BBNJ treaty, so that gives me some consolation. However, as to enforceability, the irony of this treaty, in some ways, is that it relies on UNCLOS, one of the core values of which, throughout the history of marine commerce on the high seas, is that you cannot intervene on vessels with flags other than your own unless you have the permission of those flagged authorities. That is almost impossible to do, so enforcement on the high seas is extremely difficult. We may not be talking about supertankers or the big freighters in terms of biodiversity, but we are talking about research vessels, which are still subject to the same restrictions for intervention on the high seas. Those remain despite the treaty, unless there is a broader agreement, but I cannot see that the treaty allows for the boarding of vessels of other nations on the high seas.
One of the areas that came out a couple of years ago from the International Relations and Defence Committee was that the UK had not signed or ratified the UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. I am not saying that that is an answer to everything, but it would be a great service if the United Kingdom, with its influence through the IMO and other organisations, were able to revive that treaty, which only has some 15 ratifications but needs 40 to come into effect. What I am looking at here is for the United Kingdom to take this forward. We are 27th in terms of internationally registered tonnage, so we are a small fleet despite being an international, global and maritime nation. Can the Minister say whether there is a way that we can start to repair this situation, because enforceability, under the current rules of UNCLOS and even under the BBNJ treaty, is going to be extremely difficult? I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I will speak to Amendment 3 in this group on the UK’s capacity to comply with Article 5 of the BBNJ, which is about capacity building—building the international capacity to understand the problems and issues and to develop solutions.
The UK is particularly well placed to do that because we have the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence, providing all sorts of leadership and national capabilities in ocean research. We have the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which is leading in its field of marine science research and is recognised as a centre of international excellence in marine ecosystems. In Scotland, we have the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the excellent Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, which is the UK’s main centre for marine mammal science. I have not included an absolutely full list of all the centres, so it might be a bit invidious, because there are other places that do a lot of work in this area and are excellent—those are just three examples. We have a special responsibility to share our capacity with the geographical locations that will be making an effort to comply with the BBNJ treaty but do not have anything like the history and knowledge base that we have.
One example I could give would be the Sargasso Sea, which is 4 million square kilometres in area—when I read that, I thought it unlikely to be so large, but I double-checked and it is—with Bermuda at its heart. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Sargasso Sea in biodiversity terms. It is globally significant and is threatened in lots of ways, particularly by overfishing, obviously, but also by mining. Bermuda, for which the sea is critical, has worked hard to achieve, for example, the Sargasso Sea Commission in 2014. As the treaty implementation gets under way, the UK has not only to help capacity-build the science there to start solving some of the Sargasso Sea’s issues but to set the agenda internationally, because although the treaty affects Bermuda so crucially, as an overseas territory it has no direct voice at the UN. We need to use our voice and scientific capability to help not just Bermuda but all those overseas territories that are so critical, given the fact that the ocean and its currents are global.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for leading this group. I will start by speaking to my own Amendments 2 and 17, before addressing Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, who sadly cannot be in the House today.
Amendment 2 is a straightforward probing amendment which seeks to understand what steps the Government will be able to take to prevent genetic samples being accessed by hostile state actors. We know that much of the deep ocean has yet to be researched, and the impact of future discoveries on key sectors such as the life sciences may well be significant. In certain circumstances, we would not want discoveries shared with state actors who may use them against us and against our interests. Can the Minister set out the contingency powers that Ministers have to prevent the sharing of critical genetic samples in those circumstances?
My Amendment 17 follows on closely from the debates that were had in the House of Commons. The Bill contains a large number of regulation-making powers to allow the UK to remain compliant with the decisions made by the Conference of the Parties under the treaty. This amendment simply seeks to improve transparency and parliamentary accountability by ensuring that there is a regular update on core metrics, such as the details of regulatory changes and the impact of them on relevant sectors. When Parliament grants Ministers wide-ranging powers in legislation, it is only right that we put in place the appropriate transparency and accountability requirements. While the Minister may not be able to accept this amendment today, I hope that she will be able to set out more fully the Government’s plans to ensure that Parliament, and consequently the British public, have access to information on the way that Ministers are using the powers that the Bill has granted them.
Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks to probe the impact of the treaty, including the imposition of marine protected areas over the deep ocean, on the economy and on infrastructure. As the Minister knows, we signed this treaty when we were in office, and at the time we were satisfied that the treaty struck the right balance. However, it would be interesting to hear what further work the Government have done more recently to assess the projected impact of marine protected areas on the economy, in particular through restrictions on certain shipping activities. Can the Minister please expand on that?
Amendments 5 and 5A relate to craft that are not members of the class societies for shipping. My understanding of my noble friend’s amendments in this regard is that they are designed to facilitate a debate on the so-called dark fleet. According to a February report from the Institute for Human Rights and Business, some estimates claim that there are now 1,400 vessels in the fleet, which would be up to 10% of the world’s tanker fleet. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that Russia alone has invested nearly $10 billion— €9.26 billion—to set up a ghost fleet of several hundred vessels, estimated at nearly 600 ships in July 2024. These, of course, are the ships that transport Russia’s oil, helping to support its illegal war in Ukraine.
Can the Minister set out the Government’s thoughts on how this treaty might help us tackle the dark fleet, as well as what steps the Government are actively taking to prevent the operations of illegal shipping? I hope that the Minister will be able to take our concerns on board across these amendments; I look forward to her reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the operation and enforcement of the BBNJ agreement. This Bill establishes the core domestic legal framework required for the UK to be able to ratify and implement the treaty, while recognising that more detailed compliance and enforcement arrangements will be developed and set out over time—including through future international decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties.
I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require UK persons conducting research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction outside of the UK to abide by the notification and other requirements of the Bill where they have arranged to carry out these activities outside the UK to evade such obligations. We think that this amendment is not necessary because we do not consider that seeking to regulate persons outside of the UK in this way is required to meet our treaty obligations; it may be a nice thing to be able to do, but we do not think that we can do it within the obligations of the treaty.
If the collection and utilisation activity does not fall under UK jurisdiction, the obligations set out in the Bill do not apply. We do not consider that the Bill should be extended to such activity, which would be beyond the treaty agreement. Where other countries have ratified the BBNJ agreement, they will, like the UK, have domestic obligations in this area; we encourage others to ratify where possible. Ultimately, the BBNJ Bill is about ensuring that the UK can fully meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to activity that falls under UK jurisdiction.
I turn to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on any threat that would arise from foreign state actors accessing samples of marine genetic resources from UK repositories. The report would have to be published within six months of the Act being passed and be laid before Parliament. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and, therefore, to allow the UK to ratify it. The requirements under this amendment would go beyond the intent of the Bill. Clause 7(1) of the Bill provides that access to repositories of marine genetic resources
“may be made subject to conditions consistent with paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 14(4) of the”
BBNJ agreement. That article covers factors that may affect access, including preservation of materials, reasonable costs and other reasonable conditions, in line with the objectives of the agreement. Further details on reasonable conditions will be provided in guidance for repositories, including, if necessary, in relation to dealing with potential threats.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would require
“the Secretary of State to create and publish a Strategy outlining the UK’s compliance with Part 5 of the BBNJ Agreement, relating to Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology”.
This amendment is not necessary in this Bill because domestic legislation is not required for the UK to meet its obligations under Part V of the BBNJ agreement on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology; those will be implemented through existing mechanisms, such as academic placements and working-level dialogues. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that a committee on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology is established under the BBNJ agreement and will be constituted under the direction of the Conference of the Parties; the committee’s role will include monitoring and reviewing these activities.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the UK Government to have regard to economic and infrastructural consequences of regulations made to implement area-based management tool decisions of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. It highlights specifically the impacts of such regulations on submarine communication cables and shipping lanes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that consideration of such consequences and impacts would be required before a decision is made by the Conference of the Parties on an area-based management tool.
Article 19 in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement provides detail on what elements must be included in an area-based management tool proposal. This includes identifying human activities in the area, which would include details on shipping lanes, submarine cables and other infrastructure in the proposal area. Article 21 of the BBNJ agreement also ensures that consultation on the proposal is inclusive, transparent and open to all relevant stakeholders, states and other bodies. Through that consultation process—as well as through our role in the International Maritime Organization, which regulates shipping globally—the UK can directly express views on any economic and infrastructural consequences of the proposed area-based management tool. As a state party, the UK would also have the opportunity to express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, including whether or not we could support it.
Furthermore, the BBNJ agreement provides that parties to the agreement should strengthen and enhance co-operation with relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. The International Maritime Organization is already well aware of the BBNJ agreement and is increasingly devoting resources to considering how it will engage with the process of the agreement, including through active involvement at the current BBNJ preparatory commission meetings.
On Amendments 5 and 5A from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which concern shipping insurance, I can confirm that the BBNJ Bill is concerned with implementing the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—I will repeat this point frequently throughout our considerations—and is not a vehicle for regulating shipping insurance or insurance markets more generally. In any event, UK ships are already required to carry appropriate insurance under existing domestic and international maritime frameworks. The issue that the amendment seeks to address is better dealt with through established merchant shipping legislation. For those reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary for this Bill.
I turn to Amendments 11 and 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendment 11 proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct, within six months—and to be repeated every Parliament, as well as reported to Parliament—a review on the use of flags of convenience, their impact on biodiversity and the UK’s enforcement against such ships. Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that defines “flag of convenience”. Again, these amendments are not strictly necessary for the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement, but I can see why the noble Lord has tabled them.
The nationality of ships and the duties of flag states are covered, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, by Part VII of UNCLOS. This has a broader application than the BBNJ agreement; the BBNJ Bill is, therefore, not a suitable vehicle for addressing these issues. The UK’s recent International Maritime Organization audit, where it was rated as “excellent”, shows the importance to the UK of meeting its flag state obligations and responsibilities. However, this Bill is about meeting the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement, and these amendments are not required for that specific purpose.
Finally, Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act in relation to several areas: access to marine genetic resource samples and digital sequence information data; enforcement actions taken; the impact on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; and any regulatory changes made under the Act. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the various reporting requirements included in this amendment are disproportionate to the value that they would provide. There is also a risk that they could duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing the information for the reports. However, I can confirm that the Government already intend to conduct a post-implementation review within five years of the Act being passed, in order to assess its effectiveness.
The Bill provides for powers to make regulations on enforcement. When any such regulations are made in future, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration at that point. When they are introduced, regulations to establish an enforcement regime under Part 2 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny without the need for additional statutory reporting. Subsection 2(d) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Act
“on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry”.
The impact assessment published by the Government indicates that the likely effect of the Bill on business will be minimal; no significant impact on the fishing industry is expected. Fishing is exempt from the notification and other requirements in Part 2 on marine genetic resources.
In relation to Part 3, for activities such as fishing, we expect that measures relating to area-based management tools will be implemented by existing means. It is therefore unlikely that we will need to create new regulations under Clause 11 for this purpose.
Part 4 does not make express provision in relation to fishing activities. It provides for the legislative changes necessary to implement the provisions in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement regarding environmental impact assessments only as they apply to activities within the remit of a domestic marine licensing regime. Engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements in Part 2 of the Bill are unlikely to impose a significant burden. The BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and by supporting scientific and technological development.
For these reasons, we do not think that these amendments are necessary.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding. I understand why the Minister and the Government do not want this fairly simple Bill to become a Christmas tree of legislation; most of the amendments are probing amendments and not things on which we are ever going to vote, so I think we all agree on that. However, I am somewhat disappointed that the Government’s view is to make the Bill incredibly narrow in just getting it to the point of ratification, whereas, at Second Reading, there was a general feeling that there be ambition here. I do not sense the ambition. Even if the Government and the Minister do not want to put anything in the Bill—I would probably agree with that—do they think that offshoring is going to be an issue? Have they even thought about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are cognisant of what the noble Lord is alerting the Committee to; we just do not think that this is the right Bill to consider those things. Additionally, it is difficult to think about how we would legislate here in the UK for activities that happen under another jurisdiction. The noble Lord knows what this Bill is about, but it is important to raise these things; the only way to get a debate is to table an amendment, and the noble Lord has used that tool effectively. It is good to raise this issue and remind us that this agreement is limited: it does not do everything that we might wish to do around the protection of the oceans. We should be open about that; the way in which the noble Lord has tabled and spoken to his amendment achieves that.
“Plastic pollution and marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising functions under this Act, have regard to the risks to the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from plastic pollution, in accordance to the preamble to the Agreement.(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a statement (“the plastic pollution statement”) setting out—(a) the Government’s assessment of the actual and potential impacts of plastic pollution on the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction,(b) the measures the Government proposes to take, through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, to prevent, reduce and monitor such pollution, and(c) how those measures are intended to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction and to the objectives of the Agreement.(3) In particular, the statement must address—(a) how the United Kingdom will, as appropriate—(i) co-operate with the International Maritime Organization and other competent international organisations to promote the adoption and effective implementation of mandatory measures to prevent and respond to plastic pollution from ships;(ii) support the development of regionally and globally coordinated monitoring, reporting and data-sharing on plastic pollution, including its presence in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(iii) encourage best practice standards across the plastic supply chain, including in relation to the containment, packaging, labelling and handling of plastic intended for transport by sea;(b) any proposals to support capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific research related to the detection, tracking and mitigation of plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in co-operation with developing States.(4) In preparing and revising the plastic pollution statement the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; (b) such persons as the Secretary of State considers representative of the scientific community, civil society, affected coastal communities and industry sectors involved in the manufacture, handling, shipping and use of plastic;(c) such international organisations and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must—(a) publish the first plastic pollution statement within the period of 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) lay the statement, and any revised statement, before Parliament.(6) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every Parliament, review the plastic pollution statement and, if appropriate, revise it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks posed to marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction by plastic pollution arising from activities under UK jurisdiction or control.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 10 are concerned with plastics pollution. Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks to marine biodiversity of plastics pollution that arise from activities that are either under UK control or within UK jurisdiction. This is especially important given that the global treaty on plastics is stuck in dispute.
Plastics pollution in the oceans is subject to ocean currents and the polluter, the originator of that plastic, is often in a very different part of the world from the polluted seas and beaches that result from it. The first time this struck me with such force was when I was in Mexico in the biosphere known as Sian Ka’an, in Yucatan. There were incredibly unspoiled, amazing beaches and very little population. I could not understand why the beaches were covered in plastic, especially plastic shoes. They were sweeping up from South America on the currents.
As the BBNJ comes into effect, besides an effort to lessen what goes into the ocean, it will need, and has provision to include, remediation and removal activities. The agreement sets out the process for the submission of proposals by states and the review of the same. Does the UK yet have proposals that it intends to submit? What is the UK doing on ocean plastics and what does it need to do?
The UK is very active in the International Maritime Organization talks working towards future mandatory rules to reduce risk from nurdles—plastic pellets that are transported by sea in freight containers. The Government have also supported the global plastics pollution treaty, which I referred to earlier, are seeking commitments to reduce all sorts of plastics entering the oceans and have developed standards through the BSI.
All of that is very positive, but they have not yet introduced binding national legislation to prevent nurdle loss. This is very topical, because of that huge loss that ended up on Camber Sands from a sewage plant. The UK has no binding laws that specifically regulate the transport, storage, reporting or mandatory spill prevention of plastic pellets in the way that the EU’s new plastic pellet regulation does. I know that UK Ministers have said that there are no current plans to align UK regulations with the EU’s stricter pellet transport regulations and storage requirements, but will the Government rethink this in the light of joining this treaty? That is another example of where we could take much better action now that we are part of a treaty that concerns the oceans.
Ultimately, we have to switch from using so much fossil fuel-based plastics to using biodegradable plant-based products, and renewable energy in place of fossil fuels, so that our oceans stop warming and acidifying. The two things are incredibly linked. It is a multi- generational challenge, but this treaty is a terrific step on the road. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I very much support Amendment 6. In fact, most of the amendments in this group are sensible. Forgive my ignorance, but surely if we pass the criteria for the international treaty, what is to stop us adding things to the Bill? Is there anything? We could, could we not? It would be irrelevant for the international treaty, but relevant for our Government. Quite honestly—I am looking around the table at all these plastic bottles—our plastic use is horrendous. That is what this amendment is about. It is within the scope of the Bill and speaks directly to the aim of what we are trying to do.
The agreement’s preamble is clear. It recognises the need to address biodiversity loss in the ocean caused not just by climate change but by pollution, specifically plastic pollution. In other words, plastic is not just a side issue here; it is identified as one of the core pressures driving the destruction of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Plastic pollution is now found throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed, in some of the most remote parts of the seas. It causes injury and death, enters the food chain as microplastics and adds further stress to ecosystems already under strain. One floating patch of plastic out on the remote sea is three times the size of France. It is not the only giant patch. We are producing roughly the same weight of plastic each year as the weight of humans on the planet, and that is projected to keep going up. I do not know who put these plastic bottles here, but can we please complain about that? What is wrong with refilling glass bottles? I do not understand why we would add to the problem.
Amendment 6 is about making sure that, when we have a chance to make a difference and improve our sea, we can do so. The Government need to set out how they will assess and respond to the risks that plastic pollution poses and how the UK will work with international partners to reduce and monitor that harm. The amendment would help ensure that the UK takes every opportunity to lead rather than leave a recognised threat unaddressed.
Having suggested that the UK could lead on this, I feel it is rather undermined by the fact that most of our own marine protected areas are barely protected at all. There is bottom trawling, dredging and overfishing. We need to sort that out for ourselves. Signing up to international treaties is brilliant—it is good to work with other countries—but not if we cannot even manage our own resources. The five-year review is fantastic, but what about a five-year review of our own marine protected areas? The human use of plastic and fossil fuels is driving our destruction. I do not understand why the whole House cannot see that—in fact, the whole population.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.
On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.
The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.
I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said. As the Minister knows, I very strongly support the Bill and welcome it, but it seems that there is a gap here.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but I strongly identify with her views. I very much hope that, when the Minister replies, she will be able either to accept the amendment or tell us why it is not needed and give us the assurance that the noble Baroness asked for. I asked about this at Second Reading, but I did not receive a reply when the Minister was winding up—perhaps she did not have enough time to do so—so it would be nice if we could hear from her on that today.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 7A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, even though he has not yet introduced them.
The Chagos Islands are a globally important area. This is the first time in the documented history of the human race that a marine protected area of this importance and scale has changed hands, so we have to get this right. The treaty on the Chagos Islands makes remarkably little reference to the fact that this major marine protected area exists and is hugely environmentally important. Mauritius does not recognise the marine protected area in its current format and has drafted its own. It accords with the IUCN principles, which is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before we have a final version of it.
The biggest problem is that Mauritius has no means of monitoring or enforcing this marine protected area. It has two ocean-going vessels and two small aircraft. Neither of the aircraft is large enough to reach the Chagos Islands and, even if they could reach the islands, they would not be allowed to refuel, and therefore they could not come back. That is a flaw in the monitoring arrangements.
I declare an interest as vice-president of BirdLife International. We have had considerably good relationships with the Mauritian Government about some recovery important endangered species. The first was the Mauritius kestrel, which was virtually down to single figures but is now thriving to the point where it is predating the second species that we worked with them on, the Mauritius pink pigeon. I always think that when two endangered species start living on each other, that probably means that they are out of the danger zone.
However, the record of the Mauritian Government on marine issues is incredibly poor. We know how difficult monitoring and enforcement is in that part of the world. If you have boats and planes, they run up against Chinese influence. In the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the wider Pacific, fisheries enforcement is already extremely difficult, so I very much support what I think the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will say on his Amendments 7 and 7A.
However, will the Minister tell us what proportion of the UK funding to Mauritius under the treaty has been earmarked for environmental protection? What do we, as a Government, intend to do about knowledge transfer where we have traditional links to build up biodiversity science and expertise in Mauritius? We will need to do that in bucketloads in order to look after the Chagos Islands properly. Will the Government communicate with and exercise influence over Mauritius to ensure that legislation is passed to prevent the commercial exploitation—whether through fishing or mining or for other reasons—of these incredibly important waters and the archipelago that exists within them?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 8, 9 and 15. Amendments 8 and 9 would do a similar thing to my noble friend Lady Miller’s amendment, in that they would add to the licence conditions not just plastic—I agree entirely with my noble friend’s comments on that—but the proper protection of populations beyond national jurisdictions and the deep seabed. These amendments are the least probing ones to this clause. It would be very straight- forward to apply them to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A lot has moved on over the years, but these three areas—plastic, fisheries and the deep seabed—are hugely relevant now. These amendments would save the Government having to amend the 2009 Act on another occasion.
My Amendment 15 is more probing. Having said that, I feel very strongly about how we manage fisheries on the high seas. That is a huge problem. It is estimated that something like 40% of all stocks on the high seas are currently overfished. We have huge problems with by-catch of non-target species. Then there is something I used to know as Klondiking, which is the transfer of fish from smaller vessels to large factory vessels in the open sea; it is a method usually employed by illegal, unreported and unregulated—IUU—fisheries. This is a big issue.
The irony is that anybody outside this area of knowledge would probably be surprised that fisheries do not really appear in the BBNJ. What does it do? In effect, it says that we are going to delegate this issue to the management regimes that are out there now—that is, the regional fisheries management organisations—and let them get on with it as they have done in previous years. We are a member of five of those organisations: two to do with tuna, two to do with the Atlantic and one to do with salmon.
That work is important. The fact that the organisations are there is good, but their processes are rather weak, certainly in terms of enforcement, by-catch and data, because they can deal only with single species, rather than the biosphere or ecological systems as a whole. On trans-shipment and the lack of observers, there are no rules for any species other than the specific ones on which nations are agreed. There is a real issue here. If we want this treaty to be successful, and if we want our high seas to reflect our slightly better management of fisheries in our own EEZs, this area needs to be improved.
How do we do that? We could do it through better-supported state control and flag state control, providing enforcement and expanding their remit. As a maritime nation, the UK has an obligation to try to make these organisations work hugely better, in the spirit of international agreements on biodiversity beyond national boundaries.
This is particularly the case with IUU. I was privileged to be a board member of the Marine Management Organisation over six years. I remember an IUU case to do with tuna off west Africa. Proving it and getting what you needed to bring it to court was so complicated and difficult—though I understand why—that the regulator, the MMO, just did not have the money to do it. The potential offenders had much deeper pockets than the enforcers and regulators. In the end, as so often happens with these things, it went to HMRC under money laundering regulations.
I have one question for the Minister. How many successful prosecutions of IUU have there been recently? She could come back to me in writing. This is a really important issue. We are all in favour of stopping illegal, unreported and irregular fisheries, but the resources to do so are difficult to get. I would be interested to hear what success we have had on that recently and how the UK might strengthen the work of at least the five regional fisheries management organisations that we are a member of.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support Amendments 6, 8 and 10. I pay tribute to the Minister for the commitment that she is giving to the Bill. It is absolutely right that we align ourselves with the treaty and are able to be participants at the first Conference of the Parties. I thank her for the thoroughness with which she is going through it.
I do not want to repeat the excellent speeches that have been made, but on Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think there is a role for the UK here in international thought leadership. I suspect that the Minister will resist these amendments, but I am keen to understand the Government’s ambition and what they want to see happen. If not within this Bill, where might areas, such as mineral extraction from the deep sea and plastics, play a part in their ambition to be a global leader on the environment?
On plastic pollution, we know that its durability means that it persists in the ocean. Noble Lords have mentioned seeing, on their holidays, bottles and other bits of marine plastic washed up on the shore. They take ages to break down, so it is vital that we prevent plastics going into river courses and oceans. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, almost every species group in the ocean has encountered plastic pollution, with scientists observing negative effects in almost 90% of assessed species. It is vital that plastic pollution, because it is trans-boundary and moves within ocean currents, is included within international agreements, so what might His Majesty’s Government do to try to bring influence to that, so that the scourge of plastic pollution might be eliminated in our lifetimes?
Secondly, I speak in support of Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which looks at the deep seabeds and how they are protected through the use of marine licences. We need to remember that the deep sea is the oldest and largest biome on earth, and of crucial importance. We have to stop the irreversible damage before it is too late. It is full of remarkable biodiversity, much of it still unknown, uncharted and awaiting the wonder of discovery. The marine sediments lock up carbon; they are great carbon sinks that need to be protected as well. Where is the Government’s ambition around the prevention of damage to the deep seabeds, particularly with the demands for extracting materials? Where is the thought leadership that is going to be provided?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Defra is attached to about 160 global treaties regarding various aspects of the environment, several of which have been discussed today. I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding environmental principles. I am hoping the Minister will say that these will automatically apply—not regardless of whether the amendment happens, but because they are already in effect—because my interpretation of the Environment Act is that it should not matter where the policy is being applied. If it is UK government policy, then Ministers are supposed to be bound by the duties as set out. I cannot remember whether they were set out in 2022 or 2023.
I do not need to add anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said on her support for the MPA around the Chagos Islands and that territory. I recognise the importance, but it is worth thinking about some other issues that have been raised. Noble Lords may be rightly aware that multiple treaties already cover a number of these issues; they may be in place but not enforced as widely as we would like, particularly on EU fishing. They already extend to our international waters, not just what is within the economic zone.
One thing that may be helpful is a brief update on where we are with the plastics treaty, because the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should be covered in that comprehensive new treaty. I know that negotiations got somewhat stalled in Geneva. I expect all parties are still trying to find a way forward, but it should deal in particular with disposal. With that, I hope that the Minister can give us assurances on a variety of issues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for making me feel guilty for drinking from my plastic water bottle. I hope my cardboard cup is okay—but probably not, because it has plastic on its inside.
I have a number of amendments in this group touching on the issues of marine biodiversity in the seas around the Chagos Archipelago, the impact of industrial fishing practices used by the Chinese fishing fleet and the sustainability of our own domestic fishing fleet. In the debates on the Chagos Bill, we debated at length the marine protected area that will, we hope, be established under the UK treaty with Mauritius. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support.
That treaty will allow the UK to influence decisions about marine biodiversity beyond the extent of national jurisdiction, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to propose an MPA for certain parts of the Indian Ocean? Have Ministers undertaken any assessment of the benefits that might be achieved for biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago if an MPA were implemented on the deep ocean around the islands, to complement the existing one?
This leads on well to the question of which areas are expected to be subject to an MPA first. Can the Minister confirm what conversations the Government have had with their counterparts representing other co-signatories to the treaty about establishing future MPAs? Where do we expect the first MPAs to be located?
Lord Teverson (LD)
As this is Committee, I very much welcome the amendment around the Chinese. It is not just the Chinese, as the noble Lord will know, since a lot of east Asian states have a real issue over this. On the deep-sea fisheries, all the Norwegian, UK and EU agreements are purely within EEZs, which this treaty does not cover. The sad thing is that, as far as I am aware, the UK has only one deep-sea fishing vessel. It operates out of Hull into the Barents Sea. That one vessel shows where we are these days in terms of our fishing ability as a nation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his insight. The Committee benefits hugely from his knowledge and experience on this.
This group of amendments relates to environmental protection and the sustainable management of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Let me start by restating that the BBNJ agreement represents a significant step forward in the conservation of the global ocean, enabling stronger protection for the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction. I accept everything that noble Lords said about what more could be done and what they would like the Government to consider. That is not what we are doing today, but that does not mean that the arguments being presented are wrong or even that the Government disagree with them.
The Government’s intention is to make sure that we get this legislation done as quickly as possible in order for us to be able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. We do not yet have a date for that, but it could happen very soon. Some of the issues being raised can be thrashed out in that context, and we think that that is the way to make more progress internationally. That does not mean that the things being raised, particularly on plastics, transshipments and all the rest of it, are not important. It is good that we raise them at every opportunity, but the Bill will play an important role in supporting delivery of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
The Bill provides the domestic legal framework needed to implement fully the agreement in the UK. It includes provisions to support the designation and management of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, establish robust environmental impact assessment requirements, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the collection and use of marine genetic resources. Taken together, these measures will strengthen environmental protection, promote the sustainable use of marine biodiversity and reinforce the UK’s leadership in the stewardship of the global ocean. I thought the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about thought leadership were important. I do not know whether I will be able to assure him today about that, but I very much welcome what he had to say.
I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Jones, for Amendment 6, which would require the Secretary of State to publish—and, subsequently, to review and revise—a statement regarding the impact of plastic pollution on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We think that a separate plastic pollution statement would duplicate provisions already embedded in the BBNJ agreement, providing limited additional value while increasing legal complexity.
The impacts of plastic pollution are already considered under existing UK processes. For example, under Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
“the … licensing authority must have regard to … the need to protect the environment”
when considering marine licence applications. Preventing plastic pollution is an example of such an environmental consideration. In addition, under the IMO, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is the main international convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships. However, a separate process is under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty.
Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue, and prevention at source is key. A treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics is what we need to address this issue. The UK fully supports the plastic pollution treaty having robust monitoring and assessment procedures, as well as collaboration between future parties to this instrument, to monitor and assess plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, the BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; it is, therefore, not the best place to address plastic pollution across the life cycle.
I turn to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, a report on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas in parts of the Indian Ocean that are beyond national jurisdiction on marine biodiversity in the area around the Chagos Archipelago. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply fully with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement that require domestic implementation and, therefore, to allow us to ratify the agreement—noble Lords are going to get really fed up with me repeating that. The requirements under this clause go beyond the intent of the Bill. However, the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity across the Chagos Archipelago. Both have committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments.
The development of future marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement is a matter for the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. This process has several steps—including initial proposal review, consultation and scientific review—before a proposal goes to the Conference of the Parties for a decision. These proposals will be developed by parties in collaboration and consultation with relevant states and stakeholders, as appropriate. They will be formulated based on the best available science and, where available, on relevant traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Once established, these MPAs will be monitored and periodically reviewed by the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body.
As a party to the Conference of the Parties, the UK will be part of the decision-making process and will be able to agree on measures including marine protected areas. We expect that the first area-based management tools will not be established until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest, due to the need first to establish the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body, which will review proposals, and to allow for other important aspects of the process, such as consultation, to take place. For the reasons above, we think that this amendment is not necessary.
Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are similar in intent. These amendments would require the licensing authority to have due regard to protecting the deep-sea seabed and sustainable fishing and to preventing plastic pollution when determining an application for a marine licence. These amendments are not necessary, because Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to “protect the environment” and
“to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”.
Protecting the deep-sea seabed and preventing plastic pollution are examples of environmental considerations to which licensing authorities would have due regard when considering marine licence applications. Sustainable fishing would be considered a legitimate use of the sea and would therefore be given due regard by licensing authorities when considering an application.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require the Government to develop and regularly update a published strategy setting out how they will conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction in relation to fishing activities. Amendment 7A, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on the impacts of Chinese industrial fishing on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the potential role of marine protected areas in addressing those impacts.
The requirements of these amendments go beyond the intent of the Bill. They are already covered elsewhere, or can be implemented via other appropriate means, and are therefore not necessary. The Fisheries Act 2020 governs UK fishing activities and provides the legal framework for licensing and regulating fishing and fishing-related activities. Preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is addressed under the UK’s IUU control regulations. These regulations establish a framework for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of fisheries, and ensure that seafood entering the UK is not linked to IUU fishing.
Furthermore, the UK is a party to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Parties to this agreement are required to ensure that the
“conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”,
including in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Parties are required to collaborate to achieve these objectives, including via regional fisheries bodies, and must ensure that fisheries do not seriously threaten wider ecosystems and biodiversity.
The BBNJ agreement creates a stronger ocean governance framework that supports and encourages co-operation with other relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. It provides that parties
“shall endeavour to promote … the objectives of this Agreement when participating in decision-making”
under such organisations. These include regional fisheries management organisations and the Agreement on Port State Measures, which directly target unsustainable fishing practices—including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We are working across departments to ensure a consistent UK position on interactions between the BBNJ agreement and relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies to which the UK is a member.
Amendment 18, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement on the UK fishing fleet. To require a report to be published six months after the BBNJ Act is passed is disproportionate. As I mentioned previously, we expect that the first area-based management tools will not be published until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest.
Timings for the Conference of the Parties meetings are still to be decided but may be every one to two years. The first Conference of the Parties meeting must take place by 16 January 2027. Once it has ratified the BBNJ agreement, the UK, as well as relevant stakeholders, such as the fishing industry and regional fisheries management organisations, will have the opportunity to consider any impacts of a potential BBNJ marine protected area on fishing activities before any decision is made by the Conference of the Parties. Any impacts on the UK fishing fleet would be better raised through the process, rather than after a marine protected area has been established. The UK can also express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, as well as whether we would support it. We will carefully consider any future proposals to understand any potential impacts on the UK fishing industry.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In the future, if required, the UK will give effect to decisions made by the future Conference of the Parties. Those decisions will reflect the principles and approaches in Article 7 of the BBNJ agreement. Individual decisions, such as those on marine licence applications, are not within the scope of the environmental principles duty, which applies only to Ministers of the Crown when making policy; that includes proposals for legislation but does not include an administrative decision taken in relation to a particular person or case. In any event, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine Management Organisation must not grant a licence to carry out any activity that is contrary to international law; the MMO applies the precautionary principle when determining licence applications. For these reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I ask the Minister something? I am so sorry if she already responded to this; if she did, I did not catch it. We could simply pass this Bill—I understand the urgency here—but we could also add something to it. I do not accept that a lot of the things we have talked about are included anywhere else. Those things are simply put and explicit in the amendments here. I do not understand why the Government would not think about just adding them to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right; I did not reply to that point. She will be neither surprised nor pleased to hear that that is not the Government’s intention. We want to get this Bill through in order to get on with being able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. The view of Defra Ministers is, I think, that we ought to consult on or consider any additional measures in the light of other decisions being made. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness wants to hear today—I hope that she does not interpret this as any disinclination from the Government to move forward on the things that I know matter so much to her—but that is not what we want to do with this piece of legislation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken and brought their insights and expertise to the debate. I am very glad that it emphasised the issues around overfishing; it will be quite a task for the BBNJ treaty to get anywhere with that, because it is such an issue. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the sheer size of the Chinese fleet.
I thank the Minister for listing the actions that this country is taking on domestic plastic, particularly on its reduction. She will forgive me if I missed it, but I think that there was a question on what is happening now with the global plastics treaty. I take it that there is nothing further to say on that because it is still in discussion; we await some news on that.
On overfishing, we often talk about the fish stocks that we eat, such as tuna or salmon, but one that often comes up when you talk to experts is krill, because it is at the absolute bottom of the food chain. I hope that, if there is a chance to take issues to the next COP, the UK might choose to raise the issue of krill, on which the whole food chain depends.
In the meantime, I thank the Committee for this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Screening and procedure(1) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (S.S.I 2017/115) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation)—(a) in paragraph (1), after the definition of “application website” insert—““area beyond national jurisdiction” has the meaning given by Article 1(2) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement; “BBNJ works” means the carrying out of a regulated activity that engages the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (environmental impact assessments) in respect of an activity in an area beyond national jurisdiction;“the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement” means the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, opened for signature at New York on 20 September 2023;”;(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “EIA project”—(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit “either”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; or(c) BBNJ works where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the works may cause—(i) substantial pollution, or(ii) significant and harmful changes to,the marine environment;”;(c) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “environmental information”—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c);(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and(e) in relation to BBNJ works that are an EIA project, any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 31(1)(b) and (c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement;”;(d) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “regulated activity”, at the end insert “(see also paragraph (1B))”;(e) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Terms used in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) of the definition of “EIA project” have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)(b)).(1B) Where the requirement for a marine licence, or variation of a marine licence, under Part 4 of the 2010 Act for works in an area beyond national jurisdiction depends on the application of these Regulations (including the doing or not doing of anything under these Regulations), these Regulations have effect as if such a licence or variation were required unless and until the application of these Regulations produces a different result.”(3) In regulation 8 (exemptions)—(a) in paragraph (4), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “apply” insert “in respect of schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works”;(b) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may direct that these Regulations do not require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in relation to BBNJ works if they are satisfied that an equivalent assessment has been carried out, is being carried out or will be carried out in relation to the works.(4B) The Scottish Ministers may not grant a regulatory approval for BBNJ works in respect of which a direction under paragraph (4A) has been given unless they have determined that to do so would be compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.(4C) For the purposes of paragraph (4A), an assessment is an equivalent assessment if it is sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.” (4) In regulation 9 (general provisions relating to screening)—(a) in paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”;(b) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (a)(ii);(c) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) insert “; and(c) in the case of BBNJ works, have regard to any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 30(1)(b) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(d) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where the Scottish Ministers adopt a screening opinion in relation to BBNJ works to the effect that the works are not an EIA project, the screening opinion must also contain provision stating whether the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(5) In regulation 12 (application without prior screening)—(a) in paragraph (1)(a), for “or an application to carry out schedule 2 works” substitute “schedule 2 works or BBNJ works”;(b) for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in relation to the proposed works.”(c) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed BBNJ works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in any case where the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the proposed works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the proposed works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Where the Scottish Ministers decide that paragraph (2A) does not apply in respect of proposed BBNJ works, they must give the applicant a notice stating that the proposed works do not require an environmental impact assessment.(2C) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(d) in paragraph (3), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”.(6) In regulation 13 (EIA application made without an EIA report), in paragraph (3)(b), after “12(2)” insert or “12(2A)”.(7) In Schedule 4 (information for inclusion in environmental impact assessment reports)—(a) after paragraph 9 insert—“(9A) In relation to BBNJ works, any other information that is necessary to enable the Scottish Ministers to give effect to Article 31(1)(c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(b) in paragraph 10, for “9” substitute “9A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make changes to Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 that are necessary for the purpose of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the scope and exercise of regulatory powers under the Bill, including the making of regulations. Government Amendments 12, 13 and 14 tabled in my name relate to Clause 18, which was originally included in the Bill to give Scottish Ministers the power to amend the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 for BBNJ purposes. Following work with officials from the Scottish Government and given the timeline for ratification, we would prefer to make the necessary changes directly in the Bill.
These changes will help ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their EIA regulations with Clause 15 and officials from the Scottish Government have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, the amendments also limit the Clause 18 power to implementing only Article 38 standards or guidelines, reflecting that a wider power is no longer required as other changes will be made directly through the Bill. We continue to work with the Scottish Government to secure the legislative consent Motion for this Bill, which we would expect to be passed prior to the final amending stage in the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have amendments in this group that are pretty straightforward. In essence, it is somewhat frustrating to see that further regulations or commencements need to be made. Candidly, these would have to be done before ratification anyway, so why do we not just get on with it? We have been waiting a long time for this Bill. The clock is ticking and these amendments could be made, hopefully by Report, so that we do not have to keep revisiting this situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can also be brief because this side of the Committee has no concerns about the Government’s amendments. I thank the Minister for introducing this group.
My single amendment in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three years of the Act coming into effect, on the exercise of powers granted under this legislation. As I said in the first group, when we are granting wide powers to Ministers, it is important to have transparency and accountability. This is a simple and measured amendment that simply asks for a report after three years, when enough time has passed to see the treaty operating properly. I hope the Minister will either accept it or commit the Government to publishing the same details in due course.
Finally, I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Coffey. These are eminently sensible and seek to remove the need for further regulations. I hope the Government will look at them favourably and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by the Bill. A report would be required within three years after the Act has passed. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the amendment is not necessary as any regulations created under the powers in the Bill would already be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There will also be a post-implementation review conducted five years after the Act is passed.
As we currently do not know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, this approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review implementation of what is by then the Act at a more appropriate point. The proposed three years in this amendment may well be slightly premature. We are not expecting the powers conferred by the Act to be used to create many new regulations, especially not in the first few years. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred on them by the Act to make regulations, these regulations would already be subject to scrutiny in Parliament through either the affirmative or negative procedure.
In response to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I get the “hurry up” message, but these amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to commence the operative provisions of the Bill at a later date or dates, so that all provisions of the Bill would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I am afraid to disappoint the noble Baroness, but the Government cannot support these amendments. The current position allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the obligations imposed by the BBNJ Bill come into force only when the BBNJ agreement obligations become binding on the UK as a matter of international law, 30 days after the UK has ratified the BBNJ agreement.
The UK will ratify the BBNJ agreement only once all relevant legislation has been passed. This includes secondary legislation passed under powers conferred by the BBNJ Bill. The suggested amendments would not speed up the UK ratification of the agreement. Instead, they would just mean that domestic legislative requirements are imposed before the corresponding international obligations become binding on the UK. This would create disparity between the international and domestic regimes, leading to legal uncertainty. However, I take her amendments as a mark of encouragement and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
Commencement regulation-making powers are standard provisions in Bills, as the noble Baroness knows, giving effect to the long-standing convention that there should be a two-month interval before the commencement of operative provisions of any Act, to give those affected by the new legislation time to acclimatise and adapt. In short, these powers ensure a smooth and legally robust transition from Royal Assent to the point at which the BBNJ agreement obligations bind the UK, which is why the Government are resisting these amendments today.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I understand what the Minister is saying: that sometimes, not everything can come into effect. However, it can be written into the Bill that it comes into effect two months later. We do not have to go through the various bureaucratic processes—never mind PBL but JCSI and all the other elements—which just take time, as she is finding out. I am surprised to hear that it will not affect our delaying of a ratification date of the treaty overall. I have heard what the Minister said but just encourage her to make progress before Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will consider it further. We are unlikely to change our position, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her constant support for getting this done. That is very much the spirit in which the Government intend to proceed as well.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 17, which would mean that the power conferred on Scottish Ministers by clause 18 can be limited to implementing Article 38 standards or guidelines (as with the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 16(1)).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 16, line 10.