Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

4: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations and through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, make provision for the prevention, control and remediation of pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from the manufacture, handling, transport, storage, loading or unloading of plastic pellets, flakes or powders.(2) Measures taken under this section must aim to secure a level of environmental protection that is no less effective than the measures set out in the International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee Circular MEPC.1/Circ.909, as approved in 2024.(3) Regulations under this section must, in particular, include provision—(a) requiring operators to implement mandatory procedures to prevent the loss of plastic pellets throughout the supply chain in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(b) requiring containment, spill-prevention, recovery and clean-up measures in areas beyond national jurisdiction consistent with internationally recognised best practice; (c) requiring training, documentation and internal controls relating to pellet loss prevention in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(d) requiring the prompt reporting of any loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction to the appropriate authority;(e) providing for the remediation of environmental harm and the recovery of associated costs from the responsible operator;(f) providing for monitoring, inspection of, and enforcement against, the loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including civil sanctions;(g) requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to evidence of the effectiveness of measures adopted by parties to the International Maritime Organization, including measures adopted pursuant to the implementation of MEPC.1/Circ.909 by international signatories, including the European Union.(4) Regulations under this section must be made within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it as well. This is a very important issue that we debated at length in Committee. The reason I am bringing something back on Report, albeit in a more focused form just dealing with plastic pellets, is that plastic generally is one of the huge problems that the ocean needs to have addressed, but the plastic pellet issue is something that the Government could choose to do a lot more about monitoring, evaluating and regulating.

It is notable that the European Union has made regulations about pellets. The loss at sea during shipping of these pellets, which form the basis of plastic wherever it is manufactured, is estimated to be 10 trillion pellets annually, with 10 million tonnes apparently lost within European Union waters, so it is a massive problem the sheer scale of which is hard to imagine. Some of the losses get into the sea and wash out from our own sewage plants—that, again, is something that I am sure the Government will look at. I would like the Minister’s assurance today that through some vehicle in the future, whether it is the forthcoming water White Paper or whatever, they will address this issue of plastic pellets, firming up on how people shipping them are trained, the regulation of it and how they are contained on ships—everything to do with the shipping of them—because the scale of the loss is unsupportable and every country needs to take action on it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is an extremely good amendment, and I urge the Minister to pick it up at some future date. This is such a good amendment that it should go into legislation somewhere.

In Committee, we heard at length and with real concern about the scale and persistence of plastic pollution in our oceans. Much of that discussion centred on consumable plastics and waste, but plastic pellets, flakes and powders are equally serious and often overlooked in legislation. These losses might be small in individual incidents, although some might be extremely large, but they are cumulative and, in effect, irretrievable and irreversible once they have happened.

We are looking ahead, apparently, to a global plastics treaty, which I am very excited about. That process is obviously welcome, but the urgency of the problem means that we should take every available opportunity to act now, particularly where there is already an international consensus on best practice.

What I welcome very much about this amendment is its practical focus. This would stop the plastic pellets getting into the sea in the first place instead of our trying to mop them up and recover them later which is, as I said, impossible.

I will also speak to my Amendment 9 on the exemptions in the Bill. Clause 18 seeks to strengthen confidence in how environmental impact assessments are applied. It worries me that there are so many exemptions. Again, I would very much appreciate it if the Minister took this issue up. My amendment is supported by WildFish, an organisation with extensive expertise in marine conservation, whose work highlights the importance of making sure that decisions to rely on exemptions are transparent, on a case-by-case basis, and ensure that there is an equivalence that meets Part IV of the BBNJ agreement and Article 206 of UNCLOS. This amendment would clearly set out that test. Where an appropriate authority determines that a formal environmental impact assessment is not required, that determination should rest on the existence of another assessment being in place that is equivalently robust.

The amendment would also ensure that the reasoning behind such decisions was recorded and published, with the idea to keep decisions transparent and uphold public trust. In particular, there are difficulties in relying on regional fisheries management organisations as a substitute for BBNJ-aligned environmental assessment. Although RFMOs play an important role in managing fishing effort and target stocks, their processes do not routinely deliver full assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors, of effects on food webs and non-target species, or of the full implications for migratory species that cross jurisdictional boundaries. I would be very happy to talk to the Minister in more detail about this and I hope to see it in a future Bill. I would like to have moved this amendment, but we are obviously in a hurry to complete the Bill, so I have held off, but it is incredibly important that we do not allow exemptions without understanding why they have happened and the fact that they have not been recorded properly.

As interest grows in new industries, such as open ocean aquaculture, the potential environmental impacts, ranging from disease and growth in parasites to genetic impacts from escapes and reliance on wild-caught fish, are even more important. We are seeing this in salmon farms at the moment: escaped fish covered in all sorts of rather nasty things spread to wild fish and cross-breed, which is deeply unhealthy for the wild fish. I would welcome the Minister putting on record how the Government intend to apply these equivalence criteria in practice, particularly in view of the regional fisheries management organisations. I would like reassurance that exemptions in any future legislation will be applied narrowly and cautiously; that equivalence will be actively tested and not just assumed; that reliance on regional organisations alone will not automatically justify exemption; and that future high-risk activities will be subject to BBNJ-aligned screening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to environmental protection and plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I thank them for it—would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction within 12 months of the BBNJ Act being passed.

The Government fully recognise the seriousness of plastic pollution in the marine environment, including the particular harms caused by plastic pellet loss. It is a matter of genuine public concern as well. The noble Baronesses have been tireless advocates for action in this area, and I am pleased that they have used the opportunity today to raise this issue again.

The Government are taking steps to address the issue through existing regulatory channels. For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships under the International Maritime Organization already requires the reporting of the discharge, both accidental or deliberate, of any harmful substance covered by the convention and sets out how this report must be made. Discussions on regulating plastic pellets under the convention are currently ongoing in the IMO, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for addressing the implementation of these regulations. The UK implements Annex V of this convention through the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020, which prohibits any discharge of plastic into the sea.

Further, as of 1 January, a new requirement under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea came into force internationally, which mandates the reporting of lost containers to the nearest coastal state and flag state so that speedy efforts to recover the containers can be made. Additionally, there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Pellet loss is a global issue, and the UK has called for specific provisions in the new treaty on plastic pollution to address pellet loss throughout the supply chain. I appreciate that things have not got to where we would wish them to with this treaty, but we continue to support it. Notwithstanding the long amount of time that has already elapsed in getting the treaty to where it is today, we do not walk away; we continue to advocate for the treaty.

While I recognise the important issue raised by the amendment, for the purpose of the Bill, this is about enabling the UK to comply with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement. I know that the noble Baronesses understand this and are using this opportunity to raise these issues, and so they should. We do not think this particular Bill is the most suitable vehicle for addressing plastic pollution across its full life cycle. Elements of the proposed new clause may become duplicative of measures currently being taken by the UK to manage plastic pollution at sea.

Amendment 9 was specifically tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She rightly highlights the importance of ensuring that, under the marine licensing regime, an appropriate authority cannot defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement Part IV requirements. I fully agree with what she is trying to do through the amendment. I reassure her that these changes are not needed, because it is already the case that the appropriate authority will not, under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, be able to defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the requirements of Part IV of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. This would include all the procedural consultation and public participation requirements of Part IV of the agreement. The respective Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations set out various additional procedural and public notification requirements that the appropriate authority must undertake if it decides to defer to an equivalent assessment.

Given that these requirements already ensure that, under the marine licensing regimes, an equivalent assessment must be appropriately rigorous and meet the Part IV requirements, including for public participation and transparency, I am pleased that I can, I think, reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not needed today. I am happy to continue, as she suggests, talking about this, alongside my colleagues in Defra. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. It is constructive that the loss of containers has to be reported, but I look forward to a time when we are not just hearing that the horse has bolted but have actually got bolts on the stable door. I am sure that the Government will continue to press for that aim too. In withdrawing the amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for contributing to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.