Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.