Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Teverson

3rd reading
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, our debates on this Bill have been constructive, so I can be brief. I thank the Minister for her positive tone during our scrutiny of this legislation. The origins of the Bill, as has been said, lie in the agreement signed by the previous Government. We are pleased that this Government are following the lead that we set when in office and are delivering on our commitment to play our part in protecting oceans beyond national jurisdiction from environmental harm. This is an important commitment which we hope will ensure that future generations inherit cleaner and more biodiverse oceans.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates. We are pleased to have been able to challenge the Government on sustainable fishing and the maintenance of the marine protected area around the Chagos Islands in Committee. We look forward to constructively challenging the Government as they press ahead with their work, alongside the other signatories to the treaty, to deliver the appropriate environmental protections for those areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction that will in future be designated as marine protected areas.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the treaty came into operation on Saturday, so this is a very appropriate day. My only sadness on this excellent occasion is that, as I said on Report, I believe that this is probably one of the last agreements that we will have internationally from the United Nations in the near future, given the disrespect that we increasingly have for international law and international agreements among the community and certain major players within the United Nations.

Having said that, this is a moment of celebration. We have made an important step forward in terms of biodiversity and the protection of nature across a very large proportion of our planet’s surface, which until now has been—as the Bill says—beyond jurisdiction. There are now 81 ratifications of that treaty, and we will hopefully very soon be among them. We expect the conference of the parties, probably in August, and the plea from our Benches is that the United Kingdom has one of the greatest ambitions at that first meeting and collaborates with other parties that have ratified the treaty to make sure that it really does mean something and makes a real change for our planet and our oceans.

I thank the Minister for her co-operation, help and advice as we have gone through this Bill, and for the way that she has listened. It has been good to have the opposition and government spokespeople speaking as one, generally, on what we have sought to achieve here. I thank my Whip’s Office, particularly Ulysse Abbate for his work, and Members on our Benches for the work that they have done on this Bill. Let us make this something that is really special and really works, allowing us to move towards the global target of a third of our oceans being put aside for protection and biodiversity in one of the most important areas of our planet.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Lord Teverson

Report stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through those technicalities. These Benches welcome the effectiveness of devolution for this sort of implementation legislation, as I am sure the whole House does. The one question I have for the Minister, although she does not have power over it, is whether she has been assured by the devolved Assemblies that the correct and needed authorities will be given, so that we can keep up the momentum and participate as a party that has ratified this agreement when the first Conference of the Parties takes place?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill enables the Government to go ahead and ratify the treaty, which we signed when we were in government and we still support. We have discussed the treaty and the Bill at length in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government are continuing with this work to implement the treaty.

The amendments in this group seek to grant powers to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers that are broadly equivalent to those granted to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Although the content of these amendments is not especially concerning, it feels a little late for the Government to make substantive changes to their Bill. The Bill has progressed through all stages in the House of Commons and Committee in your Lordships’ House. By making amendments at this late stage, Peers are denied the opportunity of proper scrutiny in Committee. We believe that this is happening too often. We were clear when it happened under the previous Government that it was unacceptable, and it remains so under this Government. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have waited until Report in this House to make these changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the core characteristics of the Bill is, obviously, a treaty that is about actions beyond national jurisdictions. In fact, we should celebrate it even more, because I suspect it will be one of the last of these treaties that we shall enjoy and be able to make over the next few years. I think that there will not be many that follow this.

One of the areas that has been left out of the treaty, but which is important, because this is beyond national jurisdiction, is around human rights—hence the amendment. I thank the Minister and her team for the conversations that we have had recently about this area. Human rights are, by definition, universal, but they are very differently applied, in practice, terrestrially from how they are on the high seas. The reason for that is that, terrestrially, they can be enforced; those who feel that their human rights are being threatened can go to authorities, normally. Their cases and instances can be pursued, whether it be through legal processes or whatever.

Out on the high seas, that is very different indeed. There is effectively a vacuum in terms of enforcement once the national boundaries at sea have been crossed. There is also an asymmetric situation in terms of power. Whether it be crew, passengers or researchers in this instance, once they are on the high seas, they have very little power in comparison to the skipper or captain, or what the owners might instruct the skipper or captain to do. For instance, unlike on land, there is no contact by mobile telephone; you cannot get in touch with authorities to pursue your case or ask for help or get protection. None of that is necessarily available.

That is compounded by flags of convenience, which we talked about in Committee. Often, those flag states, which would be the enforcement authority for a vessel on the high seas, do not have the capacity, the interest or the ability to be communicated with to enforce those human rights on that vessel; hence why I ask that we also include human rights in the terms of the licensing requirement. I noted, going through the coastal access Act, that human health was one of the considerations, but human rights are obviously much broader than that.

So, who are the sorts of people who might be the problem? I suspect it is not the researchers on a research vessel, but you still have crew beyond that. The problem is usually because they are either indentured employees, migrants who are unable to communicate easily with the ship owners or the authority of the port where they are, being unable to communicate in the same language. There is quite wide-scale abuse, mainly in the fishing industry, but there are also instances in the cruise industry and risks in this sector as well.

That is why I feel it is important that the licensing authorities are able to check, purely in the case of licences for research beyond national jurisdiction, and that they have to consider whether the boat owner, operator and licensee are able and have the will to protect the human rights of the persons on board those vessels. I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendment. Of course, we share his desire to see the rights of those who are at sea beyond national jurisdiction protected. This is an important issue and I understand why he has tabled his amendment, but I am sure that even the noble Lord will probably accept that the Bill is possibly not the right vehicle for his concerns to be addressed.

The amendment would add an additional duty on marine licensing authorities to have regard to the need to ensure that the rights of those at sea beyond national jurisdiction are protected. Obviously, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and I am sure she can tell us what work her department has done to understand whether this new duty would be at all workable and how licensing authorities could go about assessing the necessary information to comply with any new duty. I am sure she will also tell us whether Ministers have considered any other possible approaches to ensure protection for those at sea beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, given that this is an issue relating by definition to issues and activities beyond national jurisdiction, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would consider that a multilateral approach, rather than the UK acting unilaterally on this, would probably have more luck in ensuring that his concerns are addressed.