Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Debate between Andrew Snowden and Judith Cummins

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.

We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?

On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?

The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?

The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?

It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?

We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between Andrew Snowden and Judith Cummins

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that this matter was raised with Justice Ministers yesterday. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue during tomorrow’s debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. In the meantime, if she requires further assistance in raising it with Justice Ministers directly, she may wish to seek further advice from the Clerks.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a written answer on 9 December 2025 to a parliamentary question that I had submitted, the Treasury stated explicitly that it had not opened any new inquiries into child benefit eligibility in the context of the serious errors in a trial of data sharing between the Home Office and the Treasury. However, I have recently seen correspondence between the press team at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and journalists that directly contradicts the answer given through the Table Office, with HMRC’s press office stating that the programme was not paused and that therefore new inquiries were continuing. As both things cannot be true at the same time, can you give me advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the official record can be urgently set straight?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. While I am not responsible for the accuracy of responses that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, I am clear that it is of the utmost importance that Ministers are properly held to account by Members, and that they take their responsibilities to the House seriously. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s concerns, and I hope they will pass them on to the relevant Minister. The hon. Member may also wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.