Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

With pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

12: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

Amendment 12 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

13: Clause 18, page 16, line 10, leave out from “implementing” to “and” in line 12 and insert “any Article 38 standards or guidelines,”
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)).

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

1: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision that is within section 9(2) (read with section 9(3) to (6)) for the purposes of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 2 of the Agreement.(2) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person;(b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(3) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction; (b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(4) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(5) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (2)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 9.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate with the government amendments tabled in my name relating the role of devolved Governments in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement. As noble Lords will be aware, the BBNJ Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from certain clauses which extend to Scotland only. Foreign affairs, including the negotiation and signature of international treaties, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, observation and implementation of obligations arising under treaties in domestic law are excepted from the foreign affairs reservation so far as those obligations relate to devolved matters. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we have agreed that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, by Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.

The Government have been in sustained discussions with both devolved Governments to seek consent for this Bill, and I can confirm to the House that Motions on consent will be debated shortly in both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Throughout these discussions, the Government have sought to ensure that devolved competencies are fully respected. That is why we have tabled amendments on Report to strengthen the role of the devolved Governments in the future implementation of the BBNJ agreement.

Clauses 9 and 11 confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the UK’s obligations under Parts II and III of the BBNJ agreement. Government Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence. In addition, Amendments 3 and 7 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scotland and Northern Ireland before exercising the powers in Clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This approach will ensure that devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and enable them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and it reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.

Government Amendments 10 and 11 ensure that Clause 23, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under the new clauses introduced by government Amendments 1 and 5. Instead, the procedures for regulations set out in government Amendments 2 and 6 respectively will apply.

Finally, government Amendment 12 amends Clause 26 so that Clause 18 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change will ensure a consistent approach across the Bill with regards to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. I beg to move.

[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?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not want to fall out with the noble Lord today, but the reason these changes have come at this stage is that we have listened to our friends and colleagues in the devolved Administrations who have said that they feel they need these powers, and we respect their view, having had a look at it as well. This has not always been the approach of the UK Government, but it is what we are trying to do, so that is why they have come at this stage.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I believe that the correct authorities are to be given. I have every confidence that that is the case, and I hope that we do not need to return to make changes to this as a consequence. These amendments demonstrate our commitment to collaborating with the devolved Governments at the same time as ensuring that the UK is able to implement the agreement in a timely manner.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

2: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) Regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) that include provision—(a) amending an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation,(b) made in reliance on section 9(2)(b), or(c) creating a civil sanction or varying the maximum amount of any monetary penalty,are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) Any other regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) are subject to the negative procedure.(3) Any provision that may be made by regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) subject to the negative procedure may be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. (4) The power of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see sections 28 and 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 for the meanings of “subject to the negative procedure” and “subject to the affirmative procedure”, and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—(i) where the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and(ii) where the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, the regulations are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make provision for procedure relating to regulations under new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland), which would be inserted after clause 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group. The objective of the treaty is to protect areas of the ocean that lie beyond national jurisdiction in line with the treaty that we agreed. Plastic pellet pollution is a concerning environmental risk, and I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter forward for debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns and take this opportunity to set out the steps the Government are taking to tackle the menace of plastic pellet pollution. Does the Minister think that that action is sufficient? Do Ministers have plans to go further on plastic pollution during this Parliament? While we do not feel that the amendment is a necessary improvement to the Bill, we share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the harmful effects of plastic pollution.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to ensure that environmental impact assessments are undertaken where appropriate. Again, while we do not think that this is necessary in the Bill, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Baroness that environmental impact assessments will continue to be required where appropriate.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

5: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)(1) Where section 11 applies, the appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose mentioned in section 11(2).(2) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 11 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section.(3) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person; (b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(4) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction;(b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(5) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament; (b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(6) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (3)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to speak with me about his Amendment 8 last week. He is a long-standing and committed advocate for human rights at sea, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of these issues, including, as he described, the challenges of enforcement on the high seas.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

10: Clause 23, page 23, line 32, at end insert—
“(za) section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) after clause 9.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

12: Clause 26, page 24, line 11, leave out “and 15” and insert “, 15 and 18”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for clause 18 to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoints.