Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place and express my admiration that he has made his maiden speech in proposing such an important debate.

We know that the areas outside territorial limits, which we know as the high seas, belong to us all. Nobody would sensibly talk against the sensible proposals to protect the deep blue lungs of the world and the natural fauna and flora that live there. I have sailed across the Atlantic on a tall ship. I have sailed a Topper dinghy in the Sargasso Sea, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned. Probably few noble Lords have been as close to the briny as I have. Last week, I was highlighting deep-sea shipping in Trinidad, bringing 50,000-tonne deadweight tankers via ocean trade to the United Kingdom. Those are my bona fides.

I will focus on two themes. First, the deep ocean supports shipping, fibre-optics, pipelines and the connectors that sustain a global economy. This cannot be just about the turtles, important as they are. Secondly, among all the mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation in this Room, there is a proverbial elephant—or blue whale. I refer to the risks of the uninsured dark fleet, the Wild West which operates outside the conventions and rules of the sea. By omitting to mention these two items, the Bill is deficient. This Second Reading provides an opportunity for the Government to repair that defect.

The natural environment must be shared with the commercial environment, which is the medium across which ships pass between countries in pursuit of the global trade which brings 90% of goods to our nation. I am disappointed that the Bill does not realise the reality that London is the place where global shipping meets, trades and agrees rules and contracts. That is a missed opportunity and ignores the global expertise on our doorstep. I depart from my noble friend Lady Coffey in saying that the Bill should be amended; it should. I am concerned that Part 3 and Clause 11 in particular allow the Secretary of State to make proposals for the inclusion of certain areas and Clause 12 provides for enforcement, but neither in this part nor in the Bill more widely are the economy or London stakeholders mentioned or referred to.

I have read the treaty. It makes passing reference to the IMO, but I would have expected the Bill documentation to have made reference not just to the IMO, which is based in London, but also to Lloyd’s—marine insurers, the publishers of Lloyd’s List—based in London; the global P&I clubs, the regulatory syndicates, which are hosted in Leadenhall Street, in London; Clarksons and Braemar, the world’s leading shipbrokers, just around the corner in Trafalgar Square, in London; and the Baltic Exchange, in London. I have not even mentioned the whole panoply of other professionals, including specialist shipping lawyers such as Clyde & Co. In essence, we do not own ships any more, but the ships play by London’s rules. But you would never guess it from the Bill. We should rectify that deficiency.

Where are the statutory tests that will require the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the powers, to consider the important balance between the economy, shipping, our interests and our regulatory interest based in London? Failure to reach the appropriate balance could end up with the equivalent of another £100 million bat bridge or another useless £700 million fish disco. That is the jeopardy we face.

I said that the shipping world plays by London’s rules. For the most part, it does, but we are missing the reference to the “dark fleet”: a network of ships, often poorly maintained, transporting illicit cargoes, with obscured ownership, a lack of insurance, deceptive tactics, going dark, flag hopping, and bilge cleaning at sea—and full of hostile actors. We had a debate last week on that narrow point. I am mentioning it because the dark fleet poses significant risks of damaging not only maritime safety but the environment that the Bill seeks to remedy. Silence on our approach to the dark fleet and other hostile actors diminishes the effectiveness of the Bill.

I know it is the Minister’s maiden outing, but he has a huge amount of experience, having been a Member of Parliament in the other place for Southampton. I therefore respectfully ask him: how can we spend precious parliamentary time on only half the benefit, without considering those modern pirates of the high seas? If we are sincere about protecting our fragile ecosystems, we need to ensure that all ships, not just ships of compliant nations, recognise the objectives of the Bill. Once we slap each other on the back, we need to recognise that London—and, in its wider sense, the economy—is balanced between these well-meaning and important biodiversity objectives. But, without a strong economy, we will not be able to protect the environment in the way we want to, in a world that is full of bad actors.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, as the new Minister. I particularly agree with his comment on the excellence of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. There is another important maritime organisation based in Southampton, namely the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the regulator of the maritime sector and shipping. I declare my interest as its chair, and also as an honorary officer in the Royal Navy.

I am therefore prompted immediately to respond to some of the important points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I totally agree with his paean of praise for the importance of the maritime sector in the UK, although, in fairness, we have to accept that the scope of the Bill is restricted specifically to the implementation of the BBNJ treaty. I therefore interpret his speech as a call for a broader piece of maritime legislation in a future King’s Speech, which would enable us to tackle many of the vital points he has just raised.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is important, because I have read the treaty, which says:

“Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party”—


us—

“from adopting more stringent measures with respect to its nationals and vessels … with regard to activities under its jurisdiction or control in addition to those adopted under this Part, in accordance with international law and in support of the objectives of the Agreement”.

I therefore hear what the noble Lord says about scope, but we have the power in front of us to extend that scope—and I think we should, because London is the heart of global shipping. People look to London to set the lead, and we have an opportunity to do so, but the Bill does not.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I will come on to discuss that very point. I think the noble Lord is referring to Article 25 of the treaty, on which it would be worth testing the Government more.

Before getting to that, I start by saying, like other noble Lords, that we must recognise that the BBNJ treaty is an important evolutionary moment in international maritime law, going back to the debate that kicked off in the early 1600s between Grotius and Selden about open seas and closed seas. Here we have the common heritage of the oceans and a practical mechanism for making at least incremental progress. However, we should not get too carried away with optimism because, frankly, the scale and urgency of the challenge around what is happening in our oceans—our life-support system—demands, at the very least, the measures set out in this Bill, and probably more.

Therefore, the question that we will want to test is: as the Bill, and the treaty more generally, are implemented, what will be the practical impact? There are several areas that I will raise with the Minister. First, there is the question of the exemptions for intellectual property around marine genetic resources. There is a reasonable balance to be struck here. I believe that the Minister in the Commons, Seema Malhotra, has said that the Government will not notify for data that is protectable under IP provisions, but it would be useful to hear more from Ministers on how they think the IP regime will work in juxtaposition to the broader public goals of the treaty itself.

Secondly, a number of noble Lords have cited the links between the Bill and other maritime legal regimes, in particular the International Seabed Authority. The area does not correspond to the high seas, as we know. I totally endorse the point from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that mining, even if it is under the ISA’s exploratory category, will clearly have consequences for marine biology and diversity. Therefore, it would be of great importance to understand from the Government what influence and forcefield can continue to be placed around the ISA to ensure that, for example, it adopts the more rigorous environmental assessment standards implied by the BBNJ agreement, and to hear more about how that will work in practice.

Finally, on enforcement, the reality is that, under UNCLOS, as we have heard from other noble Lords, IUU fishing and overexploitation in coastal MPAs—and certainly in the high seas—are continuing. Flag hopping, flags of convenience and fake flags all stand in the way of the goals set out in the treaty. Coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, my question relates to Article 25.4, which states that parties can adopt measures over and above the flagging measure set out in our domestic Bill,

“to support the implementation of the decisions and recommendations made by the Conference of the Parties”.

Does that mean, for example, an enhanced role for constabulary or fisheries protection-type interventions in the high seas, where they are designated as area-based management zones or MPAs? An early test case for this might be the opportunity to develop an MPA covering the so-called “blue hole” north of the Falklands on the EEZ border with Argentina, where this is precisely the sort of mechanism that could correspond to a long-standing problem. If we saw action there, we would begin to believe that the Bill—the Act—has teeth.