Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Bill be read a second time.
Scottish and Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, and particularly on a subject that has been close to my heart for as long as I can remember; namely, the health and welfare of our planet and how we can protect and repair our oceans—which will be greatly enhanced by the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill that I am introducing today.
I would like to commence my remarks, however, by thanking all those who have welcomed me to your Lordships’ House so warmly and have assisted with my introduction to it. My thanks go to the Garter King of Arms, to the clerks of the House, to Black Rod and, of course, to the esteemed doorkeepers of our House. Indeed, my thanks go also to the marvellous supporters at my introduction—my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Blake of Leeds—both former council leaders in their cities, as I was for a number of years in Southampton, the city I have lived in all my adult life, and which I had the honour to represent as one of its Members of Parliament for some 27 years. I have spent much of that time in Parliament promoting, advocating for and supporting action to fight climate change, particularly through the establishment of low-carbon energy, and I hope to be able to continue that advocacy in my time in this place.
I have taken the title of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s in the City of Southampton, as my thanks to the place that has nurtured me and given me all my life chances, and to which I am hopelessly devoted. St Mary’s is the parish in the centre of Southampton and, remarkably, contains two institutions of national and international repute: the St Mary’s Stadium of Southampton Football Club and the National Oceanography Centre. The former is probably of national repute mainly in the minds of its supporters—one of which, alas, I am—but the latter really is a centre of international repute. It has already played a huge role in monitoring and promoting the health and welfare of our oceans and will continue to play a key role in the UK’s approach to the matter following, I hope, the adoption of the Bill.
This is a Bill of ambition and global significance. It will, alongside associated secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement its obligations in 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—the BBNJ agreement—and allow us to take the essential steps required for the UK’s ratification. This is a landmark agreement. It represents the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiation and determined scientific advocacy. It concerns nothing less than the future of the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation.
These vast areas of ocean—remote, largely unexplored but fundamental to life on earth—regulate our climate, sustain fisheries, support communities and host ecosystems of staggering complexity and beauty, yet they are increasingly vulnerable to overexploitation, pollution and the cumulative pressures of climate change. The BBNJ agreement is the world’s collective answer to this challenge. The Bill gives the United Kingdom the means to play its full part in that shared endeavour.
The United Kingdom was among the first countries to sign the BBNJ agreement when it opened for signature at the UN in 2023. We did so because we recognised that the two-thirds of the oceans beyond national jurisdiction must be governed responsibly, transparently and with a shared sense of stewardship. The Bill provides the domestic legislative framework to implement the three core pillars of the BBNJ agreement, relating to marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, and environmental impact assessments. It provides for regulation-making powers, allowing us to implement future decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties, ensuring that the United Kingdom can remain at the forefront of global ocean governance in the years ahead.
The Bill is divided into five parts, with Parts 2 to 4 aligning directly with the three substantive sections of the BBNJ agreement. Part 2 introduces obligations around the collection, storage, use and reporting of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and of digital sequence information on those resources. UK researchers operating from UK craft—for example, our royal research ships—will be required to notify a national focal point within the FCDO before and after collecting marine genetic resources, including digital sequence information on those resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Repositories and institutions holding marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdictions will be required to provide access to samples under reasonable conditions. This will apply to bodies such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre and UK universities. Similarly, UK databases containing digital sequence information on such resources will need to ensure public access.
Those who make use of such material, whether for academic research or commercial innovation, will be required to notify the national focal point once the results of such research are available, including when those results take the form of published papers or granted patents. The FCDO will send these notifications to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism, an open-access platform enabling parties to the agreement to understand what is being collected and where, and how it is being utilised. This transparency is the foundation of the BBNJ agreement’s benefit-sharing regime. It ensures that researchers in developing states have access to the same scientific information as their counterparts in developed economies.
Marine genetic resources may be the source of tomorrow’s medicines, new sustainable materials, novel enzymes and breakthroughs that we cannot yet imagine. The UK is proud to be home to world-leading institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre—there it is again—and our many outstanding universities. The Bill ensures that they can continue to operate at the cutting edge of marine science while contributing to a fair and inclusive global framework.
Part 3 gives the UK the necessary powers to implement internationally agreed measures relating to marine protected areas and other area-based management tools established under the BBNJ agreement. These measures will be agreed at future meetings of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and may include restrictions or management measures that apply to activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part enables the UK to implement emergency measures—for example, in response to a sudden environmental disaster requiring urgent international action. In essence, Part 3 ensures that when the international community collectively agrees to take measures to protect a vulnerable ecosystem in areas beyond national jurisdiction, the United Kingdom has the means to act accordingly.
Part 4 updates the UK’s domestic marine licensing regime to incorporate the environmental impact assessment requirements of the agreement as they apply to licensable marine activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Bill grants powers to update domestic legislation as new standards and guidelines are developed by the Conference of the Parties. The ocean economy is evolving rapidly—new technologies, new industries and new pressures. This part ensures that the UK’s regulatory framework remains modern, agile and aligned with international best practice. Put simply, these measures future-proof our environmental assessment process for activities on the high seas.
In addition to this primary legislation, a small number of statutory instruments will be required before the United Kingdom can complete its ratification. These relate in particular to environmental impact assessments and the definition of digital sequence information, and will be laid after Royal Assent. Once that secondary legislation is in place, the UK will be in a position to deposit its instrument of ratification with the United Nations.
As noble Lords may know, the BBNJ agreement will enter into force on 17 January 2026, having now reached the crucial threshold of 60 ratifications. The inaugural Conference of the Parties is expected later that year. Importantly, the UK can attend that conference as a state party only if we have ratified at least 30 days beforehand. That is why timely passage of this Bill is of genuine importance.
The Bill may appear narrowly scoped and targeted, but its implications are profound. It supports the United Kingdom’s commitment to protect 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. It reinforces our belief in multilateralism and the rules-based international system at a time when both face increasing strain. It allows us to address global challenges—climate change, biodiversity loss and food security—not in isolation but in partnership with allies and developing states alike.
The UK’s leadership in the early BBNJ negotiations was informed by the extraordinary expertise of our marine scientists, legal scholars and environmental advocates. Many of them have waited a long time for this moment. Their passion and persistence have been instrumental in bringing this agreement to fruition.
Allow me to recognise the considerable contributions made by noble Lords from across the Chamber, by civil society organisations and by our research community, all of whom have shaped the UK’s approach to the BBNJ agreement. In the spirit of cross-party relations, I pay tribute to the Ministers in the previous Government, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who were part of the team that signed the treaty on behalf of the UK Government in 2023. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for International Development for the opportunity to open this debate.
The health of our ocean is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us. The BBNJ Bill is our opportunity to rise to that responsibility to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, as the first to speak after the Minister from the Government Benches, it is my honour to welcome my noble friend Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to the Dispatch Box and to congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. I pay tribute to his joining the esteemed ranks of those who have made their maiden speech from the Dispatch Box.
My noble friend has had a distinguished career. As leader of Southampton City Council, he championed innovative energy projects and was the first MP to have solar panels and even, I believe, a wind turbine installed on his constituency home roof. His Private Member’s Bill on climate change may have been talked out in his early days, but much of it was incorporated into Labour’s world-leading Climate Change Act 2008. Climate change affects so much of the planet’s precious biodiversity, especially in the marine environment, which is the subject of today’s Bill.
My noble friend’s former constituency has within it St Mary’s Stadium, home of Southampton FC, and he is a prominent member of the Saints Foundation. Southampton’s is one of the three furthest stadiums to visit from Everton FC, but I well remember happy visits —especially when Dave Jones, a dependable right-back who used to play for us, was Southampton’s manager. Southampton was the last team to visit Goodison Park last season. I look forward to welcoming that team and his support at Everton’s new stadium, as soon as they resume their rightful place in the Premier League.
While in the Commons, my noble friend was No. 1 in the parliamentary football team—the position of goalkeeper—and was part of the famous team to play in the Portuguese Parliament in 2006 as part of the 2006 FIFA World Cup curtain-raiser. I met my noble friend not on the football pitch but on the Front Bench in statutory instrument committees, he from the Commons and me from the Lords, on many energy orders. To change sporting analogies, I like to call us the tag team partners on energy matters.
I am very glad to welcome my noble friend to your Lordships’ House and look forward to his many innovative approaches on energy, not least on fuel poverty matters, where there is now an opportunity to utilise DCC’s smart meter network to improve identification and tailor timely, accurate and cost-effective interventions for fuel-poor households, such as direct to the meter credit and the development of a social tariff. I look forward to his many further contributions to our debates and his leadership on energy policy developments.
There could be no better debate for my noble friend to make his maiden speech in than today’s Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill—a Bill that, like the Climate Change Act, will be universally acclaimed and world-leading in supporting one of the greatest challenges in protecting the high seas outside national jurisdictions. These areas of no recognised national authority cover half the surface of the planet and are already threatened, not least from claims in the Arctic for valuable minerals and in other areas from overfishing, pollution from abandoned fishing nets, plastics and the impacts of warming sea temperatures. Some 90% of the heat from greenhouse gas emissions is absorbed by the oceans, 30% of CO2 emissions are absorbed by them and 90% of global trade is transported through them, yet only 1.2% of the oceans are currently protected. Species such as whales have constantly been under attack, and the threat of ever-deeper sea mining and excavations only increases.
It is imperative that the UN, through its Convention on the Law of the Sea, has provided this framework for international maritime law, and defines the high seas as international waters where all nations may fish, navigate and conduct research under shared principles. Since the UK’s accession to the convention in 1997, the UN General Assembly has focused on the sustainable use of marine biodiversity in those areas, including the oceans and the seabed. The COP 15 Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework of 2022 established targets and culminated, in 2023, in the formal adoption of binding agreements established and developed by consensus. This framework established the 30 by 30 biodiversity target—conservation and protection of 30% of sites by 2030—to which the UK is committed. The BBNJ Bill is drawn up to align UK law with this international agreement and consensus on biodiversity.
I welcome the Bill. It sets out the requirements for UK-based activity and affiliated projects, vessels and equipment processes, and collecting and researching marine resources, in international waters. It includes advanced notification, post-activity reporting and public access to reports and information. Aside from two clauses relating specifically to Scottish law and Ministers, the Bill will apply to the whole of the UK and can be extended to British Overseas Territories by Orders in Council. This is very promising.
The Bill establishes a system of support to undertake co-operative arrangements among projects, teams, countries and alliances through capacity building and technology sharing. It also establishes an ability to create emergency protected areas in any disaster scenario. It has as an example the workings of the Antarctic Treaty system, which already operates as a framework for international management of the Antarctic for conservation.
The other place has welcomed the Bill. The Government have already adopted a 30 by 30 approach as it refers to domestic national jurisdictions on land and sea up to 200 nautical miles offshore, and established a network of 297 marine protected areas covering some 210,000 square kilometres, representing 23% of the UK’s domestic waters.
Here I declare my interest as serving on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee, which reported on 30 by 30 in July 2023. This report found that, even on the domestic front, there is a long way to go beyond declarations and drawing areas on a map. On land, what sites will count towards 30 by 30 when perhaps less than 10% of England is covered by designations such as SSSIs, special areas of conservation, special protected areas and Ramsar sites?
The report found a widespread lack of clarity about the level of nature conservation and protection. There is a poor level of monitoring data, which limits understanding of current conditions. On land, only 22% of SSSIs have been monitored in the last six years. In UK waters, the position is even more precarious and unknown; MPAs are still at the rudimentary stage.
From this domestic background, the challenge of the high seas seems daunting. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm in her reply that at least the signatories to the BBNJ agreement are approaching the situation with the precautionary principle in mind? Can she give any indication of how conversations about the treaty and how it will work in practice are developing?
The practicalities of taking forward the work from this Bill seem extremely daunting given the approaches towards the latest COP in Brazil and from the Trump Administration and others towards climate change in general and deep-sea mining in particular. Will the Government develop a strategy behind the Bill regarding how they will undertake their approach, how they will develop a baseline of data from the UK’s MPAs into consistency with data on international waters, how they will develop monitoring plans around the world, and how they will encourage co-operation and support from the overseas territories? All this presents a costly challenge when budgets may find it difficult to maintain the required level of expenditure.
While welcoming the aspirations and imperatives of the Bill, I encourage my noble friend to define the practicalities of how the UK can set priorities and develop expertise of approach to achieve best outcomes. In this, I would welcome confirmation of extensive public engagement, which could be undertaken to encourage the proper accountabilities, and reports that the Bill is being taken seriously alongside climate change. The UK Government can be encouraged to take up the challenge from this endorsement of the shared stewardship of the planet into the future with the world-leading oceanography site in Southampton.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open for the Official Opposition on this important Bill. Before I speak to the Bill, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He served for many years in the other place and I know that he will bring that wealth of experience to his new role in your Lordships’ House.
Our oceans are home to more than 260,000 species, and their health is essential to the health of our planet. Unlike biodiversity within our borders, every nation has a responsibility to protect the high seas. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation. They are wonderfully biodiverse, but we know that they are threatened by a whole host of harms, the most challenging of which include overfishing, manmade pollution and the impact of climate change. It is the duty of us all to take the responsible action needed to safeguard marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.
For many years, Britain has led the way on protecting our oceans. In our domestic waters we have established a network of 296 marine protection areas, protecting over 200,000 square kilometres of sea. Even more significantly, we established the Blue Belt programme, supporting our UK overseas territories to assist them in creating and maintaining healthy and productive marine ecosystems. That programme shows how committed we are to tackling the serious global problems of overfishing, species extinction and climate change. As noble Lords will be aware, the UK overseas territories are estimated to be home to up to 90% of known endemic UK biodiversity, hosting a huge range of unique and endangered species.
Consequently, we have a unique responsibility to protect that biodiversity. Through the Blue Belt programme, the UK and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million square kilometres of marine protected areas, from the south Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Can the Minister provide an update on work the United Kingdom Government are doing with our overseas territories to continue that excellent programme as part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to our overseas territories?
During the debates in the other place, serious concerns were raised about the impact of the UK-Mauritius agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, on the protection of marine biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago. I know the Minister may feel that this issue is not directly concerned with the Bill, but we will be seeking to explore the impact of that agreement on marine biodiversity during the debates on the Bill. It is only right that noble Lords on this side of the House should be given the opportunity in Committee to probe the issue of marine biodiversity in the area around the archipelago.
Turning back to the Bill itself, we are firmly supportive of the Government’s ambition to boost protections for our global marine diversity. As the Minister mentioned, we signed the treaty in 2023 under the previous Government, and we are unwavering in our commitment to biodiversity. That said, as a reasonable Opposition we will scrutinise the Bill in detail to ensure that Parliament has had the opportunity to hear how Ministers intend to use the wide-ranging regulation-making powers contained in the Bill. We will also seek to understand more fully how the Government expect our involvement in the BBNJ’s Conference of the Parties to be managed. We are interested to know where the first marine protected areas under the agreement will be located. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an update on that matter.
On the Conference of the Parties, the agreement has now been ratified by 60 signatories, which means it will come into force in 2026. Once the Bill is passed, do the Government have a target date for ratification so we can play a full role from the moment the treaty comes into effect?
As many noble Lords will know, our UK fishing industry is struggling. The Government have already capitulated on EU access to our fishing waters. What impact do the Government expect the new marine protected areas to have on our domestic fishing fleet, and what steps will be taken to monitor this over time?
We are clear that the United Kingdom must uphold its obligations under this landmark treaty, but we must also keep our own domestic interests in mind at all times. Where MPAs include prohibitions on fishing, what representations will the fishing industry in both the UK and other affected nations be able to make to the Conference of the Parties so that the full impact of those prohibitions can be considered before an MPA is implemented?
We will also seek to probe the UK’s rights should we wish to leave the treaty. We do not expect to find ourselves in that position, but it is only right that we consider how we could practically manage an exit from the treaty should a future Government decide that it is expedient for us to do so. What thoughts have Ministers given to that, and can the Minister outline her expectations of how that process might be managed should the situation arise?
In conclusion, we are firmly supportive of the Bill’s intentions. The Government are right to press ahead with legislation that will allow the treaty to be ratified, and we are proud to have made the UK a signatory of this landmark treaty when we were in government. Marine biodiversity matters, and it is right that we should play our part in protecting it. But that does not mean that we should step back from our duty to do the work of a revising Chamber, to scrutinise the Bill in detail and propose improvements where necessary. We will do that work thoroughly and carefully to ensure that this is the best Bill it can be when it goes on to become law. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Front Bench and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly glad that he gave several marketing plugs for the National Oceanography Centre, which I was responsible for setting up when I was the chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for her helpful briefing session on the Bill last week.
I fully support the Government’s intention to ratify the high seas treaty by mid-January 2026 and can see no good reason for preventing this. As the legal adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States said, before the treaty, the high seas were known as the “wild, wild wet”. They are the classic example of the tragedy of the commons. Against this background, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what are we talking about when we refer to marine biodiversity? Secondly, what are the main threats to marine biodiversity? Thirdly, how will the treaty be enforced?
The treaty aims to protect marine biodiversity in the high seas outside exclusive economic zones, but no one knows how many species there are in the oceans. According to the world register of marine species, there are about a quarter of a million known marine species and new species are being discovered at a rate of nearly 2,500 per year. Most of these new species are microscopic benthic crustaceans, molluscs and annelids. It is estimated that there are probably between 1 million and 2 million species still to be discovered. In other words, about 90% of marine biodiversity is unknown, and if we include bacteria and other micro-organisms, the number remaining to be discovered is much greater. In short, we do not know what it is that this treaty aims to protect. Therefore, can the Minister assure us that the Government will support research efforts in our universities, museums and research institutes to fully document marine biodiversity so that we have a better idea of what we are aiming to protect?
My second question concerns the threats to marine biodiversity. There is widespread agreement that human activity is causing the extinction of many species both in the oceans and on land. The Marine Conservation Society lists overfishing, by-catch, climate change, pollution and other human activities such as deep-sea mining among the major causes of loss of marine species. Nearly 38% of the world’s stocks are overfished and an estimated 9 million tonnes a year of fish and other marine organisms are thrown away dead as by-catch. According to the latest figures from Defra, 54% of fish stocks in UK waters are currently overfished. Can the Minister therefore assure us that the Government will press for sustainable management of fisheries in the high seas and reductions in by-catch and, at the same time, set a leadership example by managing our own fish stocks sustainably?
Can the Minister also tell us whether deep-sea marine mining will be included in the treaty? Flora and Fauna International points out that the hotspots for marine biodiversity are often associated with deposits of rare minerals such as cobalt and manganese. These hotspots include the hydrothermal vents where tectonic plates meet and are home to extraordinary creatures able to survive in near-boiling water full of highly toxic chemicals.
I now turn to my third question, on enforcement. The Marine Biological Association says:
“If we have learned anything about marine protected areas within national jurisdiction, designating marine protected areas does not mean effective protection”.
As I understand it, the current regime for enforcement of the law of the sea is based on flag state responsibility. Countries are expected to create offences under national laws and prosecute if there is a violation. The difficulty is that under this regime, vessels can opt for flags with countries that have poor regulation and poor records of prosecution. Can the Minister therefore tell us how the Government envisage the treaty will be effectively enforced?
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I plan to speak in favour of the Bill before your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, but first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his maiden speech. My first recollection of Southampton was visiting the Royal Research Ship “Bransfield” before it departed for the Antarctic. As a 10 year-old, it was so exciting to explore that ship before it travelled to some of the harshest high seas on the planet.
The world’s oceans support biodiversity, regulate climate, store carbon, sustain global food webs, and provide critical genetic and biological resources. Protecting them is vital not only for ocean health but for the stability and well-being of the entire planet. I thus thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for bringing this Bill and for seeking its speedy but well-scrutinised passage so that the UK can have a seat at the first Conference of the Parties to the UN BBNJ.
I start my observations with some medieval manuscripts. Many of the cathedral libraries of this nation contain wonderful collections and, over the years, I have been struck by the amount of graffiti in the margins of such documents—doodles by monks and scholars down through the centuries, which quite frequently are little drawings of scary sea-monsters. The leviathans jump out at you as you turn the vellum. These sea monsters and the mysteries of the recesses of the deep captured the imagination of our forebears.
The flood and Noah; the parting of the Red Sea; the exploits of Jonah in the belly of the whale; the trials of Job when he is asked:
“Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”;
the sea journeys of St Paul, with his dramatic shipwreck; and the Book of Revelation’s glassy sea—all have been analysed and interpreted, and, yes, doodled. Long has been the respect for the sea and the oceans: this place of chaos beyond our taming, of mystery with depths beyond human reach, and with glimpses of its wonders reported back by adventurous travellers. Indeed, 32 of the 150 psalms refer to the sea. For example, the psalmist speaks of how:
“Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters. They saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep”.
Those wondrous works in the deep are under threat. We have lost respect for the high seas in favour of an exploitative attitude. Deep-sea mining, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, oil and gas extraction are all threats being faced. Our oceans provide diverse ecosystems, including hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, with many endemic species within a small area. Our oceans act as the largest carbon sinks on the planet, storing it in deep-sea sediments, reducing atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. Our oceans are nursery grounds for commercially important species and play an important role in the lifecycle of many others, including creatures great and small—known and yet unknown, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined. Our oceans recycle nutrients that eventually resurface and support marine food webs. Our oceans are reserves of genetic and biological resources, including species with such unique adaptations that they can live in extreme pressure—in darkness and toxic chemical environments—all of which are potentially valuable in biotechnology, medicine and industry. The list goes on.
In ratifying the BBNJ agreement, though, we need to ensure that our own waters are conserved and well managed, particularly the biodiversity of our marine protected areas. That is why I urge His Majesty’s Government to publish their response to the consultation on bottom-trawling in marine protected areas. Can the Minister also update your Lordships on progress towards a complete ban on that seabed-damaging activity in these areas, as advised by the Environmental Audit Committee? Protecting our oceans is vital not only for ocean health, but for the stability of the entire planet and the flourishing of humanity. That is why the Government are right to bring forward the ratification of the high seas treaty, and I fully support them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the adoption of the high seas treaty in 2023 marked one of the most significant achievements in international environmental governance in decades. The treaty fills a crucial gap in ocean regulation by establishing a comprehensive framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. That area makes up nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean. I am proud that the United Kingdom played a decisive role in securing this agreement, with the UK Government helping to push the negotiations towards a successful conclusion. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me and my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon some credit. I think it is also worth crediting my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon on their role in the negotiations, even if I did modestly play a part in it myself. Also, Boris Johnson drove a lot of this environmental work in the previous Government.
I regret the five-minute advisory speaking time; it seems to be a habit of the Government to try and curtail speeches, though so few people have put in to speak on this very important Bill. Nevertheless, what I do not regret is seeing the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, in his place. He was a Member of Parliament for over 25 years and a shadow Energy Minister for over nine years. It is great to see him finally—it is not the first time he is a Minister—be an Energy Minister in this Administration. I know from the work I enjoyed with him when I was in the Commons how thoughtful, considerate and competent this new Minister truly is. I look forward to working with him on many other issues affecting our planet.
While I am conscious the Minister mentioned a timely passage being important, I will not be churlish by saying that it has taken over a year to get the Bill to this stage. However, I want to ask the Minister why in this Bill we need further regulations to bring this into effect. While I had hoped that we would not need any amendments, I suppose I am giving due warning that I will be tabling an amendment to try and remove that. From my perspective, it seems entirely redundant, especially when we know that the treaty in effect will come into force not just next year but next month, as more than 60 countries have already ratified it. It is important that, having been at the leading edge of making sure that we have got this treaty with many negotiations that were, frankly, pretty tough at times, we continue to make sure we have a seat at the table when the COP first resumes.
One of the things that has been important in getting to this point has been demonstrating by our domestic leadership what we were able to do without threatening our economy, being fully mindful that, while the ocean has given so much to us, we have not recognised that until recently. It is absolutely vital to recognise that we have taken advantage of the ocean more or less for free. We now need to repay that and actually give the ocean a rest. The importance of biodiversity is critical in our oceans. That is going to be taking quite a lot of the relationships that we have developed over many years.
I also want to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Courtown referred to this—about the Blue Belt, which has been one of the most important elements of UK government policy in working with overseas territories in trying to enhance the biodiversity in our oceans. But I have noticed in this Bill no specific overseas territory is currently included. While an Order in Council can make that happen, in the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was published within the last week, only one overseas territory made any reference to the BBNJ, and that was Bermuda, in thinking about and particularly referencing the Sargasso Sea. I am very keen to understand what discussions the Minister has had with overseas territories regarding this because, candidly, we need to get the overseas territories fully engaged. By the way, that may mean us coughing up some cash. We certainly did plenty of that, never mind through the Blue Belt fund but also through a variety of other mechanisms, as my noble friend also referred to earlier regarding the Commonwealth charter. It is vital that we have them fully engaged in something which is so precious to our planet going forward.
Thinking through some of the other aspects of the Bill, I will not digress into other issues that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to, such as a deep-sea mining. I appreciate that this is not the role of this specific treaty, and certainly in this Bill we are referring to elements of the legislation that need to be adapted. But I wanted to clarify, in Clause 8, why this does not apply to the Antarctic. I am conscious that there is already an Antarctic Act and a treaty, but I appreciate that CCAMLR is precarious—no, that is not the right word, but I am conscious that it can be quite challenging considering the role of the Antarctic. However, I would have thought that this area of the world would lend itself massively to having a BBNJ MPA designation.
On other aspects of BBNJ—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I note the noble Baroness’s comment about the advisory speaking time, but I would be grateful if she could bring things to a close.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am grateful for the advice, but I will carry on with a few things. We get criticised in Committee for doing Second Reading speeches when we are trying to understand the passage of the Bill at this key point.
Another aspect that has been mentioned is: where could it be? It had widely been expected that the first BBNJ MPA would be waters between the Galápagos Islands and Ecuador, but there is a golden opportunity to consider those between Tristan da Cunha and a Commonwealth country: Namibia.
I am conscious of what the Whip has just said, but we need to explore why some of the other clauses are in here. Looking at other parts of Clause 25, can the Minister explain subsection (3)? Clause 25(5) seems to be the classic, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll shove this in here” part of the Bill. I would not like to think that that is what we need to do with this treaty, but I am sure that we will explore that in Committee, sadly —because I had hoped we would not need amendments. I want the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, but we need to remove some of the barriers currently in the way, making sure that we can be part of the first COP in 2026.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, of Saint Mary’s, to his seat in your Lordships’ House and to the Dispatch Box. It was wonderful to hear such a green-minded speech; over the past few years, they have become more common here, but they are still very welcome. I particularly liked his commenting on protecting and repairing our ocean and high seas. It is absolutely crucial that we understand how much damage we have done already and that we try our best to recover it if we can.
The UK was one of the first countries to sign up to the UN agreement on the law of the sea, and we have been active in shaping the treaty, so it makes sense to pass this Bill as soon as possible. I want to flag up some reasons why this agreement is a good idea but also what protections Ministers should seek next. The good things are as follows. It is good for UK science: our very own National Oceanography Centre is one of the world leaders in ocean scientific research, and this Bill will ensure that marine science and technology can develop to further understand and meet the demands of a changing climate. It is good for marine life and ecosystems: our oceans are full of beautiful things, and protecting our oceans ensures that that beauty survives. We are far too careless about such a precious complex of ecosystems that we barely know anything about. It is also good for UK food security: a thriving sea is full of life, and some of that life can help to sustain our lives and our economy. We must regulate and manage the competition for marine genetic resources that can be used to support the development of new drugs, cosmetics, food and industrial processes.
But, currently, our oceans are collapsing under the strains of plastic pollution, bottom trawling, massive mining projects, toxic dumping and climate change. It is this combined assault on ecosystems that will collapse life in the seas. These problems make international treaties crucial and urgent. The scale of this agreement is huge. It will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans. It has the kind of vision that will help us to deal with the rapidly developing impacts of climate change. However, as is usual with this Government and the last, Ministers are trying to grab additional powers via secondary legislation. It would make sense to increase parliamentary scrutiny of secondary powers. Good policy requires accountability.
We need to ensure that our Government listen to a range of experts, not just to those people with loads of cash who can use money and personal contacts to gain access to the detailed discussions. My biggest concerns are monitoring and enforcement: I simply do not understand how those two things will happen in any sort of efficient way. I would like us to become a world leader in pushing for the establishment of marine protected areas in places beyond national jurisdiction. We should be aiming to protect 30% of the world’s marine areas by 2030—and I do mean “protect”. For example, Greenpeace has found that 90% of our marine protected areas are not really protected at all. There is no meaningful site-wide regulation of the most destructive fishing activity. Greenpeace says of our MPA protection that it is rhetoric over reality, and I think this treaty could be the same. Being a world leader means enforcing the strictest regulation of the existing marine protected areas in UK territorial waters, with an end to bottom trawling and devastating mining operations. I hope that the Minister will help us to do that in a very fast way.
So far, the Trump Administration have not ratified the treaty and have pursued issuing deep-ocean mining licences unilaterally, ignoring the UN-backed International Seabed Authority. The demand for mining minerals is rising, when we barely know anything about our deep seabed. We must also end the public subsidy of pollution within freeports, as we saw up in Teesside, when the dredging of industrial chemicals that had been buried for decades allegedly led to the mass deaths of crabs and lobsters along the north-east coast of England. More deregulation of freeports will mean more environmental problems and more taxpayer money spent cleaning up the mess at a future date.
While I am sure that most here would like this Bill to pass so that we can sign up to international law, 30 days before the ratification, I would say that it does not go far enough to protect our ocean. Can the Minister tell me how strongly this Government will live up to the rhetoric?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register and join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to our House—an environmentalist to the FCDO, which is wonderful. I also welcome this Bill which, as many noble Lords have said, will help to protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans, but will also be a big UK contribution to supporting the 30 by 30 commitment made as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. I hope it will also be a positive statement about the UK’s leadership contribution on climate and biodiversity, although it would have been more convincing, perhaps, if we had shown similar leadership on future forests at the recent climate COP at Belém. But, while thanking the Government—I think I have just thanked the Government—can I do an Oliver Twist act and ask for more? I have got five minutes and I have got five asks.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have already stressed, can we keep the pressure up to get this Bill and the secondary legislation through, so that we can ensure a place at the first conference of the parties next year?
Secondly, can my noble friend the Minister ensure that UK actions at home and abroad reflect the values of the treaty? I will give two examples of where we should be demonstrating our commitment to these values. One has already been mentioned: progress so far in ending bottom trawling in all our marine protected areas here in the UK. What has been proposed at the moment is inadequate, and we need to do better than that. Under the Chagos deal, which is a cause close to my heart, because it involves one of the largest, most wonderful and most important marine protected areas, can the Minister tell the House what further progress has been made to make sure that the MPA around the Chagos Archipelago is properly safeguarded with the transfer to Mauritius?
My third ask is for the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s position on the moratorium on deep-sea mining and licensing that has already been referenced now that President Trump is going ahead and ignoring the International Seabed Authority. My fourth is for the Minister to urge her Defra colleagues to produce a strategy for overfishing beyond 2026, at the end of the current commitments for the UK.
The Fisheries Act simply is not working. Quotas are not based on evidence. I was convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place, was going to make a sturdy, evidence-based statement about that, but he did not, damn him, and I had not done the research in order to back that up—but he would have if he had thought about it. Some 27% of commercial fish stocks are critically low and a further 25% are suffering from overexploitation. More than half of UK fishing opportunities are being allocated in excess of scientific advice, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would have spoken about, and that is not only leading to heavy declines in key stocks but undermining the sustainability of fishing livelihoods. It is impossible to deliver economic growth within fishing if we continue to deplete the asset on which the sector depends.
The combination of declining stocks and increasing concentration of quota in the hands of a very few, mostly foreign-owned vessels means that the inshore fleet is now on its knees. This is causing job losses and hardship in coastal towns that are very important electorally, I say to my party. So will the Government commit to a full review of the Fisheries Act? My last call is, of course, one that has already been referred to. Last but not least, 145 countries have signed the Global Ocean Treaty, of which 73 have now formally ratified. Will my noble friend the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade those nations that have not yet formally ratified to do so?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his opening speech, his maiden speech, opening his scoring in this House. May his subsequent contributions be as good as this one: it will be a fine record.
The Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading today, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions Bill, has a complex and difficult to understand title, and an equally complex content. Nevertheless, I argue that it is a necessary and desirable major step towards implementing some of the obligations the UK assumed when it signed two other important international treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention, known as UNCLOS, and the Biodiversity Convention, both of which we signed more than 30 years ago and subsequently ratified. I should perhaps admit that I was Britain’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations when the negotiations of those two founding treaties were concluded. Both were concluded under a Conservative Government whose Prime Minister was John Major, who picked up the baton first held by the late Baroness Thatcher, who came to realise that collective global action was a necessity if the challenges of global warming and loss of biodiversity were to be reversed, or at least mitigated. So I suggest at the outset that this implementing measure deserves to be treated on a non-party basis. Whether it will be is for others to decide.
The urgency of the legislation we are discussing has been spoken to by several noble Lords. It will enable the UK to participate from the outset in the governance procedures of this convention, protecting the biodiversity of those sea areas that fall outside national jurisdictions—what is often known as the “open seas”. Those seas are open too to abuse amounting to plunder, and thus require protection, and Britain’s record justifies and requires its presence on these governance procedures, which, whatever we decide, will enter into force at the beginning of 2026. The historical record of those who fish in and otherwise exploit the resources of these waters is not, let us face it, a good one. Modern technology has facilitated overfishing of stocks, some of them to extinction, and the enlargement of the areas where exploitation can take place is an inevitable result of global warming, particularly in the Arctic, making the problem more extensive and the need for protective regulation, such as this convention provides the basis for, more urgent. That regulation cannot be successfully achieved on a national rather than an international basis, as the provisions of this Bill eloquently demonstrate.
We often hear in this House about the need to defend the rules-based international order. That catch-all phrase probably confuses as much as it persuades, but there can be little doubt that that order is under serious threat on issues relating to international peace and security, world trading rules and the environment. Here is an opportunity not just to circle the wagons around existing rules but to extend their scope, which is, in general terms, the Government’s policy and that of the Official Opposition. We need to take it up.
This debate would not be complete without a reference to one notable and substantial absentee: the United States of America. The US Congress has declined to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, despite its provisions being so valuable to its strategic interests—for example, in the South China Sea—that the US recognises UNCLOS as customary international law. It declined to sign the biodiversity convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and has sustained that refusal ever since on the erroneous grounds that it would damage the US’s biotechnology industries, even though the main failing of the biodiversity convention is that it is too weak, not too strong. America will decide for itself what is in its interest, but I hope the Minister will confirm, when winding up the debate, that we will continue to urge the US to join these conventions and to hold the door open for it, should it have a change of heart.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Whitehead on joining this House. He and I worked together in the 1997 Labour Government, when he was an enormous support to me. I know he will make a huge contribution to the House.
I was a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee when it wrote a report in 2022 called UNCLOS: The Law of the Sea in the 21st Century. Underlying its recommendations was the committee’s view that:
“As a major maritime power, the UK has a strong role to play in the development and maintenance of the law of the sea”.
As such, the UK must meet 21st century challenges to ensure the usefulness and relevance of UNCLOS. Many of the report’s recommendations related to issues that are not the direct subject of the Bill, but will the Government make a progress report on their more recent work covering these matters, including human rights and labour protections at sea? There are shocking examples of human rights law being broken, with forced labour and appalling working conditions. These include breaches of maritime security, including piracy and armed robbery at sea. Many such crimes take place partly because of the failure of regulation resulting from the system of flags of convenience, which cries out for reform. There is a need for an oceans strategy, as requested by Sarah Champion MP in another place. Can the Minister respond on that?
I turn to the central purpose of the Bill. The Select Committee also identified the importance of protecting biodiversity in the context of climate change and dangerous increases in the temperature of the ocean. In doing so, it pointed out the huge role the oceans play in absorbing carbon dioxide released since industrialisation. It also took evidence on the damage that land-based pollution causes to the marine environment, such as ocean acidification and changes to ocean circulations, which in turn can destroy marine species and the vital environments, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests, that support them.
I therefore welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I ask that it completes its enactment in time for the ratification of the treaty. The Minister has explained the urgent need to put into domestic law protections that apply to international rather than domestic waters.
The Bill is largely technical, but the section on marine genetic resources strikes me as particularly important. Valuable scientific projects on the high seas are being carried out by British teams, often in international collaborations. I support new regulatory requirements extending reporting to the Secretary of State and do not believe that responsible scientists should see this as overly intensive regulation. I also support the area-based management tools set out in Part 3.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, with their new powers to act in international waters, will UK regulatory bodies such as the Marine Management Organisation need to abide by principles set out in the Environment Act 2021, such as the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles? Secondly, how do the Government intend to work with non-signatories, in particular—following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—with the US, which signed up originally but will not ratify the treaty? It is surely vital that we try to persuade it to take into account the issues that the treaty raises.
I end by welcoming what the Minister in another place said about UK support for a moratorium on deep-sea mining. I also welcome her statement that the UK will lead the world in the vital protection of our shared oceans, which was endorsed by my noble friend the new Minister in opening this debate. I am sure the Minister who winds up will want to say the same.
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.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a Member replacing the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Environment and Climate Change Committee and as a resident of the North Shields Fish Quay on the mouth of the Tyne—you will find it if you go to Newcastle and turn right—which is currently celebrating 800 years since its foundation. It is well worth a visit for anyone who has a day or two to spare.
I have never considered the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to have been an eco-warrior—but fair play to him. He was one of the early signatories, of the 145 representing different nations, to the agreement that gives rise to this piece of legislation. So credit where credit is due: without that signatory, we would not be where we are today. I also give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her role in that.
I welcome the return to Parliament of Labour’s own green-energy warrior, Alan Whitehead—my noble friend the Minister—who spoke with great authority, experience and expertise when making his impassioned maiden speech, for which he is to be truly congratulated.
Among others celebrating the regulation of the deep blue seas, which we are about to pass, will be the sharks, whales, turtles and other marine life that can be assured that nations recognise the need to exercise control over their own activities and craft sailing in the high seas. This is excellent news and the Government are to be congratulated on committing to this legislation. It is unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, that some countries have not yet signed, but the door remains open for that to happen.
Our failure to pass this legislation—and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has some objections to it—would have a seriously detrimental effect on the UK’s ability to influence a wider community and would present a risk of reputational damage to our position as one of the leaders in achieving global biodiversity targets.
The Bill will achieve a number of important things. MPAs will be established on the high seas, meaning that they should benefit from protections, just as national waters do, and there will be fair and shared access to the benefits of research and discovery, which will benefit the health and well-being of all signatory nations, meaning that smaller nations and less economically powerful nations will not be disadvantaged as breakthroughs are made in medicine and agricultural fields. It will strengthen our environmental impact assessments in determining whether potential gains outweigh the risks of marine exploration. It will increase and improve capacity in building, and technology transfer is making for a sustainable and inclusive ocean economy and overcoming the unlicensed approach.
I have just one question for the Minister. How big a deal is the absence of nations such as the United States from the early signatories of this agreement?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to speak in the gap and congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his excellent maiden speech. As he said, the Bill is about ambition.
This important piece of legislation will protect two-thirds of the world’s oceans with the jurisdiction of a single nation—the home of precious inhabitants and the ecosystems that provide the delicate health needed. It provides marine protected areas for generations to come. As we all know, our world’s oceans are under significant threat. The Bill incorporates protecting and improving the marine environment in the UK, as well as internationally, to meet the global commitment of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
Oceans need action now from international communities helping to forge international relationships to ensure that exploitation is curtailed. Bottom-trawl fishing is highly destructive, damages the seabed and is still permitted. I vehemently hope that this practice can and will be halted.
The UK’s attention is drawn to hidden overfishing. Illegal discards and by-catch are unaccounted for in our fishing quotas as we continue to overfish and pollute our oceans, so action is very much needed. In the equation, too, is plastic production and waste, which have doubled in the last 15 to 20 years, to the extent that we now see plastic floating in our oceans. That has to be taken to task in order to breathe life back to protect our vital marine corridors for endangered marine mammals and birds. Oceans matter. They are host to almost 80% of all forms of biodiversity, which transcend our national borders.
It is pleasing that the figure of 60 countries having ratified the treaty was reached in September 2025, when Morocco and Sierra Leone deposited the 60th and 61st instruments of ratification. It will come into force next month, in January 2026, and is a huge step forward.
The Chagos Islands have vast marine protected areas around them and provide a safe corridor for migratory species. If we are to hand over the islands, what assurances have been given by Mauritius for marine protection, with ensured future funding?
The Bill will play a significant part in enabling and protecting our shared blue belt from further irreversible harm to enable healthy oceans for a healthy planet. I support the UK in meeting its international commitments, reinforcing its leadership in global ocean governance and supporting sustainable marine resource use. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Government; I used to work closely with him in opposition. I guarantee to him that if we can continue the co-operation that we had in trying to achieve the areas in climate change and energy that we often discussed, these Benches will be absolutely behind him. When he said he was going to resign from his seat at the next general election, I said to him that I was sure he would rebound back into this House, and here we are, so our congratulations from these Benches.
The Liberal Democrats and these Benches really welcome the Bill, and indeed the treaty, and it is always great to speak in the House when all sides of the House are pretty well at one. I just have a slight trepidation in that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is following me, has a reputation in this House for being quite combative. I will be interested to see what he has to say. I am still in some trepidation as to the unanimity of the House, but we will see. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, sounded positive, so that is something.
The way in which we judge this from these Benches—I have said this to Ministers before—is by looking at how ambitious the United Kingdom is, not just in ratifying this treaty but in making it work, do something and add to global biodiversity and the health of our planet. I am pleased that the Minister was very positive in that way. But like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I read the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was released last week, and there is just that one mention of the BBNJ in there. As she pointed out very well, it was mentioned only once in some 120 pages, on Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister, when she responds to this debate, about other specific areas, such as the Falklands, particularly as regards the Argentinian connection. That is an excellent suggestion. Let us have an agenda there that works.
One area in particular is not really covered by this biodiversity treaty—and we have to remember the major frustration that we cannot amend the treaty, only the legislation. I am sure we would all have liked it to be stronger, but we cannot change it. Ironically, one of the areas it really leaves out is fisheries, which are the biggest threat to biodiversity and have been over time, maybe apart from climate change and acidification, which others have mentioned. We are a member of five so-called regional fisheries management organisations, which span those high seas: two tuna ones, one in the Indian Ocean, a salmon Atlantic one, and the north-east Atlantic and north-west Atlantic fishing organisations. Because of the enforcement problems that we know we have, those organisations have great intentions and are important but are not as strong as they need to be. My question to the Minister is: do we have an agenda, a wish and a determination, apart from just ratifying this treaty, to make those regional fisheries management organisations work better and to be more effective to, if you like, surf the wave further towards helping biodiversity?
I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the UNCLOS treaty, because like her I was on the International Relations and Defence Committee when we looked at it. In a way it is the Achilles heel of this treaty, because its fundamental status is to say, from way back in history, that outside territorial waters and certainly outside EEZs on the high seas, you cannot intervene on other flagged vessels without going through a very long process. That is a particular problem because of the way in which flag states operate.
Noble Lords will know that the major nations with the biggest fleets and tonnage are Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands. The UK is 27th on that list. We have 1,000 vessels of over 100 tonnes. Panama has eight times that number. However, when it comes to tonnage, we have only 1/25th of the tonnage that Panama has because operators and state companies choose their own flag of convenience and are often not able to respond in the way that they do. Fundamentally, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, to make the enforceability and effectiveness of this treaty much better we have to try to tighten up on that situation. The report that we referred to asked the Government to look again at the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. That was some time ago. There have been only 17 ratifications; it needs 40 to come into force. I would love the United Kingdom to re-energise that treaty and try to get it implemented. It would make a huge difference in terms of enforceability for the Bill.
Moving on to the genetic and digital sequence side, we have mentioned the United States of America, which, under the Biden Administration, did sign this treaty but will never sign it during the Trump Administration. We might talk strongly to the United States, but there is no way that it will sign this treaty. The International Maritime Organization that we have talked about, working on the other side of the Thames, is really important. Two months ago, through intimidation, America stopped an international agreement on carbon emissions of vessels on the high seas that was about to be signed. That treaty was sunk by the United States through very aggressive activity. There is no chance whatever of the United States signing this one.
My question to the Minister is: what stops the excellent data sharing and sharing of scientific information for genetic material and digital sequence information? If British companies or British people wish to do that, what is to stop them offshoring that activity to the United States and carrying it out there without having to comply with this treaty? That is a difficult one. I would be interested to understand whether the Government have thought about that and what they might do.
Internationally, we need to look in the mirror. A number of noble Lords have said this. We are not perfect at looking after our biodiversity within our own waters and our own EEZ. Defra’s recent draft strategic look at fisheries and biodiversity has pointed out that the north-east Atlantic is one of the worst for depletion of fisheries and biodiversity. We have that in our own backyard. We need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have often called for remote electronic monitoring—of not just our own fleet but anybody that comes within our EEZ. The Government have a consultation out on that. It is one of two trials that have had very little reaction from the fisheries industry, but this would be good for it as well as for us. Let us do that.
These Benches welcome this treaty. We want to get it through quickly. We want it ratified. We want the United Kingdom to be positive, an implementer and one of the nations that ensures that this treaty, difficult though it is, is a real success for the high seas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Government Front Bench. When I was a Minister in DESNZ and he was shadow Energy Minister in the other place, we often appeared on panels and at seminars together and very rarely disagreed on most of the issues. He understands the energy brief extremely well and I am sure he will be a great success in his ministerial position. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but we support this important Bill implementing a landmark agreement that we signed when we were in government, as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Courtown reminded us. Biodiversity is important both here and abroad, and the Government are right to continue our work to protect marine diversity both at home and on the high seas.
As my noble friend Lord Courtown said, in government we had a strong record on biodiversity. Beyond signing 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—quite a mouthful —we implemented our world-leading Blue Belt programmes supporting our overseas territories in delivering protection for endemic marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, we ensured that around 40% of the UK’s domestic waters are protected by appropriate marine protected areas. These efforts, which are a continuation of the policy started by the previous Government, put the UK at the forefront of the global effort to protect 30% of global seas by 2030.
Ministers will have our support as they work to protect the world’s oceans from the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change, but we need to get the details right, and we will be monitoring the Government’s approach to ensure that they really are doing the best that they can to protect marine biodiversity in our home waters as well as playing a full role in our worldwide effort to protect our oceans.
As we have already heard from a number of speakers, the UK is doing a great deal already to protect marine biodiversity, but protecting our oceans, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, cannot be achieved unilaterally. When she replies, will the Minister provide the House with an update on the work that her department and others in government are doing to ensure that our partners across the world are doing their part in also protecting our oceans? What processes, for example, exist under this treaty to ensure that signatories fulfil their obligations and what consequences would there be for a nation that is a signatory to the treaty which fails to fulfil those obligations? Without firm commitment from all signatories, we will struggle to achieve the benefits for marine biodiversity, so it is essential that the UK continues to play a full role in encouraging other global partners to step up to the demands of this treaty. Can the Minister also confirm whether the UK will support other signatories where they lack the necessary administrative or scientific expertise, for example, to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? If so, what form would that support take and how would it be funded?
The location of the new marine protected areas, as my noble friend said, is important. Any clarity that Ministers can provide on that would be helpful to the House as we consider this treaty. It has also been noted that it will come into effect in early 2026. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. Any other timelines which go along with the secondary legislation would also be helpful to the House.
How many of those MPAs will include prohibitions on fishing when they are introduced? We on these Benches are proud to back the UK fishing industry, so of course we need to get the balance right between MPAs that rightly prohibit overfishing and continuing to protect the sustainability of our fishing industry. I will not repeat the point on EU fishing rights in UK waters, but we are disappointed with the Government’s approach on this. We will continue to hold the Government to account. It is essential to get the balance right for our fishing communities, which have been, in our view, badly treated by the agreements that this Government have made.
My noble friend Lord Courtown summed up our approach to this Bill very well at the beginning of this debate. We will not seek to delay or undermine this important piece of legislation, and we want to support the Government in getting the Bill, which is necessary for ratification, on to the statute books in good time, not least to allow ratification to happen before the treaty comes into effect early next year.
That said, we will of course look at the Bill in detail as it progresses through its stages. In the other place, we sought to amend the regulation-making powers to improve parliamentary accountability, and a number of Members have referred to that. We sought to require Ministers to report to Parliament on the use of those powers under this Bill and the enforcement of the treaty. We will return to the issues of accountability and reporting in Committee, as well as looking at the impact of the treaty on UK-based businesses, particularly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our fishing fleet.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Redfern, mentioned the important issue of the UK’s approach to the Chagos Archipelago. We debated this extensively during the recent treaty legislation and the Minister knows well that we are extremely concerned about the Government’s political decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius. This means that the UK will no longer be able to play a full role, as we would have played previously, in protecting the rich marine biodiversity around those islands.
Mauritius is also a signatory to the UN agreement on marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the UK’s treaty with Mauritius establishes a marine protected area around the islands—although we are extremely concerned with its ability to enforce it. Will the Minister please take the opportunity to set out what levers and mechanisms the UK will retain and be able to use under the UN agreement to ensure that Mauritius fulfils its obligations on marine biodiversity?
We will not waver in our support for global collaboration on marine biodiversity. Healthy oceans are essential, and this treaty is, in our view, a real step forward in the fight against the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change. Ministers are right to continue the excellent work that we started in this area, but we reserve the right to scrutinise the Bill in detail—and perhaps disagree with some of the details—when it progresses to its next legislative stage.
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.