Monday 12th January 2026
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBiodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 View all Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 157-I Marshalled list for Report - (8 Jan 2026)
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision that is within section 9(2) (read with section 9(3) to (6)) for the purposes of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 2 of the Agreement.(2) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person;(b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(3) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction; (b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(4) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(5) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (2)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 9.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate with the government amendments tabled in my name relating the role of devolved Governments in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement. As noble Lords will be aware, the BBNJ Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from certain clauses which extend to Scotland only. Foreign affairs, including the negotiation and signature of international treaties, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, observation and implementation of obligations arising under treaties in domestic law are excepted from the foreign affairs reservation so far as those obligations relate to devolved matters. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we have agreed that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, by Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.
The Government have been in sustained discussions with both devolved Governments to seek consent for this Bill, and I can confirm to the House that Motions on consent will be debated shortly in both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Throughout these discussions, the Government have sought to ensure that devolved competencies are fully respected. That is why we have tabled amendments on Report to strengthen the role of the devolved Governments in the future implementation of the BBNJ agreement.
Clauses 9 and 11 confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the UK’s obligations under Parts II and III of the BBNJ agreement. Government Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence. In addition, Amendments 3 and 7 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scotland and Northern Ireland before exercising the powers in Clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This approach will ensure that devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and enable them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and it reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Government Amendments 10 and 11 ensure that Clause 23, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under the new clauses introduced by government Amendments 1 and 5. Instead, the procedures for regulations set out in government Amendments 2 and 6 respectively will apply.
Finally, government Amendment 12 amends Clause 26 so that Clause 18 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change will ensure a consistent approach across the Bill with regards to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through those technicalities. These Benches welcome the effectiveness of devolution for this sort of implementation legislation, as I am sure the whole House does. The one question I have for the Minister, although she does not have power over it, is whether she has been assured by the devolved Assemblies that the correct and needed authorities will be given, so that we can keep up the momentum and participate as a party that has ratified this agreement when the first Conference of the Parties takes place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Bill enables the Government to go ahead and ratify the treaty, which we signed when we were in government and we still support. We have discussed the treaty and the Bill at length in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government are continuing with this work to implement the treaty.
The amendments in this group seek to grant powers to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers that are broadly equivalent to those granted to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Although the content of these amendments is not especially concerning, it feels a little late for the Government to make substantive changes to their Bill. The Bill has progressed through all stages in the House of Commons and Committee in your Lordships’ House. By making amendments at this late stage, Peers are denied the opportunity of proper scrutiny in Committee. We believe that this is happening too often. We were clear when it happened under the previous Government that it was unacceptable, and it remains so under this Government. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have waited until Report in this House to make these changes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to fall out with the noble Lord today, but the reason these changes have come at this stage is that we have listened to our friends and colleagues in the devolved Administrations who have said that they feel they need these powers, and we respect their view, having had a look at it as well. This has not always been the approach of the UK Government, but it is what we are trying to do, so that is why they have come at this stage.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I believe that the correct authorities are to be given. I have every confidence that that is the case, and I hope that we do not need to return to make changes to this as a consequence. These amendments demonstrate our commitment to collaborating with the devolved Governments at the same time as ensuring that the UK is able to implement the agreement in a timely manner.
“Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland)(1) Regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) that include provision—(a) amending an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation,(b) made in reliance on section 9(2)(b), or(c) creating a civil sanction or varying the maximum amount of any monetary penalty,are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) Any other regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) are subject to the negative procedure.(3) Any provision that may be made by regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) subject to the negative procedure may be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. (4) The power of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see sections 28 and 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 for the meanings of “subject to the negative procedure” and “subject to the affirmative procedure”, and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland—(i) where the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and(ii) where the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, the regulations are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make provision for procedure relating to regulations under new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland), which would be inserted after clause 9.
“Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 9 that contain provision with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
“Control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations and through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, make provision for the prevention, control and remediation of pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from the manufacture, handling, transport, storage, loading or unloading of plastic pellets, flakes or powders.(2) Measures taken under this section must aim to secure a level of environmental protection that is no less effective than the measures set out in the International Maritime Organization Marine Environment Protection Committee Circular MEPC.1/Circ.909, as approved in 2024.(3) Regulations under this section must, in particular, include provision—(a) requiring operators to implement mandatory procedures to prevent the loss of plastic pellets throughout the supply chain in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(b) requiring containment, spill-prevention, recovery and clean-up measures in areas beyond national jurisdiction consistent with internationally recognised best practice; (c) requiring training, documentation and internal controls relating to pellet loss prevention in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(d) requiring the prompt reporting of any loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction to the appropriate authority;(e) providing for the remediation of environmental harm and the recovery of associated costs from the responsible operator;(f) providing for monitoring, inspection of, and enforcement against, the loss of plastic pellets in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including civil sanctions;(g) requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to evidence of the effectiveness of measures adopted by parties to the International Maritime Organization, including measures adopted pursuant to the implementation of MEPC.1/Circ.909 by international signatories, including the European Union.(4) Regulations under this section must be made within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for putting her name to it as well. This is a very important issue that we debated at length in Committee. The reason I am bringing something back on Report, albeit in a more focused form just dealing with plastic pellets, is that plastic generally is one of the huge problems that the ocean needs to have addressed, but the plastic pellet issue is something that the Government could choose to do a lot more about monitoring, evaluating and regulating.
It is notable that the European Union has made regulations about pellets. The loss at sea during shipping of these pellets, which form the basis of plastic wherever it is manufactured, is estimated to be 10 trillion pellets annually, with 10 million tonnes apparently lost within European Union waters, so it is a massive problem the sheer scale of which is hard to imagine. Some of the losses get into the sea and wash out from our own sewage plants—that, again, is something that I am sure the Government will look at. I would like the Minister’s assurance today that through some vehicle in the future, whether it is the forthcoming water White Paper or whatever, they will address this issue of plastic pellets, firming up on how people shipping them are trained, the regulation of it and how they are contained on ships—everything to do with the shipping of them—because the scale of the loss is unsupportable and every country needs to take action on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is an extremely good amendment, and I urge the Minister to pick it up at some future date. This is such a good amendment that it should go into legislation somewhere.
In Committee, we heard at length and with real concern about the scale and persistence of plastic pollution in our oceans. Much of that discussion centred on consumable plastics and waste, but plastic pellets, flakes and powders are equally serious and often overlooked in legislation. These losses might be small in individual incidents, although some might be extremely large, but they are cumulative and, in effect, irretrievable and irreversible once they have happened.
We are looking ahead, apparently, to a global plastics treaty, which I am very excited about. That process is obviously welcome, but the urgency of the problem means that we should take every available opportunity to act now, particularly where there is already an international consensus on best practice.
What I welcome very much about this amendment is its practical focus. This would stop the plastic pellets getting into the sea in the first place instead of our trying to mop them up and recover them later which is, as I said, impossible.
I will also speak to my Amendment 9 on the exemptions in the Bill. Clause 18 seeks to strengthen confidence in how environmental impact assessments are applied. It worries me that there are so many exemptions. Again, I would very much appreciate it if the Minister took this issue up. My amendment is supported by WildFish, an organisation with extensive expertise in marine conservation, whose work highlights the importance of making sure that decisions to rely on exemptions are transparent, on a case-by-case basis, and ensure that there is an equivalence that meets Part IV of the BBNJ agreement and Article 206 of UNCLOS. This amendment would clearly set out that test. Where an appropriate authority determines that a formal environmental impact assessment is not required, that determination should rest on the existence of another assessment being in place that is equivalently robust.
The amendment would also ensure that the reasoning behind such decisions was recorded and published, with the idea to keep decisions transparent and uphold public trust. In particular, there are difficulties in relying on regional fisheries management organisations as a substitute for BBNJ-aligned environmental assessment. Although RFMOs play an important role in managing fishing effort and target stocks, their processes do not routinely deliver full assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors, of effects on food webs and non-target species, or of the full implications for migratory species that cross jurisdictional boundaries. I would be very happy to talk to the Minister in more detail about this and I hope to see it in a future Bill. I would like to have moved this amendment, but we are obviously in a hurry to complete the Bill, so I have held off, but it is incredibly important that we do not allow exemptions without understanding why they have happened and the fact that they have not been recorded properly.
As interest grows in new industries, such as open ocean aquaculture, the potential environmental impacts, ranging from disease and growth in parasites to genetic impacts from escapes and reliance on wild-caught fish, are even more important. We are seeing this in salmon farms at the moment: escaped fish covered in all sorts of rather nasty things spread to wild fish and cross-breed, which is deeply unhealthy for the wild fish. I would welcome the Minister putting on record how the Government intend to apply these equivalence criteria in practice, particularly in view of the regional fisheries management organisations. I would like reassurance that exemptions in any future legislation will be applied narrowly and cautiously; that equivalence will be actively tested and not just assumed; that reliance on regional organisations alone will not automatically justify exemption; and that future high-risk activities will be subject to BBNJ-aligned screening.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I hope the Minister will have a useful reply to it.
On plastics and the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Miller, one of the things that is clear is that, even in terms of human health and the food chain, plastics discarded anywhere, let alone in the ocean, are a huge issue for the future. I have one question for the Minister. One of the tragedies of last year was that the plastics treaty was not concluded, despite expectation. It is largely thought that that was because of the lobbying of the plastics industry. Certainly, the United States has not exactly been supportive of international agreements over the past 12 months. It would be great if, despite my pessimism about the future of that treaty, there was some feeling within her department that perhaps it is not dead, as it is supposed not to be, and there is still some mileage and hope that we might be able to find a conclusion to it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group. The objective of the treaty is to protect areas of the ocean that lie beyond national jurisdiction in line with the treaty that we agreed. Plastic pellet pollution is a concerning environmental risk, and I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter forward for debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns and take this opportunity to set out the steps the Government are taking to tackle the menace of plastic pellet pollution. Does the Minister think that that action is sufficient? Do Ministers have plans to go further on plastic pollution during this Parliament? While we do not feel that the amendment is a necessary improvement to the Bill, we share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the harmful effects of plastic pollution.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to ensure that environmental impact assessments are undertaken where appropriate. Again, while we do not think that this is necessary in the Bill, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Baroness that environmental impact assessments will continue to be required where appropriate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to environmental protection and plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I thank them for it—would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the control of plastic pellet pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction within 12 months of the BBNJ Act being passed.
The Government fully recognise the seriousness of plastic pollution in the marine environment, including the particular harms caused by plastic pellet loss. It is a matter of genuine public concern as well. The noble Baronesses have been tireless advocates for action in this area, and I am pleased that they have used the opportunity today to raise this issue again.
The Government are taking steps to address the issue through existing regulatory channels. For example, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships under the International Maritime Organization already requires the reporting of the discharge, both accidental or deliberate, of any harmful substance covered by the convention and sets out how this report must be made. Discussions on regulating plastic pellets under the convention are currently ongoing in the IMO, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be responsible for addressing the implementation of these regulations. The UK implements Annex V of this convention through the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships) Regulations 2020, which prohibits any discharge of plastic into the sea.
Further, as of 1 January, a new requirement under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea came into force internationally, which mandates the reporting of lost containers to the nearest coastal state and flag state so that speedy efforts to recover the containers can be made. Additionally, there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Pellet loss is a global issue, and the UK has called for specific provisions in the new treaty on plastic pollution to address pellet loss throughout the supply chain. I appreciate that things have not got to where we would wish them to with this treaty, but we continue to support it. Notwithstanding the long amount of time that has already elapsed in getting the treaty to where it is today, we do not walk away; we continue to advocate for the treaty.
While I recognise the important issue raised by the amendment, for the purpose of the Bill, this is about enabling the UK to comply with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement. I know that the noble Baronesses understand this and are using this opportunity to raise these issues, and so they should. We do not think this particular Bill is the most suitable vehicle for addressing plastic pollution across its full life cycle. Elements of the proposed new clause may become duplicative of measures currently being taken by the UK to manage plastic pollution at sea.
Amendment 9 was specifically tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She rightly highlights the importance of ensuring that, under the marine licensing regime, an appropriate authority cannot defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement Part IV requirements. I fully agree with what she is trying to do through the amendment. I reassure her that these changes are not needed, because it is already the case that the appropriate authority will not, under the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, be able to defer to another equivalent assessment unless that assessment meets the requirements of Part IV of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. This would include all the procedural consultation and public participation requirements of Part IV of the agreement. The respective Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations set out various additional procedural and public notification requirements that the appropriate authority must undertake if it decides to defer to an equivalent assessment.
Given that these requirements already ensure that, under the marine licensing regimes, an equivalent assessment must be appropriately rigorous and meet the Part IV requirements, including for public participation and transparency, I am pleased that I can, I think, reassure the noble Baroness that the amendment is not needed today. I am happy to continue, as she suggests, talking about this, alongside my colleagues in Defra. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baronesses will not press their amendments.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. It is constructive that the loss of containers has to be reported, but I look forward to a time when we are not just hearing that the horse has bolted but have actually got bolts on the stable door. I am sure that the Government will continue to press for that aim too. In withdrawing the amendment, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for contributing to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)(1) Where section 11 applies, the appropriate national authority may by regulations make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose mentioned in section 11(2).(2) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 11 apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under that section.(3) Regulations under this section may—(a) confer a function (including a discretion) on any person; (b) make different provision for different purposes or for different areas;(c) make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(4) Regulations under this section that provide for civil sanctions—(a) must provide a right of appeal against the imposition of any such sanction;(b) may make any provision corresponding to, or dealing with similar matters to, provision made by or capable of being made under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.(5) For the purposes of this section, “appropriate national authority”, in relation to the making of regulations, means—(a) the Scottish Ministers, so far as provision made by the regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament; (b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, so far as provision made by the regulations—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(6) The consequential provision that may be made by regulations in reliance on subsection (3)(c) includes provision amending—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, an enactment within the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (whenever passed or made), and(b) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, any statutory provision within the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland a power to make provision within devolved legislative competence corresponding to the provision that the Secretary of State can make under clause 11.
“Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2))(1) Subject to subsection (3), regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) that include provision—(a) amending an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland legislation,(b) creating a civil sanction or varying the maximum amount of any monetary penalty, or(c) creating a criminal offence,are subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) Subsection (3) applies where the provision within subsection (1) of this section relates to a decision under Article 24(1) of the Agreement.(3) Where the person making the regulations considers that the regulations need to be made urgently in order to give effect to the measure to which they relate, the regulations are subject to the made affirmative procedure. (4) Any other regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) are subject to the negative procedure.(5) Any provision that may be made by regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) subject to the negative procedure may be made in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure or the made affirmative procedure.(6) The power of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(7) For the purposes of this section—(a) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, see sections 28 and 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 for the meanings of “subject to the negative procedure” and “subject to the affirmative procedure”, (b) in relation to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers that are subject to the “made affirmative procedure”, the regulations—(i) must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament,(c) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to the “affirmative procedure”, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly,(d) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to the “made affirmative procedure”, the regulations—(i) must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and (e) in relation to regulations made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland that are subject to “the negative procedure”, the regulations are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).(8) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (7)(b)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than 4 days.(9) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (7)(d)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than 4 days, or(c) adjourned for more than 6 days.(10) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7)(b)(ii) or (d)(ii), that does not— (a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would make provision for procedure relating to regulations under new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), which would be inserted after clause 12.
“Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision that— (a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the regulations need to be made urgently in order to give effect to a measure adopted under Article 24(1) of the Agreement (decisions to adopt measures to be applied on an emergency basis).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before making regulations under section 11 that contain provision with the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, except in the case of regulations that need to be made urgently.
Lord Teverson
“(2A) In section 69 (determination of applications), after subsection (1)(c) insert—“(d) the need to ensure the human rights of those at sea in areas beyond national jurisdiction,””
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the core characteristics of the Bill is, obviously, a treaty that is about actions beyond national jurisdictions. In fact, we should celebrate it even more, because I suspect it will be one of the last of these treaties that we shall enjoy and be able to make over the next few years. I think that there will not be many that follow this.
One of the areas that has been left out of the treaty, but which is important, because this is beyond national jurisdiction, is around human rights—hence the amendment. I thank the Minister and her team for the conversations that we have had recently about this area. Human rights are, by definition, universal, but they are very differently applied, in practice, terrestrially from how they are on the high seas. The reason for that is that, terrestrially, they can be enforced; those who feel that their human rights are being threatened can go to authorities, normally. Their cases and instances can be pursued, whether it be through legal processes or whatever.
Out on the high seas, that is very different indeed. There is effectively a vacuum in terms of enforcement once the national boundaries at sea have been crossed. There is also an asymmetric situation in terms of power. Whether it be crew, passengers or researchers in this instance, once they are on the high seas, they have very little power in comparison to the skipper or captain, or what the owners might instruct the skipper or captain to do. For instance, unlike on land, there is no contact by mobile telephone; you cannot get in touch with authorities to pursue your case or ask for help or get protection. None of that is necessarily available.
That is compounded by flags of convenience, which we talked about in Committee. Often, those flag states, which would be the enforcement authority for a vessel on the high seas, do not have the capacity, the interest or the ability to be communicated with to enforce those human rights on that vessel; hence why I ask that we also include human rights in the terms of the licensing requirement. I noted, going through the coastal access Act, that human health was one of the considerations, but human rights are obviously much broader than that.
So, who are the sorts of people who might be the problem? I suspect it is not the researchers on a research vessel, but you still have crew beyond that. The problem is usually because they are either indentured employees, migrants who are unable to communicate easily with the ship owners or the authority of the port where they are, being unable to communicate in the same language. There is quite wide-scale abuse, mainly in the fishing industry, but there are also instances in the cruise industry and risks in this sector as well.
That is why I feel it is important that the licensing authorities are able to check, purely in the case of licences for research beyond national jurisdiction, and that they have to consider whether the boat owner, operator and licensee are able and have the will to protect the human rights of the persons on board those vessels. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendment. Of course, we share his desire to see the rights of those who are at sea beyond national jurisdiction protected. This is an important issue and I understand why he has tabled his amendment, but I am sure that even the noble Lord will probably accept that the Bill is possibly not the right vehicle for his concerns to be addressed.
The amendment would add an additional duty on marine licensing authorities to have regard to the need to ensure that the rights of those at sea beyond national jurisdiction are protected. Obviously, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and I am sure she can tell us what work her department has done to understand whether this new duty would be at all workable and how licensing authorities could go about assessing the necessary information to comply with any new duty. I am sure she will also tell us whether Ministers have considered any other possible approaches to ensure protection for those at sea beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, given that this is an issue relating by definition to issues and activities beyond national jurisdiction, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would consider that a multilateral approach, rather than the UK acting unilaterally on this, would probably have more luck in ensuring that his concerns are addressed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to speak with me about his Amendment 8 last week. He is a long-standing and committed advocate for human rights at sea, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of these issues, including, as he described, the challenges of enforcement on the high seas.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the greatest delight is that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness actually agreed with each other; that seemed highly unusual, having sat through the previous debate. I have brought about a coming together of the two of them—at least that is positive.
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this issue should be dealt with multilaterally. That is clearly the case. However, I am a pessimist. Unfortunately, I do not think that is on the cards in the near future, in any way. This would be a way to address that, and perhaps the UK could once again show a lead to other nations and other signatories of the treaty.
However, I agree with much of what the Minister said. I hope that we can continue this conversation more productively, perhaps in other legislation, because this issue affects a significant number of people who trade, research and fish on the high seas. They need our support and our understanding that there can be some very difficult times for those people in those circumstances. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(za) section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland) after clause 9.
“(za) section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting new clause (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)) after clause 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for clause 18 to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoints.