Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation, and I thank her for acknowledging that it started under the previous Government. I hope there will be a consensus, but there are many questions to be answered, and we need to go into this legislation in a lot of detail to ensure that there are not unintended consequences.

Nobody in this House doubts the importance of protecting our oceans. The high seas belong to us all, to every nation on this planet, and the United Kingdom, as a proud seafaring nation and a world leader in natural sciences with no less than 16 overseas territories spanning—for now at least—all five of the world’s major oceans, has always led the world in safeguarding them. The protection of our oceans is one of the defining challenges of our age. Two thirds of the world’s oceans lie beyond the jurisdiction of any single nation, and those waters are home to a vast array of life that sustains the planet’s ecosystems.

Britain depends on the seas for our trade. They have been a moat for our national security and are our bridge to the wider world. We therefore have not only a moral duty to protect them but a strategic one. One of the core values of the small c conservatism that I believe in, as the name suggests, is to conserve things that truly matter. That applies not only to our institutions and our way of life here in these islands, but to the preservation of our green and pleasant land and, in this case, that of the marine biodiversity, so that we can hand on to our descendants the natural beauty that I know we all cherish. That principle is certainly not in question today by anyone in this House of any party.

Nowhere is our record clearer than in the crown jewel of our leadership on the environment that is the blue belt programme. Through it, the United Kingdom and our overseas territories have created over 4.4 million sq km of marine protected areas from the South Atlantic and the Pacific to the Indian ocean. These waters safeguard king penguins on the Falkland Islands, green turtles on Ascension Island, grey reef sharks on the Pitcairn Islands and countless other species across the globe. I have had the privilege to visit the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island and see the amazing biodiversity that we are responsible for, and the oceans around those territories are vital to protect. The blue belt is one of the largest networks of protected ocean on Earth, and it exists because of British leadership alongside the Governments of the British overseas territories. We granted those creatures and their habitats protection from exploitation by others, from industrial fishing fleets and from countries that would plunder our resources without a second thought. That is something this nation should be immensely proud of.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member is saying, and he is absolutely right on the blue belt. Does he therefore regret that in all the debates we have had about the Chagos Islands, the Conservatives have not raised the importance of the conservation of the fish stocks and the biodiversity around those islands?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, I am afraid, incorrect. We have raised those issues on many occasions, and I have personally raised them on countless occasions over the years. Before too long, the right hon. Member will hear a bit more about the Chagos Islands and the importance of protecting marine stocks and biodiversity in that part of the world.

Despite what has been said today, I fear that at this stage the Government are riding roughshod over that record and undermining those very principles through their abject surrender of a marine protected area. The British Indian Ocean Territory might look like a scattering of remote atolls in a far-flung region of the planet, but they are home to 640,000 sq km of ocean—one of the most pristine marine ecosystems on the earth, an area of ocean the size of France. Within it live more than 1,000 species of fish and over 200 species of coral.

I had the opportunity to see it for myself in 2019 when I visited the Chagos islands, in particular the atoll of Peros Banhos, where I was greeted by the wonderful Chagossian coconut crabs, as I jumped out of the dinghy and walked on to the beach and into the uninhabited island—where we shamefully forced the people to leave their homes all those years ago and refused to allow them to return. Its waters shelter seabirds, turtles and dolphins. It is an environmental treasure that the world envies and that Britain has rightly protected over so many years.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mauritius was one of the early signatories to the UN global ocean treaty? If so, I am not sure what his point is.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice.

In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us do care about our British overseas territories and the marine environment. Some of us have made these arguments for many, many years, as have many on the Government Benches. If we are to take this issue seriously, we need to take our responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, future generations, not just in this country but across the world, will look back at this debate and what we are doing today, and think, “What on earth were they doing, giving away such a vital part of the planet that we are responsible for?”

Either the Government truly believe that Mauritius will reverse course and persuade China to respect this marine protected area, or, as I am afraid the Chagos surrender treaty implies, we shall end up doing the heavy lifting while paying for the privilege. Forgive me for not being entirely convinced, but I do not believe that the statistics I have cited are those of a nation ready to take on responsibility for one of the world’s most delicate marine ecosystems.

Scientific assessments show that live coral cover in Mauritian waters fell by up to 70% in the late 1990s, while coastal erosion and reef degradation continue unchecked. A United Nations review in 2022 found that, while on paper Mauritius has environmental laws, enforcement is inconsistent, community involvement is limited and responses to emerging threats such as ocean acidification remain inadequate. Unbelievably, seagrass beds, which are vital for carbon storage and marine biodiversity, are still cleared to make way for tourism development. Is this really the environmental guardian that Ministers are entrusting with 640,000 sq km of some of the most pristine ocean on earth? It beggars belief.

We need to look around the world to see what happens when Chinese fishing interests move in. In Ecuador, thousands of octopuses and sharks have been left dead on the shore because of illegal fishing by Chinese vessels. We need to guard against that in future. Off the coast of Ghana, fishermen’s catches have fallen by 40% due to Chinese bottom trawlers decimating local fish stocks. Around the Korean peninsula, squid populations have collapsed by 70%. I hope that this legislation and this agreement will help to protect the oceans around the world and countries where there are no protections at the moment. If the Chagos islands are handed over, the same fleets will soon appear in some of those waters, and Chagos will be at the mercy of exploitation.

That is the context in which the House is considering the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill. It runs to 26 clauses, as the Minister has said. It is impossible to run through them all today, but no doubt we will look at them in greater detail in Committee. There are, however, several points that must be addressed in today’s debate.

When will ratification happen? Clause 25 provides for the commencement of regulation, but without any statutory deadline or parliamentary trigger, leaving ratification entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. To add to that, clauses 9 and 11 grant far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation. Where is Parliament’s role in that? How will the House scrutinise decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement? Will we be consulted before international rules are imposed on British institutions and industries? Will British waters or those of our overseas territories ever fall under the jurisdiction of a foreign or supranational regulator? We surely cannot allow global bureaucracy to override British parliamentary sovereignty.

Beyond the question of control lies the spectre of bureaucracy. Clauses 2 and 3 impose heavy reporting duties on marine research and genetic sampling. Clause 16 allows still more procedures by regulation. Has the Department assessed what that will cost in time and money for our scientists and shipping operators and for legitimate researchers? How will small British enterprises compete if they face mountains of paperwork, while less scrupulous nations exploit the same waters freely? We all support high standards, but in the world we currently live in, we cannot afford to lose innovation or competitiveness.

Then there is the matter of expense. The impact assessment admits that compliance, licensing and enforcement will not be cheap, yet provides little detail on who pays. At a time of fiscal restraint, when every Department must justify every pound spent, can the Minister explain whether this legislation will truly be the best use of taxpayers’ money? How much will it cost to implement the BBNJ regime in full? Will the task of monitoring fall to the Royal Navy or the Marine Management Organisation, and what extra resources will they receive to do the job? What is the cost-benefit ratio, and have the Government assessed whether there could be indirect impacts on the taxpayer?

What of the impact on British industries, fishermen, offshore energy and biotechnology? Can the Minister assure us that British fishermen will not face restrictions, that our energy sector will not be burdened by impractical licensing demands, and that our biotech pioneers will not find their discoveries trapped in international bureaucracy?

[Emma Hardy]

I wonder if I could offer some helpful clarity. This debate is on BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, with the word “beyond” giving a clue to the fact that it does not relate to British waters. The points the hon. Gentleman is raising, about what impact the high seas will have on offshore wind development here, might therefore not be entirely valid, and his points about the impact on British fishermen fishing in UK waters might not be covered by the global ocean treaty. I wonder if it might be helpful for him to read the explanatory notes alongside the Bill.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will have plenty of time to explain all these matters in detail in Committee. This is Second Reading, when we raise issues of concern. I look forward to Committee, and to all my questions being answered at that stage, if not today. I thank her for her intervention.

What safeguards will protect British intellectual property in marine genetic research? Will the benefit-sharing provisions prevent our scientists from developing the fruits of their own work? Will other nations shoulder equal obligations, or will Britain be left carrying the cost because we are doing the right thing and others are not? Our research institutions are some of the most prestigious global leaders in the marine sector, whether it is the Natural History Museum, the National Oceanography Centre or our magnificent universities. First and foremost, there must be a guarantee from the Government that this Bill will not drown them in red tape.

Clause 20 rightly extends the Bill’s provisions to the British overseas territories, which are central to our environmental success story. From the Pitcairn islands, with their 35 residents, to Tristan da Cunha, home to barely 240 residents, these far-flung Britons have shown what small communities can achieve for global conservation when they have British support. But how can they have confidence in the Government’s assurances when they witness what is happening in Chagos? If Ministers are willing to trade away one British territory without consultation or consent, what message does that send to the rest? I remind the House that conservation with the loss of sovereignty and without credible means of enforcement is a hollow virtue. The United Kingdom has a record to be proud of, from Captain Cook to David Attenborough. We must build on that record and not undermine it with rushed ratification.

If Ministers will answer the questions that I have laid out, and if they will commit in statute to parliamentary oversight, a fully costed implementation plan, explicit safeguards for British science and intellectual property, and legally enforceable protections for the overseas territories, many on the Conservative Benches will consider how to support measures that genuinely conserve our seas. If they will not, I and others—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Rosindell, can I check that you are nearing your conclusion?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Marvellous.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I was literally about to get there, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If Ministers will not do so, I and others will oppose any step that weakens Britain’s hand. I end where I began. As Conservatives, our principle is that we want to conserve, to keep safe, to steward and to defend what we are responsible for. We must be true to that principle. We must continue to act as custodians of the seas in a way that respects our sovereignty, honours our obligations to our descendants and protects the livelihoods and ecosystems that depend on the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

I thank the shadow Ministers and hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to the debate. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for this important piece of legislation, and to hear the expertise, both from Members’ life experience prior to coming to this House and from the extensive work of our Committees over a long period of time.

I want to recognise the work of a number of the key stakeholders involved in informing the debate, some of whom I was able to speak to in the course of preparing for today, including the Marine Conservation Society, Greenpeace, Oceana, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Blue Marine Foundation. I want to make a cheeky remark towards the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), for whom I have a lot of respect, in that he suggested he could make up for the fact that there were no Conservative Back Benchers here during the debate, but indeed he made a useful contribution. That is important, because this should be a whole-of-House debate. It is important to recognise that we are continuing work that was started under the previous Government and that we supported all the way through. It is important that Members from all parties are present as the Bill starts its passage through the House, because as I will set out, it is important to inform the implementation and the ongoing debate.

I will draw on and respond to the contributions that have been made during my remarks. In particular, I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—whose comments, based on her extensive experience, were very much respected by the House—will make a great contribution during the passage of the legislation. She also talked about the importance of multilateralism and how we play our part with others around the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has experience of chairing a number of APPGs and has made a long-standing contribution. I will come back to some of the points she raised, but it was helpful to hear from her early in the debate.

We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)— I will come back to some of the points she raised—my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), for Exeter (Steve Race), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), and the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). That goes to show that we have had a whole-of-nation debate.

Before I turn to my more detailed remarks, I want to make a point about young people and the next generation. The important point was made that the oceans do not have voters, but when I think about the issues that are most important to young people, including in primary schools in my constituency, the health of our oceans and how we protect our environment are very high on the agenda. The oceans have their supporters across all generations, and that is important.

Let me start by reminding the House why this Bill and the BBNJ agreement matter. The BBNJ agreement is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will enable greater conservation of the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdictions and will support the delivery of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, which includes the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. Environmental degradation could lead to huge economic costs globally, making ocean conservation a long-term economic imperative, too. The agreement supports the UK’s wider climate and nature agenda, ensuring that we remain at the forefront of global efforts to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change through multilateral co-operation. It also strengthens the role of international law and multilateral institutions, and reinforces the UN convention on the law of the sea as the foundation for global governance.

There are also clear opportunities for the UK, which has one of the world’s leading marine scientific research communities. World-renowned institutions in the UK, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the Marine Biological Association and our leading university marine science departments, are at the forefront of ocean research and will greatly benefit from provisions in the agreement that promote transparency and data sharing around marine genetic resources. The Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will follow, will deliver on our commitment to ratify this historic agreement.

Let me turn to some of the points raised in the debate, and I will aim to answer as many questions as possible. In relation to the Chagos islands, this deal will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. Both the UK and Mauritius have committed to protect what is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and that commitment will be supported by an enhanced partnership between both countries, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago. The UK’s support for this will be agreed in a separate written instrument as part of the implementation of the agreement, and Government officials have already begun discussing with their Mauritian counterparts what it will involve. This has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London, and both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.

It is worth mentioning that under the treaty, the UK will continue to manage environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles. That shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable international law and with due regard to applicable Mauritian environmental laws. The Minister for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is at the heart of these discussions and has been leading on maritime protection in the overseas territories through expansion and confirmation of funding for the blue belt programme and our work in the polar regions. He has met scientists in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda last month and on board the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough to discuss their crucial work in the Antarctic and Arctic. We are doing crucial work on the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, which I am sure will be the subject of further debate in the House.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for speaking about the points made about the British Indian Ocean Territory by myself and others, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). The marine protected area was established by the Government of Gordon Brown at the tail end of the last Labour Government. It is a vital area that we need to protect. What guarantees can she honestly say we are getting that, if we are to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago to Mauritius, Mauritius will protect it in the same way we have done under both Labour and Conservative Governments?

[Seema Malhotra]

I reiterate what I said: both the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity. Indeed, the UK will still have responsibility for managing environmental protection on Diego Garcia and the surrounding 12 nautical miles, and discussions are ongoing in relation to the establishment of the marine protected area, which will be the subject of a separate written agreement. I cannot speak further on that, because I want to go through other points, but I am sure the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will be happy to discuss this matter further in the House.

The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) raised the issue of protecting intellectual property rights. The Secretary of State will not transmit information to the clearing-house mechanism that would be protected under intellectual property or trade secrets law. I am sure the hon. Member will be aware of that from his reading of the Bill.

A number of Members spoke about the process and implementation. This is a very significant step, as we move to ratify the agreement at the United Nations, which will happen following the passage of the Bill and associated secondary legislation. Indeed, it is a huge step towards protecting our shared ocean. It will provide the legal framework necessary to implement the BBNJ agreement domestically, ensuring the UK is able to comply fully with its international obligations under the agreement. The Bill and subsequent statutory instruments will ensure that we can implement and enforce future decisions of the conference of the parties.

At international level, a preparatory commission has been established to prepare for the convening of the first conference of the parties. The UK has been fully engaged in the work of the preparatory commission, including co-chairing a working group on the design of the clearing-house mechanism with Barbados. That will lay the groundwork for a successful first conference of the parties, which will enable parties and stakeholders to progress work on the ambitious implementation of the agreement.

In her opening remarks, my the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), referred to the consultation that we have had on bottom trawling, as well as to the work we are doing on proposals to restrict bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. The Government have outlined plans to restrict damaging fishing activity in marine protected areas, where that is needed to protect designated species and habitats. A number of Members mentioned plastic pollution, and the Government participated in the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution to develop an international legally binding instrument. It is disappointing that an agreement was not reached at the resumed fifth session in Geneva in August, but we continue to work on it. Indeed, we are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds raised the matter of institutional co-ordination, and I confirm that the FCDO ocean policy unit will be the national focal point, working closely with DEFRA and the Department for Transport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East asked about deep-sea mining. The UK supports a moratorium on the granting of exploration contracts for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. That means that we will not sponsor or support the issuing of such contracts until sufficient scientific guidance is available.

On the polluter pays and the precautionary principles, parties to the BBNJ agreement are guided by such principles and approaches. It is therefore our view that there is no specific need to include those principles in the Bill.

Global Plastics Treaty

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-informed intervention. I assure him that negotiations and discussions are ongoing, and we are determined to ensure that we get a good outcome.

As well as leading early work to develop criteria for problematic plastic products since the second negotiating session, INC2, the UK is co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design, and co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister is aware that His Excellency the Ambassador of Ecuador is the chairman of the UN intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastics. Is the Minister working with him? His Excellency is in London and doing incredible work in this area, and I hope that our Government are co-operating with him. He is also doing work toward and looking forward to the day when Ecuador can join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working with all interested parties to ensure that we make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) recently co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN ocean conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries, representing all regions and ambition levels, to discuss the most challenging issues.

As we look forward to August, it is clear that divergent views remain on key issues such as phasing out problematic products, how we approach the production of plastics and financing the treaty. However, it is our sense that the majority of countries want to reach an agreement at INC5.2, and there has been substantial discussion of how the treaty addresses plastic production. Many parties believe that plastic production is outside the scope of the agreement. However, the UK has been clear that the treaty should address the full life cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.

At INC5.2, we will continue to work on that basis, to ensure that the treaty sends a signal to spur investment in the market for recycled plastic and to collect the data we need to ensure that the treaty works. A provision on problematic plastic products will be one of the core treaty provisions, and the UK has worked with Brazil to carry out technical work to support that provision. The UK has also supported the call from 95 countries in Busan for a clear, legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics.

Good progress was made at INC5 on text that provides a basis for further discussions. The key will be striking the right balance between national measures and harmonised global approaches and ensuring that measures are based on science. We are working with Chile to promote an effective provision on the design of plastic products to keep them in use for longer and make them easier to recycle. We recognise the importance of mobilising support for the countries most in need of agreement’s implementation. That is an essential element of an effective treaty. The UK supports the use of the Global Environment Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. That will avoid further fragmentation of the environmental financial architecture and allow for synergies with funding for climate and nature.

As we have heard, plastic pollution is a broad issue, with a huge variety of actors across the plastics value chain. To mobilise the resources needed at scale, we must draw on an equally broad range of funding sources—public and private, domestic and international. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, contributing some £20.5 million. That partnership brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in the circular economy in countries eligible for official development assistance. To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act, and we need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is really important that their voices are heard.

It is essential that the treaty we agree is responsive to change and emerging evidence—it cannot operate effectively if one member has a de facto veto. As such, we need effective decision-making processes, including the possibility of voting on conference of the parties decisions and amendments to annexes once all options for achieving consensus have been exhausted.

One thing is clear: addressing the problem of plastic pollution requires a joint effort between Government, industry, academia and civil society. We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. Those dialogues have included actors at all stages of the plastics value chain, as well as academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. They have helped us to understand diverse views on the treaty, which in turn have informed our approach to negotiations.

In June, my ministerial colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, hosted a business roundtable to discuss how the private sector can support an ambitious plastic pollution treaty. It was the second plastics treaty business roundtable, and brought together businesses from across the plastics value chain. Those roundtables were attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, the INC chair. Twenty leading businesses have now signed a statement calling for an effective treaty, and four non-private sector organisations have endorsed that statement.

The Government are also clear that any treaty must be informed by science, and I noted the comments made on that topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). In that regard, we are deeply concerned to hear of the threats faced by scientists—an issue that has been raised by a number of contributors to this debate. Those threats are unacceptable. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the multilateral system and to an open, transparent and inclusive process.

This has been a timely debate, as we approach final negotiations in Geneva. While there are many challenges to overcome, a vast amount of work is under way to find solutions to the many remaining issues. I heard the strong calls from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am confident that we can secure a robust and effective treaty. That is what the UK team will be pushing for in Geneva. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

I am prepared to be informed on that point. In my discussions with both the Jewish and Muslim communities, I actually learned a very great deal myself. I found particularly fascinating the fact that the method used is scripture-based, and I think that is important to remember.

After all that has been said so far, if we thought that the slaughtering of animals according to religious practice went unregulated in this country, we would be very wrong, because there are certain requirements. First, the killing must take place in a slaughterhouse—an abattoir, if people want to call it that—approved by the Food Standards Agency. Secondly, it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence, known as the COC. Thirdly, and importantly, the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice when intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people. Now, this is the gory bit: the animal’s throat must be cut by a rapid, uninterrupted movement, with both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed by a knife of sufficient size and sharpness. There is to be no sawing. These measures are required to minimise animal suffering. I am sorry if that is shocking, but I think we need to be quite clear about the practice as it is.

These existing regulations prompt deliberations on both sides of the argument. In the case of animal-welfare advocates, one could suggest that our current laws are already examples of the way religious practices have adapted in accordance with modern ethical standards, and that it is therefore entirely just for these practices to further adhere to society’s standards as those continue to strengthen. Conversely, to be balanced about this, proponents of traditional religious practice could argue that the current regulations typify compromises that have already been made between religion and law in a society like ours, which—I think this is crucial to the way we go about doing things in this country—actively supports and protects religious freedom or belief. That is a crucial factor.

As an aside, it is important to note that the petition follows the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the European convention on human rights. This is because the Court accepts that

“the protection of animal welfare can be linked to…‘public morality’, which constitutes a legitimate aim”

for which the state might justifiably restrict freedom of religion. In this case, the Court accepted that it was consistent with these standards to legislate that animals should be stunned before being ritually slaughtered. As I am sure many of us know, several European countries have already introduced a ban, including Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland and Norway. However, other fellow neighbours, including France and Germany, still allow for non-stun slaughter on religious grounds.

All of this is to say that this debate requires nuance—careful nuance—and sensibility to all the views in the room, regardless of the beliefs that one holds.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, given the sensitivities around this subject. Hon. Members will understand that fundamentally this country is of Christian heritage. Most of my constituents do not like the idea that an animal should be slaughtered in this way. Does he agree that some things should be done fairly quickly, even if there is not a complete ban straightaway? For instance, the introduction of a mandatory multi-labelling system that included the method of slaughter would allow the public to make better-informed decisions about the food they consume and give them freedom of choice. Surely people who do not want to eat meat that has been slaughtered in that way should have the choice. At the moment, there is no choice. Fundamentally, the British people want to be able to decide whether to consume meat from an animal that has been slaughtered in that way.

[Jamie Stone]

From my discussions with the Islamic and Jewish communities, I think that the concept of labelling—if I interpret what the hon. Gentleman said correctly—could be quite acceptable to them, if that would give people choice.

I come from the highlands of Scotland, where, to be honest, the 1715 and 1745 rebellions were based on the religious division between Catholics and Protestants, and where there have been huge arguments even within the Church of Scotland in relation to the Free Church. I am therefore very clear that tolerance among religions is crucial to a civilised society.

I have probably said enough. I can see many hon. Members who, I am sure, will make the most interesting contributions, and I look forward to the Minister’s. However, I want to end where I began, by thanking Mr Martin Osborne for the sincere way in which he put forward the petition. I also thank those I have spoken with, who have had the patience to explain the halal and the Jewish kosher points of view. I am grateful to have learned a lot over the past few days.