Baroness Blackstone
Main Page: Baroness Blackstone (Labour - Life peer)
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.
On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.
The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.
I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said. As the Minister knows, I very strongly support the Bill and welcome it, but it seems that there is a gap here.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but I strongly identify with her views. I very much hope that, when the Minister replies, she will be able either to accept the amendment or tell us why it is not needed and give us the assurance that the noble Baroness asked for. I asked about this at Second Reading, but I did not receive a reply when the Minister was winding up—perhaps she did not have enough time to do so—so it would be nice if we could hear from her on that today.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 7A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, even though he has not yet introduced them.
The Chagos Islands are a globally important area. This is the first time in the documented history of the human race that a marine protected area of this importance and scale has changed hands, so we have to get this right. The treaty on the Chagos Islands makes remarkably little reference to the fact that this major marine protected area exists and is hugely environmentally important. Mauritius does not recognise the marine protected area in its current format and has drafted its own. It accords with the IUCN principles, which is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before we have a final version of it.
The biggest problem is that Mauritius has no means of monitoring or enforcing this marine protected area. It has two ocean-going vessels and two small aircraft. Neither of the aircraft is large enough to reach the Chagos Islands and, even if they could reach the islands, they would not be allowed to refuel, and therefore they could not come back. That is a flaw in the monitoring arrangements.
I declare an interest as vice-president of BirdLife International. We have had considerably good relationships with the Mauritian Government about some recovery important endangered species. The first was the Mauritius kestrel, which was virtually down to single figures but is now thriving to the point where it is predating the second species that we worked with them on, the Mauritius pink pigeon. I always think that when two endangered species start living on each other, that probably means that they are out of the danger zone.
However, the record of the Mauritian Government on marine issues is incredibly poor. We know how difficult monitoring and enforcement is in that part of the world. If you have boats and planes, they run up against Chinese influence. In the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the wider Pacific, fisheries enforcement is already extremely difficult, so I very much support what I think the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will say on his Amendments 7 and 7A.
However, will the Minister tell us what proportion of the UK funding to Mauritius under the treaty has been earmarked for environmental protection? What do we, as a Government, intend to do about knowledge transfer where we have traditional links to build up biodiversity science and expertise in Mauritius? We will need to do that in bucketloads in order to look after the Chagos Islands properly. Will the Government communicate with and exercise influence over Mauritius to ensure that legislation is passed to prevent the commercial exploitation—whether through fishing or mining or for other reasons—of these incredibly important waters and the archipelago that exists within them?