Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateEarl of Courtown
Main Page: Earl of Courtown (Conservative - Excepted Hereditary)Department Debates - View all Earl of Courtown's debates with the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy 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.