Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.

The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.

As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.

However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.

The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.

Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.

Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself

We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.

New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.

Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.

Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.

Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.

This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.

Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.

However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.

The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.

The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.

As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:

“If we save the sea, we save our world.”

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.