Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to his place on the Government Front Bench. When I was a Minister in DESNZ and he was shadow Energy Minister in the other place, we often appeared on panels and at seminars together and very rarely disagreed on most of the issues. He understands the energy brief extremely well and I am sure he will be a great success in his ministerial position. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but we support this important Bill implementing a landmark agreement that we signed when we were in government, as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Courtown reminded us. Biodiversity is important both here and abroad, and the Government are right to continue our work to protect marine diversity both at home and on the high seas.

As my noble friend Lord Courtown said, in government we had a strong record on biodiversity. Beyond signing the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—quite a mouthful —we implemented our world-leading Blue Belt programmes supporting our overseas territories in delivering protection for endemic marine biodiversity. Meanwhile, we ensured that around 40% of the UK’s domestic waters are protected by appropriate marine protected areas. These efforts, which are a continuation of the policy started by the previous Government, put the UK at the forefront of the global effort to protect 30% of global seas by 2030.

Ministers will have our support as they work to protect the world’s oceans from the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change, but we need to get the details right, and we will be monitoring the Government’s approach to ensure that they really are doing the best that they can to protect marine biodiversity in our home waters as well as playing a full role in our worldwide effort to protect our oceans.

As we have already heard from a number of speakers, the UK is doing a great deal already to protect marine biodiversity, but protecting our oceans, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, cannot be achieved unilaterally. When she replies, will the Minister provide the House with an update on the work that her department and others in government are doing to ensure that our partners across the world are doing their part in also protecting our oceans? What processes, for example, exist under this treaty to ensure that signatories fulfil their obligations and what consequences would there be for a nation that is a signatory to the treaty which fails to fulfil those obligations? Without firm commitment from all signatories, we will struggle to achieve the benefits for marine biodiversity, so it is essential that the UK continues to play a full role in encouraging other global partners to step up to the demands of this treaty. Can the Minister also confirm whether the UK will support other signatories where they lack the necessary administrative or scientific expertise, for example, to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? If so, what form would that support take and how would it be funded?

The location of the new marine protected areas, as my noble friend said, is important. Any clarity that Ministers can provide on that would be helpful to the House as we consider this treaty. It has also been noted that it will come into effect in early 2026. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. Any other timelines which go along with the secondary legislation would also be helpful to the House.

How many of those MPAs will include prohibitions on fishing when they are introduced? We on these Benches are proud to back the UK fishing industry, so of course we need to get the balance right between MPAs that rightly prohibit overfishing and continuing to protect the sustainability of our fishing industry. I will not repeat the point on EU fishing rights in UK waters, but we are disappointed with the Government’s approach on this. We will continue to hold the Government to account. It is essential to get the balance right for our fishing communities, which have been, in our view, badly treated by the agreements that this Government have made.

My noble friend Lord Courtown summed up our approach to this Bill very well at the beginning of this debate. We will not seek to delay or undermine this important piece of legislation, and we want to support the Government in getting the Bill, which is necessary for ratification, on to the statute books in good time, not least to allow ratification to happen before the treaty comes into effect early next year.

That said, we will of course look at the Bill in detail as it progresses through its stages. In the other place, we sought to amend the regulation-making powers to improve parliamentary accountability, and a number of Members have referred to that. We sought to require Ministers to report to Parliament on the use of those powers under this Bill and the enforcement of the treaty. We will return to the issues of accountability and reporting in Committee, as well as looking at the impact of the treaty on UK-based businesses, particularly, as I mentioned, the sustainability of our fishing fleet.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Redfern, mentioned the important issue of the UK’s approach to the Chagos Archipelago. We debated this extensively during the recent treaty legislation and the Minister knows well that we are extremely concerned about the Government’s political decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius. This means that the UK will no longer be able to play a full role, as we would have played previously, in protecting the rich marine biodiversity around those islands.

Mauritius is also a signatory to the UN agreement on marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the UK’s treaty with Mauritius establishes a marine protected area around the islands—although we are extremely concerned with its ability to enforce it. Will the Minister please take the opportunity to set out what levers and mechanisms the UK will retain and be able to use under the UN agreement to ensure that Mauritius fulfils its obligations on marine biodiversity?

We will not waver in our support for global collaboration on marine biodiversity. Healthy oceans are essential, and this treaty is, in our view, a real step forward in the fight against the harms of overfishing, pollution and climate change. Ministers are right to continue the excellent work that we started in this area, but we reserve the right to scrutinise the Bill in detail—and perhaps disagree with some of the details—when it progresses to its next legislative stage.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 3 in this group on the UK’s capacity to comply with Article 5 of the BBNJ, which is about capacity building—building the international capacity to understand the problems and issues and to develop solutions.

The UK is particularly well placed to do that because we have the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence, providing all sorts of leadership and national capabilities in ocean research. We have the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which is leading in its field of marine science research and is recognised as a centre of international excellence in marine ecosystems. In Scotland, we have the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the excellent Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, which is the UK’s main centre for marine mammal science. I have not included an absolutely full list of all the centres, so it might be a bit invidious, because there are other places that do a lot of work in this area and are excellent—those are just three examples. We have a special responsibility to share our capacity with the geographical locations that will be making an effort to comply with the BBNJ treaty but do not have anything like the history and knowledge base that we have.

One example I could give would be the Sargasso Sea, which is 4 million square kilometres in area—when I read that, I thought it unlikely to be so large, but I double-checked and it is—with Bermuda at its heart. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Sargasso Sea in biodiversity terms. It is globally significant and is threatened in lots of ways, particularly by overfishing, obviously, but also by mining. Bermuda, for which the sea is critical, has worked hard to achieve, for example, the Sargasso Sea Commission in 2014. As the treaty implementation gets under way, the UK has not only to help capacity-build the science there to start solving some of the Sargasso Sea’s issues but to set the agenda internationally, because although the treaty affects Bermuda so crucially, as an overseas territory it has no direct voice at the UN. We need to use our voice and scientific capability to help not just Bermuda but all those overseas territories that are so critical, given the fact that the ocean and its currents are global.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for leading this group. I will start by speaking to my own Amendments 2 and 17, before addressing Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, who sadly cannot be in the House today.

Amendment 2 is a straightforward probing amendment which seeks to understand what steps the Government will be able to take to prevent genetic samples being accessed by hostile state actors. We know that much of the deep ocean has yet to be researched, and the impact of future discoveries on key sectors such as the life sciences may well be significant. In certain circumstances, we would not want discoveries shared with state actors who may use them against us and against our interests. Can the Minister set out the contingency powers that Ministers have to prevent the sharing of critical genetic samples in those circumstances?

My Amendment 17 follows on closely from the debates that were had in the House of Commons. The Bill contains a large number of regulation-making powers to allow the UK to remain compliant with the decisions made by the Conference of the Parties under the treaty. This amendment simply seeks to improve transparency and parliamentary accountability by ensuring that there is a regular update on core metrics, such as the details of regulatory changes and the impact of them on relevant sectors. When Parliament grants Ministers wide-ranging powers in legislation, it is only right that we put in place the appropriate transparency and accountability requirements. While the Minister may not be able to accept this amendment today, I hope that she will be able to set out more fully the Government’s plans to ensure that Parliament, and consequently the British public, have access to information on the way that Ministers are using the powers that the Bill has granted them.

Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks to probe the impact of the treaty, including the imposition of marine protected areas over the deep ocean, on the economy and on infrastructure. As the Minister knows, we signed this treaty when we were in office, and at the time we were satisfied that the treaty struck the right balance. However, it would be interesting to hear what further work the Government have done more recently to assess the projected impact of marine protected areas on the economy, in particular through restrictions on certain shipping activities. Can the Minister please expand on that?

Amendments 5 and 5A relate to craft that are not members of the class societies for shipping. My understanding of my noble friend’s amendments in this regard is that they are designed to facilitate a debate on the so-called dark fleet. According to a February report from the Institute for Human Rights and Business, some estimates claim that there are now 1,400 vessels in the fleet, which would be up to 10% of the world’s tanker fleet. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that Russia alone has invested nearly $10 billion— €9.26 billion—to set up a ghost fleet of several hundred vessels, estimated at nearly 600 ships in July 2024. These, of course, are the ships that transport Russia’s oil, helping to support its illegal war in Ukraine.

Can the Minister set out the Government’s thoughts on how this treaty might help us tackle the dark fleet, as well as what steps the Government are actively taking to prevent the operations of illegal shipping? I hope that the Minister will be able to take our concerns on board across these amendments; I look forward to her reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Defra is attached to about 160 global treaties regarding various aspects of the environment, several of which have been discussed today. I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding environmental principles. I am hoping the Minister will say that these will automatically apply—not regardless of whether the amendment happens, but because they are already in effect—because my interpretation of the Environment Act is that it should not matter where the policy is being applied. If it is UK government policy, then Ministers are supposed to be bound by the duties as set out. I cannot remember whether they were set out in 2022 or 2023.

I do not need to add anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said on her support for the MPA around the Chagos Islands and that territory. I recognise the importance, but it is worth thinking about some other issues that have been raised. Noble Lords may be rightly aware that multiple treaties already cover a number of these issues; they may be in place but not enforced as widely as we would like, particularly on EU fishing. They already extend to our international waters, not just what is within the economic zone.

One thing that may be helpful is a brief update on where we are with the plastics treaty, because the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should be covered in that comprehensive new treaty. I know that negotiations got somewhat stalled in Geneva. I expect all parties are still trying to find a way forward, but it should deal in particular with disposal. With that, I hope that the Minister can give us assurances on a variety of issues.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for making me feel guilty for drinking from my plastic water bottle. I hope my cardboard cup is okay—but probably not, because it has plastic on its inside.

I have a number of amendments in this group touching on the issues of marine biodiversity in the seas around the Chagos Archipelago, the impact of industrial fishing practices used by the Chinese fishing fleet and the sustainability of our own domestic fishing fleet. In the debates on the Chagos Bill, we debated at length the marine protected area that will, we hope, be established under the UK treaty with Mauritius. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support.

That treaty will allow the UK to influence decisions about marine biodiversity beyond the extent of national jurisdiction, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to propose an MPA for certain parts of the Indian Ocean? Have Ministers undertaken any assessment of the benefits that might be achieved for biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago if an MPA were implemented on the deep ocean around the islands, to complement the existing one?

This leads on well to the question of which areas are expected to be subject to an MPA first. Can the Minister confirm what conversations the Government have had with their counterparts representing other co-signatories to the treaty about establishing future MPAs? Where do we expect the first MPAs to be located?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have amendments in this group that are pretty straightforward. In essence, it is somewhat frustrating to see that further regulations or commencements need to be made. Candidly, these would have to be done before ratification anyway, so why do we not just get on with it? We have been waiting a long time for this Bill. The clock is ticking and these amendments could be made, hopefully by Report, so that we do not have to keep revisiting this situation.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can also be brief because this side of the Committee has no concerns about the Government’s amendments. I thank the Minister for introducing this group.

My single amendment in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three years of the Act coming into effect, on the exercise of powers granted under this legislation. As I said in the first group, when we are granting wide powers to Ministers, it is important to have transparency and accountability. This is a simple and measured amendment that simply asks for a report after three years, when enough time has passed to see the treaty operating properly. I hope the Minister will either accept it or commit the Government to publishing the same details in due course.

Finally, I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Coffey. These are eminently sensible and seek to remove the need for further regulations. I hope the Government will look at them favourably and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by the Bill. A report would be required within three years after the Act has passed. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the amendment is not necessary as any regulations created under the powers in the Bill would already be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There will also be a post-implementation review conducted five years after the Act is passed.

As we currently do not know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, this approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review implementation of what is by then the Act at a more appropriate point. The proposed three years in this amendment may well be slightly premature. We are not expecting the powers conferred by the Act to be used to create many new regulations, especially not in the first few years. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred on them by the Act to make regulations, these regulations would already be subject to scrutiny in Parliament through either the affirmative or negative procedure.

In response to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I get the “hurry up” message, but these amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to commence the operative provisions of the Bill at a later date or dates, so that all provisions of the Bill would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I am afraid to disappoint the noble Baroness, but the Government cannot support these amendments. The current position allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the obligations imposed by the BBNJ Bill come into force only when the BBNJ agreement obligations become binding on the UK as a matter of international law, 30 days after the UK has ratified the BBNJ agreement.

The UK will ratify the BBNJ agreement only once all relevant legislation has been passed. This includes secondary legislation passed under powers conferred by the BBNJ Bill. The suggested amendments would not speed up the UK ratification of the agreement. Instead, they would just mean that domestic legislative requirements are imposed before the corresponding international obligations become binding on the UK. This would create disparity between the international and domestic regimes, leading to legal uncertainty. However, I take her amendments as a mark of encouragement and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that.

Commencement regulation-making powers are standard provisions in Bills, as the noble Baroness knows, giving effect to the long-standing convention that there should be a two-month interval before the commencement of operative provisions of any Act, to give those affected by the new legislation time to acclimatise and adapt. In short, these powers ensure a smooth and legally robust transition from Royal Assent to the point at which the BBNJ agreement obligations bind the UK, which is why the Government are resisting these amendments today.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Callanan Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to update the House that both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have now granted legislative consent to the Bill. I express my thanks to devolved Ministers and their officials for the constructive and collaborative way in which they have worked with us to reach this position.

I also place on record my gratitude to noble Lords from across the House for their careful scrutiny, thoughtful challenge and constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill. They have brought considerable expertise to bear on a range of important issues. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who spoke convincingly on enforcement and human rights considerations on the high seas, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Miller, who raised important issues on environmental protections and plastic pollution. I also thank my noble friend Lord Whitehead for his support on the Bill and his thoughtful maiden speech at Second Reading. I am also grateful to the Opposition Front Bench for its constructive approach throughout the Bill’s passage. Beyond Parliament, I pay tribute to the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre and the Natural History Museum to researchers across our universities, whose advocacy has been instrumental in demonstrating the urgency and ambition of this legislation and the wider agreement.

This Bill is vital to protecting our ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to lead global efforts on ocean conservation. The ocean regulates our climate, sustains global fisheries and produces around half of the oxygen on earth. Protecting it is not simply an environmental aspiration; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. By passing this Bill, your Lordships will enable the United Kingdom to take the next steps to ratify the BBNJ agreement in the coming months. This will send a clear and powerful signal that the United Kingdom stands ready to lead in protecting our shared ocean, grounded in science, partnership and international co-operation.

Finally, I take this opportunity to thank the officials and lawyers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Defra and the Department for Transport whose expertise, diligence and commitment have underpinned the development and passage of this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, our debates on this Bill have been constructive, so I can be brief. I thank the Minister for her positive tone during our scrutiny of this legislation. The origins of the Bill, as has been said, lie in the agreement signed by the previous Government. We are pleased that this Government are following the lead that we set when in office and are delivering on our commitment to play our part in protecting oceans beyond national jurisdiction from environmental harm. This is an important commitment which we hope will ensure that future generations inherit cleaner and more biodiverse oceans.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to our debates. We are pleased to have been able to challenge the Government on sustainable fishing and the maintenance of the marine protected area around the Chagos Islands in Committee. We look forward to constructively challenging the Government as they press ahead with their work, alongside the other signatories to the treaty, to deliver the appropriate environmental protections for those areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction that will in future be designated as marine protected areas.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the treaty came into operation on Saturday, so this is a very appropriate day. My only sadness on this excellent occasion is that, as I said on Report, I believe that this is probably one of the last agreements that we will have internationally from the United Nations in the near future, given the disrespect that we increasingly have for international law and international agreements among the community and certain major players within the United Nations.

Having said that, this is a moment of celebration. We have made an important step forward in terms of biodiversity and the protection of nature across a very large proportion of our planet’s surface, which until now has been—as the Bill says—beyond jurisdiction. There are now 81 ratifications of that treaty, and we will hopefully very soon be among them. We expect the conference of the parties, probably in August, and the plea from our Benches is that the United Kingdom has one of the greatest ambitions at that first meeting and collaborates with other parties that have ratified the treaty to make sure that it really does mean something and makes a real change for our planet and our oceans.

I thank the Minister for her co-operation, help and advice as we have gone through this Bill, and for the way that she has listened. It has been good to have the opposition and government spokespeople speaking as one, generally, on what we have sought to achieve here. I thank my Whip’s Office, particularly Ulysse Abbate for his work, and Members on our Benches for the work that they have done on this Bill. Let us make this something that is really special and really works, allowing us to move towards the global target of a third of our oceans being put aside for protection and biodiversity in one of the most important areas of our planet.