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.