The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20419, in the name of Gillian Martin, on a legislative consent motion for the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I am pleased to open this debate on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, which was introduced to the United Kingdom Parliament on 10 September last year. I will refer to it as the BBNJ bill—I promise that that is the only acronym that I will use in my remarks.

The BBNJ bill implements the BBNJ agreement, which is a landmark international treaty that seeks to protect marine biodiversity that was agreed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The agreement relates to marine areas that lie beyond the jurisdiction of nations, in what is otherwise known as the high seas, which account for two thirds of our world’s oceans. In order to meet the obligations under that agreement, the BBNJ bill introduces measures to ensure that UK law accounts for the conservation and sustainable management of the high seas. The agreement comes into force this weekend, having passed the threshold for the number of ratifications, and the decision-making body known as the conference of parties is due to meet for the first time later this year. That has been the driving force for the timelines that we have been working to.

The Scottish Government supports the aims of that important agreement. We have been working hard with the UK Government over the past few months to ensure that the UK legislation is fit for purpose. The bill contains a number of provisions that fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament; it is those provisions that bring us to the chamber today.

Specifically, the bill provides for three key things. First, it provides for the sustainable management of marine genetic resources, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. Secondly, it provides for area-based management tools, such as those to protect specific areas in the high seas. Thirdly, it ensures that marine licensing takes account of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction in a way that considers environmental impacts.

Although this Government is very supportive of the aims of the international agreement and is committed to constructive partnership working with UK Government to implement it, the journey to the motion for legislative consent that we are discussing today has not been straightforward and has, at times, been deeply frustrating.

There are two primary reasons for that. First, there was a rushed timeline and, secondly, devolution matters had to be addressed after, rather than before, the introduction of the bill. I will take a moment to set out those challenges, as I think that it is important for the Parliament to be aware of them.

The bill has been progressing through the UK Parliament on a compressed timeline in order to meet the UK’s deadline for ratifying the BBNJ agreement, which will enable the UK to participate in the first conference of parties. I make it clear that the Scottish Government has had no control over that. That timeline has exacerbated the challenges that we have faced in ensuring that the bill respects the powers of this Parliament. It is hugely regrettable that the first draft of the bill, which was shared with us only shortly before it was introduced, did not account for devolution. Although we secured some changes prior to the bill’s introduction, multiple intensive negotiations were required, alongside consideration of the bill, both here and at Westminster.

Addressing devolution in that way is far from ideal, but, all too often, it has become normal working practice for successive UK Governments. That causes frustration for members, especially members who are on the committees that are charged with detailed scrutiny of the legislation. However, I assure members that I have pressed those points with the UK Government at every step.

A final agreement, which secured the protections for devolution that are necessary for me to be in a position to recommend the bill to members today, was reached just before the new year. I informed the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee as soon as I possibly could, on Hogmanay. The measures in question are set out in our most recent legislative consent memorandum. Although the legislative consent process for the bill has been impacted by the factors that I have set out and has been hugely challenging, we have now been successful in securing measures that respect devolution.

It is important to emphasise what the bill will do and why it is necessary. It will protect our shared global environment, and it will do so in a way that involves multilateral working, as partners and co-operators, with fellow nations, at a time when both those things are under increasing threat and need the support of this Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 10 September 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clauses 2 to 20, 22, 26, the schedule, a new Clause after clause 9 (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland), a new clause after clause 9 (Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland)), a new clause after clause 9 (Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland), a new clause after clause 12 (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), a new clause after clause 12 (Procedure for regulations under section (Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2))), and a new clause after clause 12 (Consultation: Scotland and Northern Ireland (No. 2)), so far as these matters fall within legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

It seems to be becoming a bit of a bad habit for me to deliver an ill-tempered speech about an LCM. The last time I did so, I referred to a sense of déjà vu, because we had been in the same position too often before. Today, it is déjà vu of déjà vu, or déjà vu all over again.

The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill implements an international treaty about the high-seas marine areas beyond the 200-mile limit. It commits signatories to more sustainable use and protection. I remind the Parliament that the treaty was signed in 2023. It took two years to introduce the bill, and now there seems to be an unseemly race to get it over the finish line this month, apparently to meet well-telegraphed international obligations.

The Scottish Government lodged a legislative consent memorandum two weeks after the bill’s introduction. As is often the way these days, it could be called a holding LCM, as it did not set out a substantive position, except in a minority of cases. The triggering provisions relate to new powers for the UK Secretary of State that could intrude into Scottish marine management. One might ask how a treaty about extraterritorial waters could trigger devolution issues. The main answer that we got was about the potential impact on Scottish marine-based actors—who, I hasten to add, are not underwater thespians, but the fishing and offshore energy industries and the like.

By late October, no updates had been provided, so we wrote to the Scottish Government. On 7 November, we got a reply that said that Government discussions were on-going but which provided no further substantive detail. We tried again later that month, but the reply was no more illuminating. With the clock running down, we had the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy in to give evidence on 9 December. The committee found it a slightly peculiar evidence session because, on the one hand, the Scottish Government’s main line continued to be that it could not show its hand while it was still in negotiations with the UK Government and, on the other hand, the cabinet secretary and officials were perfectly happy, at times, to delve into the detail of what outcomes they wanted in respect of this or that Clause.

As the committee said in its report, in a context in which holding LCMs are increasingly becoming the norm, there is no good reason for the Scottish Government to be coy about its main asks of the UK Government and to be inconsistent in sharing them. Those should be a matter of public record.

For the Scottish Government, the story of the bill seems to have had a happy ending—it has obtained the amendments that it wanted, and it can now recommend that consent be given. I put on record that that happened just too late for our deliberations, with the result that the committee is not able to express an informed view on the late provisions.

Asking the Parliament to agree to something without any real chance to reflect on it totally devalues the principles of legislative consent. There might be rare occasions when it is unavoidable, but it seems to the committee that it happens more often than that and the system feels dysfunctional, if not broken.

Will the member take an Intervention?

Presiding Officer, will I get any time back? I am happy to give way to my fellow committee member.

I will ask my committee convener a more general question. He used the expression “déjà vu” in relation to these matters. I agree with my convener on the basis that the sense of déjà vu is a flaw in the LCM process, which is not of the Scottish Government’s making. That has to be resolved, but the Parliament has to be a key party to such reforms—it should not just be the Scottish and UK Governments. Does my convener agree?

I would seldom disagree with my fellow committee member on that and I have a suggestion on why the issue needs to be resolved. I have criticised the Scottish Government’s secrecy, but I accept that the legislative consent process often gives it a difficult hand to play. We had a constructive conversation with the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, who agrees that things really must change.

We most need a rule or a convention that a late triggering Amendment stops the legislative clock at Westminster just long enough for the relevant committee here to take stock and gather some evidence on what we are being asked to do. If we are running out of time to sort this out during the current parliamentary session—I feel that we are—for goodness’ sake, let whoever is around in May start working straight away with Westminster on finding a workable solution, because short-cutting the committee system in this Parliament does this Parliament and Westminster no favours.

Marine environmental and biodiversity protection is a worldwide challenge in which boundaries and borders have no relevance, which is why it is so important that the UK plays its part in protecting biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and honours its international commitments.

The bill is a key part of those commitments, particularly in how it supports our duty of climate action. It is our obligation to other countries, to future generations and to those who are feeling the effects of climate change in the here and now to protect our oceans as a vital source of food, oxygen and carbon storage. That obligation prompted the UK to sign up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and it is that obligation that makes the Labour Government so committed to the agreement’s objectives.

As highlighted by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, just 1 per cent of waters beyond national jurisdictions are under environmental protection, which means that our marine environment is particularly vulnerable to degradation by pollution, unsustainable fishing practices and exploitation for profit. All countries have a right to fishing, shipping and research in marine areas beyond their national jurisdiction, which means that all countries have a responsibility to protect those areas. With the bill, the UK Labour Government is stepping up to our responsibility.

The bill will enable the UK to enforce compliance with area-based management tools in international waters. The most prominent of those tools is, of course, marine protected areas. The bill is ambitious in that it requires environmental impact assessments for activities that might impact marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

One of the questions that was asked at the committee was about how the legislation is going to be enforced. If I remember rightly, about 30 countries have signed up to it, but a lot more countries around the world have not. Could the member allude to how enforcement will be carried out?

Edward Mountain makes an important point. It is incumbent on all of us to keep campaigning and encouraging as many member states as possible to sign up so that we can have that international working, which is what is needed, because the ocean is common to us all.

Members will be aware that I have repeatedly raised the issue of the impact of bottom trawling on marine environments and have done so both in the chamber and with the Cabinet secretary. That practice is damaging and destructive to both the marine environment and marine life but continues because it is an efficient way to catch bottom-dwelling species such as cod, haddock and shrimp. In common with a number of other practices that I have raised here, bottom trawling continues, despite being wildly destructive to the environment, because it delivers vast profit for a few vested interests. By strictly regulating bottom trawling in areas beyond national jurisdictions—which are, as I said, areas that for the most part have no environmental protection—the bill will have a hugely positive impact on marine life and will strengthen fish stocks in Scottish waters.

The cross-party consensus in support of the legislation is heartening and welcome. However, I take on board the comments by the cabinet secretary and the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee regarding the need for intergovernmental and interparliamentary work. I make clear my support for open and honest communication at all levels in the interests of democracy and accountability, but I urge all members to support the LCM tonight.

Given some of the comments that have been made about the other signatories to the bill, it might be useful to say that there are 145 signatories to the BBNJ agreement, including the European Union and the United States of America, and that 81 parties have so far ratified that agreement, including Ireland, France, Denmark, Norway, Brazil and China, with many more expected to do so and the UK due to ratify it on Saturday 17 January.

I thank all those who have contributed to the debate and have recommended consent to the relevant provisions in the bill. I make it clear that agreeing to the motion is an agreement to the effect of the bill and to Scotland playing its full part in implementing and managing it. However, we are not agreeing to this way of managing consent to UK Bills, which must not be rushed or put together without thought to devolution. That wastes time, and we will never agree to a bill that tramples over devolution. I am glad that we have reached the resolution that we have, but that has held things up.

I understand the challenges for the UK Government in grappling with a complex bill within a difficult timescale, and I am fully committed to partnership working to make it effective, but I remain frustrated that we have had to work in this way. I share the profound disappointment that our parliamentary committees have not had the appropriate time in which to scrutinise the Government’s position across all clauses of the bill. As I noted earlier, that could not be avoided by the Scottish Government, given that the UK Government’s first draft of the bill was shared with us only just before its introduction and did not account for devolution, leading to the need for us to robustly defend devolution not only on behalf of the Scottish Government, but for Scotland as a nation and for this Parliament. That resulted in the need to reach agreement in a staged way, across all provisions, analysing complex clauses and engaging with the UK Government during the rapid passage of its bill.

My officials and I have been in regular contact with the relevant committees to assist their scrutiny as best we can. We have responded to questions, given evidence and proactively provided updates when possible, including my update over the festive recess to advise members that negotiations were over and that we had secured the concurrent powers that we needed. We provided as much information as we could, while also preserving the right for some private space for on-going and constantly evolving intergovernmental negotiations. I recognise that that has been frustrating for the committees involved, but it was important to have a private Government-to-Government space for those negotiations.

I place on record my thanks for the committees’ careful consideration and understanding over the past three months, and I reassure members that my ministerial colleagues and I continue to raise those issues with the UK Government and to press for better and earlier engagement on UK bills with devolved impacts. Regarding Edward Mountain’s suggestion, I imagine that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or the next Government might want to discuss that more widely with the UK Government, although how well that will go remains to be seen, because we have seen this happen quite a few times.

For now, I am proud that we can be part of an important agreement for the world’s oceans. It is an important step forward in the global effort to tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss and in the shared stewardship of our marine environment.