Seema Malhotra

In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction. I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed. On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him. On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports. Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Supplementary provision Amendment proposed: 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert— “A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”—(Andrew Rosindell.) This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6. Question put, That the amendment be made.