Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Committee: Amendment 4
143Ayes
318Noes
Defeated · majority 175 · Government won186 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 143 · No 318 · DNV 186 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 17 November 2025 on Amendment 4 to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill at committee stage. The amendment, tabled by the Conservatives, would have inserted a provision explicitly allowing organisations to submit a single combined report to the Secretary of State to satisfy two separate reporting obligations under the Bill: one covering marine genetic resource repositories and one covering digital sequence information databases. The amendment was defeated by 318 votes to 143. The practical effect of the amendment would have been to reduce administrative effort for organisations that control both a marine genetic resource repository and a digital sequence information database, by making explicit in the Bill's text that one report could cover both obligations. The government argued the change was unnecessary because, in its view, nothing in the existing Bill already prevents a person who controls both a repository and a database from submitting a single combined report. The Bill itself is a prerequisite for UK ratification of the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, known as the BBNJ Agreement, and establishes the domestic framework for implementing it. The vote divided sharply along party lines. All 276 Labour MPs and 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the amendment, while all 82 voting Conservatives and all 55 Liberal Democrats supported it. The Liberal Democrats joining the Conservatives in the Aye lobby is notable, though it did not alter the outcome given Labour's commanding majority. Two DUP MPs and one Reform UK MP also voted Aye. Two independents voted Aye and five voted No. The result mirrors the pattern seen on Amendment 5 to the same Bill, also voted on the same day, which was defeated by an identical margin of 318 to 147.
Voting Aye meant
Support simplifying the reporting burden on organisations by explicitly permitting a single combined report to cover both repository and database obligations under the Bill.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment as unnecessary, arguing the Bill already allows a single combined report without the change, and that adding the provision would be redundant.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
276
85
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
82
0
34
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
55
0
16
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
—
2
5
6
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
1
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
—
2
0
3
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
3
1
Plaid Cymru
—
0
2
2
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Your Party
—
0
2
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
0
0
1
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
Minister opening debate; supports Bill as essential to protect two-thirds of world's ocean, enable UK ratification of BBNJ agreement, and maintain UK leadership in marine conservation and scientific research.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (4,363 words) →
Shadow Minister; supports Bill's core purpose but tabled four amendments to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny: simplified reporting (Amendment 4), Secretary of State powers review (New Clause 1), affirmative procedure for fee-setting (Amendment 5), and biennial implementation reporting (New Clause 2).Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,405 words) →
Welcomes Bill as overdue step protecting high seas; emphasises ocean's critical role in climate regulation; calls for coherence between international commitments and domestic protections; supports strong enforcement and continued cross-party collaboration.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,468 words) →
Supports Bill; raises concern about sufficient resourcing for enforcement against powerful commercial interests in overfishing and pollution; emphasises need for resources to monitor and protect oceans effectively.Independent · Voted no · Read full speech (714 words) →
Seeks assurance that fishing sector viability and food security remain priorities despite Bill's creation of marine protected areas and environmental assessments.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (118 words) →
Member for coastal community; supports Bill and Government amendments as demonstrating leadership and accountability in embedding stronger ocean protections in law.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (551 words) →
Notes 94% of UK biodiversity in overseas territories; sees BBNJ ratification as potential tool to address illegal fishing in unregulated areas through international cooperation.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (125 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0