A divisionDivision No. 357 · Monday, 17 November 2025· Commons· Biodiversity

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Committee: Amendment 5

147Ayes
318Noes
Defeated · majority 171 · Government won
181 did not vote
Aye149No319DID NOT VOTE · 181

646 Members · Aye 147 · No 318 · DNV 181 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on Amendment 5 to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill during its committee stage on 17 November 2025. The amendment, which sought to strengthen environmental protections and biodiversity measures in international waters, was defeated by 318 votes to 147. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill concerns how the United Kingdom implements its obligations relating to the high seas, the vast areas of ocean that lie outside any national jurisdiction. Amendment 5 would have introduced additional environmental requirements into that framework. Its defeat means the Bill continues without those strengthened provisions, leaving the existing text intact. The outcome affects how the UK approaches conservation and regulation in international waters, with implications for marine ecosystems, commercial activities at sea, and the UK's standing in global environmental diplomacy. The vote divided almost entirely along government versus opposition lines. All 276 Labour MPs and all 31 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted did so against the amendment, as did all three Green MPs and both Plaid Cymru MPs who voted. The Conservatives supplied 84 of the 147 Aye votes, and the Liberal Democrats contributed 58, forming the bulk of the opposition to the government's position. Smaller parties including the Democratic Unionist Party, Traditional Unionist Voice, and one Reform UK MP also voted Aye. The result closely mirrors the pattern seen on Amendment 4 to the same Bill, voted on the same day, which was also defeated 318 to 143, suggesting a consistent cross-opposition effort to add further protections that the government systematically resisted.

Voting Aye meant
Support adding a fee-charging provision to the BBNJ implementation bill, allowing the government to recover costs associated with administering the marine biodiversity framework
Voting No meant
Oppose the fee-charging amendment, either preferring the bill without this addition or disagreeing with how the provision is framed — while broadly supporting the BBNJ treaty itself
§ 01Who voted how.465 voting Members · 181 absent

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
84
0
32
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
58
0
14
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
31
11
Independent
2
6
5
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
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
Your Party
0
1
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Seema MalhotraSupportiveFeltham and Heston
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)
Andrew RosindellSupportiveRomford
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)
Dr Roz SavageSupportiveSouth Cotswolds
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)
Jeremy CorbynSupportiveIslington North
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)
Jim ShannonQuestioningStrangford
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)
Amanda MartinSupportivePortsmouth North
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)
Dr Al PinkertonSupportiveSurrey Heath
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0