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

Parliament voted on 17 November 2025 to reject Amendment 5 to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill at committee stage. The amendment, tabled by the Conservative opposition, would have required any regulations enabling ministers to charge fees under clause 11(3)(c) of the Bill to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure before taking effect. The vote was defeated by 318 noes to 147 ayes, Division 357. The affirmative resolution procedure requires ministers to bring secondary legislation before Parliament for an explicit vote, rather than allowing it to pass without active approval. By rejecting this amendment, the House accepted the government's position that existing parliamentary procedures are sufficient to oversee ministerial fee-setting powers created by the Bill. The Bill itself implements the 2023 Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, and clause 11 confers powers on the Secretary of State to set fees in connection with the obligations it establishes. The vote divided almost entirely along government-versus-opposition lines. Every Labour and Labour and Co-operative Party MP who voted did so against the amendment, providing the 318 noes. The 147 ayes came overwhelmingly from the Conservatives, with 84 voting in favour, joined by 58 Liberal Democrats and smaller contributions from 2 Democratic Unionist Party MPs, 2 independents, and 1 Reform UK MP. The Greens and Plaid Cymru voted no alongside the government, a notable cross-party element given both are not in government. This vote closely mirrors the result of Amendment 4 on the same day, which was also defeated 318 to 143.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring Parliament to formally approve any regulations enabling ministers to charge fees under this legislation, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of executive power.
Voting No meant
Oppose the amendment, accepting the government's view that existing parliamentary procedures are sufficient and that adding affirmative resolution requirements for fee-setting regulations is unnecessary.
§ 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
13
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

§ 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