Debate contribution: Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5340300
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This is the second legislative consent motion that I have brought forward on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Bill. The motion is required because the UK Government made six amendments at House of Lords Report Stage on 12 January that introduced new clauses 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18, which were not part of the Bill when the Assembly debated and approved the first legislative consent motion on 12 January. Under Standing Order 42A(9), any such amendments that deal with devolved matters or alter departmental functions require a subsequent legislative consent motion, and that is the purpose of today's debate. The amendments were introduced following discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. To ensure that the Bill fully reflects the devolution settlements across the UK, the same amendments will apply equally to Northern Ireland. The Bill is now in its final stages, and I am grateful to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and my Executive colleagues for their urgent consideration of the legislative consent motion. I am also grateful to the AERA Committee for considering the amendments at its meeting on 22 January. I will briefly outline the purpose and effect of each of the six new clauses that the Assembly is being asked to consent to today. Clause 10 provides DAERA with concurrent powers to make regulations relating to the implementation of part 2 of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement covering marine and genetic resources and digital sequence information, insofar as those matters fall within the devolved competence. That brings Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and ensures that DAERA is empowered, where appropriate, to legislate directly, rather than relying solely on UK Ministers. Clause 11 sets out the procedures for regulations made under clause 10. Where regulations amend Northern Ireland legislation, create or vary civil sanctions or create civil offences, they must follow the affirmative procedure. In urgent cases connected to article 24 of the agreement, the made-affirmative procedure may be used. That ensures strong Assembly scrutiny whilst allowing flexibility where urgent international measures must be implemented quickly. Clause 12 creates a statutory consultation duty, requiring the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before exercising regulation-making powers in devolved areas under clause 9. That guarantees that Northern Ireland's views must be considered before UK-wide regulations are made. Clause 16 provides DAERA with concurrent powers equivalent to those in clause 10 but for Part 3 of the Bill, which concerns the implementation of area-based management tools designated under the agreement. That will allow DAERA to legislate directly on devolved aspects of area-based management tools decisions taken at the Conference of the Parties (COP). Clause 17 mirrors clause 11 by establishing the Assembly procedures for regulations related to area-based management tools. That includes the affirmative procedure for any regulation that amends legislation or creates sanctions or offences that are made under the affirmative procedure for urgent measures adopted under article 24. Again, that enhances scrutiny while supporting timely responses to international obligations. Clause 18 requires the Secretary of State to consult DAERA before making area-based management tools regulations under the UK-wide power in clause 14. The statutory consultation requirement ensures that decisions that affect devolved matters cannot proceed without considering the views of Northern Ireland. Taken together, the six clauses significantly strengthen Northern Ireland's role in implementing decisions under the new High Seas treaty to ensure that DAERA can act directly where appropriate, guarantee consultation before UK Ministers act and embed Northern Ireland-specific scrutiny procedures in the legislation. The UK Government have emphasised the need to maintain momentum, and, subject to consideration of the amendments, the Bill could receive Royal Assent in the very near future. Supporting the motion ensures that Northern Ireland has an equal voice alongside Scotland in shaping implementation, that DAERA has the powers it needs to act in devolved areas and that the Assembly retains full scrutiny over future regulations. In summary, the amendments do not change the policy intent of the Bill that was agreed in the first legislative consent motion. Instead, they enhance the devolution arrangements for Northern Ireland and ensure that our interests are properly represented as the UK implements that significant international agreement. I therefore commend the motion to the House and invite Members' support for it.
722 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.59 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.41 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:23 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.