Sarah Champion MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful that you have granted tonight’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that we have so much time to discuss this important issue. Packaging extended producer responsibility, which I will call EPR, is a policy that genuinely has a laudable goal: the move towards a circular economy, in which recycling is the norm, waste is minimised and we shift away from environmentally harmful materials such as plastic—something that the House can get behind. If done right, EPR could deliver just that, but the reality of the scheme now being implemented by the Minister is altogether different. We are seeing jobs being lost, British businesses losing contracts and investment, an increase in carbon-intensive glass being imported and, ultimately, producers switching from infinitely recyclable materials to plastic.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, I think the principles of the scheme are laudable. What frustrates me is that it is disincentivising using renewable materials, which in the long term are much cheaper. Instead, it is driving businesses to plastics, which have a very real cost on our environment as well as on our pockets. The Minister needs to do anything she can to mitigate that risk, but I hope this debate will grant her the opportunity to do so in a fair and equitable way. Glass supports a circular economy. It underpins supply chains across food, drink and pharmaceuticals. We all support the principle underpinning the EPR—that those placing packaging on the market should pay towards its collection—but, as Members have said, the weight-based fee structure that the Government have chosen to utilise disproportionately penalises glass, making glass significantly more expensive per unit than lighter, less sustainable alternatives like plastic.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister tell us whether that will be the 75% discount that the glass industry is asking for? Does she know what the falling rates will be, please?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. Trying to level the playing field on this EPR measure is the one thing that I hope the Minister will give us comfort on today. Our hospitality industry is really suffering. More generally, I worry where the remaining places of community are in our towns, cities and villages. If we are not protecting the ones we have—the few we have—it is going to be a very dark future. Let me now get back to glass.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member’s points, because I agree with the polluter pays principle—I believe that is at the heart of this issue—but the people who are paying are our workers, our hospitality businesses and the poorest people in the world who would have been getting £1 million. They are the people paying, not the polluters, because this policy is perversely driving businesses to using plastic, which surely is the exact opposite of what it should be trying to do. With all of that in mind, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a poorly designed and implemented policy which is having a severe negative impact on British businesses. Despite these concerns, DEFRA has argued that the EPR will in fact create jobs, but that claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The figures are not based on official calculations and, critically, the jobs referenced are not comparable to those being lost. They are more likely to be lower-skilled, lower-paid roles in waste management, often at entirely different locations. These mythical jobs will not deliver the same economic value, will not support exports, and will not provide the same level of regional resilience. I must be very clear: we cannot replace high-skilled manufacturing jobs with lower-value roles and then claim an economic net gain. That is not growth; that is managed decline. The EPR is also adding significant inflationary pressures that will be reflected in consumer prices. Producers expect to pass on the vast majority of EPR costs, often over 95%, to the end user. The upshot is that the EPR will not represent a boon to the public purse. On the contrary, this failed policy will cost the UK economy and that cost will be substantial. I have raised these issues time and again, as have other Members. I have had meetings with Secretaries of State, Ministers and civil servants, and I have written, led debates and asked questions, all to no avail. This situation demands urgent action now, not a review in a year’s time. It requires not minor adjustments but immediate intervention to sort out this deeply flawed policy. The glass industry has been clear in its ask: a targeted, time-limited reduction in the glass EPR fees of at least 75%. This is not about abandoning the policy or doing a U-turn; it is about fixing it. The Minister has the opportunity today to stabilise demand, prevent further switching away from glass, protect jobs and investment, and buy time to assess properly the real-world impacts of her policy. Crucially, it would allow the Government to realign the policy with their own original environmental and economic objectives. More broadly, the Government must make sure that the EPR protects UK jobs and investment, that incentives towards less sustainable products are removed, that fees reflect real-world costs, and that businesses have the clarity they need to plan and invest for the future. Across the many sectors that have raised concerns about the EPR, support for its core principle has been universal. Businesses want to play their part in a circular economy, but the current system is not working; it is driving the wrong behaviours, undermining UK businesses, and putting jobs, investment and regional growth at risk. If we continue to get this wrong, the consequences will not be measured in tonnes or targets; they will be measured in job losses, lost industries and lost opportunities for the communities, like mine, that need them most. I urge the Minister today at the Dispatch Box to put this scheme back on track.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The methodology throughout—I will come on to it later—has been flawed, if not straight wrong in some cases. I would much rather that the research he is talking about—on the methodology—was done years in advance, rather than on the hoof as seems to be happening now. The Government seem to be suggesting that they will retrospectively look at what is happening and make adjustments, but unfortunately for a business and its bottom line, it is not possible to retrospectively charge people for something the Government choose to modify. Let me state one inescapable fact. Glass is heavier than plastic—it simply is. By choosing to base fees on weight rather than on units, which they could have done, the Government are pushing businesses towards switching to a cheaper, less recyclable and much more environmentally harmful packaging. The industry has been told by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the modulation of fees will save glass, but let us be honest: this is too little, too late. Why not get the scheme right at the beginning, rather than trying to modify it later?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely my concern. People do not talk about the impact on the supply chain. We already know that at least 350 jobs—more than 5% of the direct workforce—have been lost so far, but we do not know about the impact on the supply chains and associated businesses. These are not abstract numbers; these are well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs, concentrated in industrial communities like mine, where, to be honest, such opportunities are at a real premium. Since I first raised these issues nearly two years ago, I have been contacted by a range of businesses and industry groups, including: UK Hospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the UK Spirits Alliance, the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, O-I Glass, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, GMB, Unite, AB InBev, the all-party parliamentary beer group, the APPG on packaging in the circular economy, the Packaging Federation, Teva Pharmaceuticals, British Glass, and the Campaign for Real Ale. Their concerns are strikingly similar. The EPR is not just affecting glass. Across the packaging sector, businesses are struggling in the face of this poorly designed, poorly implemented policy. Graphic Packaging International employs 57 people in my constituency, and upwards of 1,700 across the UK. It produces a range of fibre-based packaging for household goods, supplying major UK retailers with sustainable and innovative products, which are largely made from renewable or recyclable raw materials. However, like glass, they face unfairly high fees on the basis of being a heavier than their plastic equivalents. That distortion is even greater for fibre-based composite packaging. Industry groups have identified what appear to be substantial errors in the methodology used for DEFRA’s EPR fee calculations for fibre-based packaging. By way of example, in the EPR fee cost breakdown, the cost of FBC collection is more than twice that of paper and board, yet it is collected for recycling with paper and board. How can the costs to local authorities be so radically different? Similar anomalies are observed with other EPR cost categories, including sorting, residual collection and handling and disposal overheads. Costs for managing FBC should be similar to those for paper and board, yet are wildly disproportionate. Industry groups believe that that results from DEFRA seeming to have used data for another, wholly distinct type of FBC—beverage cartons—in its FBC fee calculation. Such elementary errors risk undermining the EPR’s core objectives. The Alliance for Fibre-Based Packaging has already reported evidence that long-standing shifts away from plastic towards more sustainable alternatives are slowing and, in some cases, reversing altogether.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I will indeed be talking about the pub industry. I thank all the Members who have been campaigning so hard on this particular point for the last two years. The hon. Member will need to read the speech afterwards—it will be brilliant. We will try to protect our hospitality industry. While this debate is not focused on a single material, I must declare a particular interest in glass. Next month, I will be really proud to attend an event marking the 275th anniversary of the founding of Beatson Clark. Since the earliest days of the industrial revolution, it has been manufacturing glass in my Rotherham constituency, providing generations of skilled, well-paid jobs to my constituents. Throughout world wars, economic decline, depression and indeed renewal, it has endured, helping to drive our regional economy. I say to the Minister that I want Beatson Clark to thrive for another 275 years, but the reality is that the EPR is placing that future at risk.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is reassuring that we are going to have the consultation. Would it not have been much better to have had it before the scheme was implemented? The Minister mentioned a meeting with my constituency business, Beatson Clark. That meeting only happened because I urged the previous Secretary of State and the Minister to make it happen, and I assume that the other examples of meetings that have taken place, or not, have been at the insistence of MPs. Why was that work not done before the scheme was rolled out?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Packaging Manufacturers: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely support what my hon. Friend says. GMB and Beatson Clark have been fantastic on this issue, as have other unions. We should never forget the human impact of the debates that we have in this Chamber. When we talk about numbers, percentages and import tariffs, we forget that it is the people making the products who are suffering the most and facing the uncertainty. A survey conducted by British Glass found that nearly half of businesses say that they have already switched away from glass, or plan to do so, due to EPR fees. Once those decisions are made, and once investment is committed to new packaging formats, they are unlikely to be reversed. Glass manufacturing is not easily replaced. Furnaces represent long-term capital investment—often hundreds of millions of pounds. Decisions about whether to rebuild or reinvest are already being delayed or cancelled, meaning hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the UK is already being lost. When production shifts overseas and capacity is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. I am not talking about short-term disruption. I am talking about permanent industrial decline. If left unchecked, the policy will not just reshape the packaging market; it will hollow out an entire industry. With that decline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) said, comes something even more serious: job losses.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous with his time. I want to take him back to the issue of Speciality Steel, because this is not just about the business itself—it is also about the supply chain. For example, the steel that is made in my constituency goes into Formula 1 cars and almost every plane in the sky. I think many hon. Members need to understand the consequential impact of saving not only British Steel, but all of our steel industry, on our whole economy and on global industries.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister share my concern and confusion about the comments made by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)? I was not sure if he was supporting the nationalisation of British Steel but thought that there was not enough money or that there was too much money. However, he seemed to support the fact that in Europe, the Government subsidise electricity, and I felt that he wanted that to happen here. For all the reasons that Members have said, I just want a really strong and secure steel industry in this country.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As you know, Madam Chair, I have been urging successive Governments for over a decade to back the British steel industry, so it is genuinely a pleasure to be here today as the Government do just that. I support this historic Bill. Steel is essential for the UK’s economy. It supports thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs and plays a crucial role in ensuring Britain’s security, particularly in an ever more volatile and uncertain world. Yet for years the industry has been allowed to wither. Production has fallen and plants have been lost—and with them jobs, capability and capacity. We simply cannot afford to allow this precipitous decline to go on any longer. Rotherham is a steel town. It has seen the consequences of past Governments’ neglect up close. Speciality Steel, which is based in Rotherham—and Stocksbridge—should be a crown jewel in our economy, but it has been allowed to lurch from crisis to crisis, choked of investment and left at the mercy of unscrupulous ownership, unfair competition and a lack of vision. The plants currently stand still, shuttered amid the fallout of Liberty’s collapse. The workers are furloughed and uncertain about what their futures hold. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the Committee on the current state of the sale, which is now in its final stages. My concern is not limited to Speciality Steel. Steel in Rotherham is at the centre of our local economy, and the crisis has had a substantial impact up and down the supply chain. The Minister’s ambition for steel’s renaissance could also be a rebirth for local businesses and local communities, but that requires investment, foresight and commitment. The Government’s steel strategy sets out a strategic vision for the industry and, crucially, delivers real and profound change for the sector as a whole. With £2.5 billion of investment in the sector and an ambitious but achievable target of 50% of the steel used in Britain to be produced here, the strategy is a blueprint for a revitalised domestic steel industry; it is one that has been roundly welcomed by the sector. Perhaps most importantly, the strategy sets out a new approach to steel imports. Time and again, I and other steel MPs in particular have warned that a failure to tackle cheap, often state-subsidised and heavily polluting imports would destroy any attempt to increase domestic production. Without a level playing field, British steel cannot hope to compete. It is therefore welcome that the Government have acted to protect UK steel producers from unfair competition through a range of new trade measures, quotas and tariffs. While that is good news for steel producers, we do need to get the details right. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for raising specific examples of that. Alongside steel producers, Rotherham hosts a large number of steel stockholders and downstream businesses. I have raised with the Government a number of instances in which trade measures have been introduced on products not currently produced in the UK, or where UK production and capacity is far below demand. I urge Ministers to act to ensure that those businesses are not impacted unfairly and that trade measures conform to the realities of the UK market; to do otherwise risks inadvertently harming the very industries and communities that the Government seek to defend. While the Bill will not have a direct impact on steel production in Rotherham, it does send an important signal. I am proud that the Government are taking resolute action to ensure that they have the necessary tools at their disposal to safeguard the future of British Steel in Scunthorpe. I hope that this will set a precedent as the situation with Speciality Steel develops and that they will take similarly decisive action there, should it prove necessary. With the right support, British steel can—and should—play an ever greater role in our economy, in infrastructure projects and, crucially, in our national security. I know that steelworkers in Rotherham will be relieved to have a Government who are so clearly on their side—on the side of good jobs and a dynamic economy—and, most importantly, a Government who back British steel.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gulf Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Lebanon’s humanitarian flash fund secured less than a third of the money that was required. Some 20% of the Lebanese population is currently displaced, and 40,000 housing units have been destroyed. Lebanon is on the brink of economic collapse and social tensions are rising. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the humanitarian support sent to date, including cash transfers, but I ask her to do more. We need to press for a real ceasefire, provide practical support to Lebanon’s armed forces, help the state to tackle negative influences that are trying to undermine its sovereignty and, finally, vigorously oppose the illegal expansion of Israel’s buffer zone in south Lebanon.

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that my voice will last—the Foreign Secretary might get off lightly. This was meant to be a statement about the 40% cuts that the Government are bringing forward. Instead, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the policy and direction shifts that she is making, which I think are the right ones to make, but we have not discussed the policy announcements around the cuts. I have had an embargoed copy of the equality impact assessment, for which I am grateful. When that is in the public domain, we will have the information that would allow us to have an informed debate. I fear that the Government’s decisions have been based on a false dichotomy. Defence has been pitched against international development, but ask any military person and they will say that the best line of prevention and first defence is our development money, because it keeps people safe and secure in their homes, keeps them prosperous and holds Governments to account. In the world we find ourselves in, I am fearful that taking away that first line of defence will have massive consequences. I will give a couple of stats to illustrate where we are. There are 61 ongoing conflicts. Less than 12% of the global population lives under a liberal democracy—the lowest in 50 years—with 5.8 billion people living under autocratic rule. Over the next 15 years, 1.2 billion people will reach working age with only a projected 400 million jobs. Development spend keeps people fed, safe and prosperous. Our aid cuts will reduce that. Girls in South Sudan will no longer have education, polio will surge, civil society is being abandoned and the poorest will not be fed. Rather than providing solutions, we will see the consequences of the UK stepping away from the international stage for our reputation and influence, and, as the former Home Secretary well knows, we will see people come to our shores to seek sanctuary and opportunity. Can we also spare a thought for the staff in the FCDO who face 25% cuts right now, and specifically the country directors who are having to go to people they have spent years building relationships with to say that we are no longer standing by them financially? I do not really have a question because I have not been given the information, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that these cuts do not aid our defence—they make the whole world more vulnerable. Can I please ask that as we go forward, she listens to the ICAI report about transparency, where we are prioritising money and its impact, rather than just chasing the bottom line?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The only way that I am aware of co-operatives starting is by groups of local people coming together. That is what FCDO and ODA money is particularly good at doing—supporting civil society. I mentioned holding Governments to account, but of course, the economic empowerment that comes from communities being involved in the development of their own countries is something that we have supported so well for decades. I really hope we are able to continue to do so. One concern I have is about the money that will likely be spent on staff redundancies that would be much better spent on furthering British priorities overseas. Of course, there are also pressures on the wider network of institutions that further the UK’s interests overseas, such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. Those institutions play a really important role in projecting the UK’s soft power, and require stable and predictable funding. Although more funding has been provided in the supplementary estimates, this follows a long period of damaging uncertainty, which has really weakened our hand. Inadequate transparency over aid spending has been a persistent theme for the past few years. I am proud of the work my Committee has done to shine a light on where aid cuts have fallen and the impact they have had. I am also extremely grateful to the excellent support provided in this task by my Committee staff and the House of Commons financial scrutiny unit, but we do not do this work alone; independent scrutiny bodies such as the Independent Commission for Aid Impact play a central role in maintaining transparency and accountability and in ensuring that Members have the information we need. I am deeply concerned that ICAI may be axed as part of these cuts, and I hope the Minister can reassure us that I am wrong about that. This estimates debate sits within a broader shift in the UK’s aid strategy towards investment-led development, which is evident in nearly £0.5 billion funding for British International Investment this year. BII’s model is built on long-term investments rather than rapid humanitarian response, but that raises questions about the breadth of our development portfolio, and whether we are still there to help the poorest of the poor if we do not have the other support that underpins BII.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we have FCDO and trade staff working together to support the work that he and many others are doing. Trade is fantastic—it is something that we support. I support British International Investment, which I will come on to in a moment, but it is not something that can stand alone. Our ODA money is there to support the very poorest in the world, to enable them through training, education and entrepreneurial skills to get to a point where we hope they can be a trading partner with the UK.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I do not agree with him on the board point, but if we look at the countries that BII was asked to focus on under the last Government, it is clear that political interference—if we want to call it that—is alive and well. I agree that when we invest in organisations, we should trust them to do their job, but that requires scrutiny, so again, I will be very concerned if ICAI is cut. I will move away from BII now. Today’s debate gives Members a crucial and timely opportunity to influence the Government’s approach to funding for the FCDO and overseas aid. We face a combination of a diminished budget and a change of strategic direction, all happening at a time of unprecedented global need. Parliament must insist on clarity about where cuts will fall. We must also insist on reassurance that development expertise will be protected and confidence that the United Kingdom’s aid spending remains focused on reducing poverty, supporting development, humanitarian need and contributing to global stability. This House rightly places a premium on transparency, accountability and value for money. Every pound now matters more than ever, and let us be reminded—as I frequently am—that it is the taxpayer’s pound that we are overseeing. Although our formal powers to amend the FCDO’s spending limits are limited, debates such as this allow us to exert influence and have our say at a pivotal moment in the UK’s foreign policy. I know that my colleagues in the House will use this moment wisely.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on this topic, which takes place at such a crucial time for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also take this opportunity to thank FCDO staff for their ongoing efforts to support British nationals caught up in the conflict in the middle east. Over successive Governments, we have seen a sustained reduction in the United Kingdom’s development budget, ODA—official development assistance. First we saw the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, and there is now a stated path towards 0.3% by 2027. It has also been reported that the UK’s international climate finance commitment is now to be slashed by £2.6 billion. Those cuts have consequences: they affect how the UK is perceived internationally, as well as our ability to support stability and prosperity, both overseas and in our own country. Aid has always been a highly cost-effective way of preventing conflict and reducing pressures that eventually reach our own borders. It allows girls to be educated, women to work, farmers to feed their communities, and disease to be challenged and contained. It also allows civil society to hold Governments to account. It is our soft superpower, and its benefits must not be underestimated. The FCDO, as the past weekend proved, is constantly dealing with fast-shifting geopolitical sands. In this current financial year, as part of the FCDO’s supplementary estimate, we see further cuts to both day-to-day and investment spending, both of which have reduced quite dramatically—day-to-day spending by £457 million, and investment spending by £228 million. Most of these cuts are focused on the ODA budget, although Parliament has not yet been provided with details showing exactly where these reductions will fall.

• 3 Mar 2026 · West Bank: Illegal Settlements · Hansard source

  More

  The rapid growth in Israeli settlements in recent months has been fuelled by settler violence, which not only goes unpunished, but receives tacit support from the Israeli Government. The UK Government continue to avoid responding to the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion condemning Israelis’ forcible transfer of Palestinians—a war crime. Last month, the UN high commissioner for human rights noted that the forcible transfer of Palestinians from their homes in the west bank raises concerns of ethnic cleansing. Does the Minister agree with his analysis?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Given the scale of the planned FCDO budget reductions and significant staffing cuts, what assessment has been made of which policy areas will be deprioritised as a result of those measures? What redundancy mitigation steps are being taken in line with the 2016 civil service protocols and how those changes are expected to impact both UK personnel serving overseas and country-based staff?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Official Development Assistance Reductions · Hansard source

  More

  It is of course the Government’s right to make whatever policy decisions and budget cuts they feel appropriate, but how are they planning to do the four priorities with a 25% cut in staffing and a £6 billion cut in the available money?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Members might not be aware that the FCDO has given notice to the Insolvency Service that 1,885 jobs are at risk due to the 25% reduction in the workforce that follows the ODA cuts. This is a massive drop in staff numbers and it is bound to have a real impact, particularly on smaller departments such as conflict prevention. Will the Foreign Secretary please comment, being new in post, on how this will impact on her ability to shape the Department as she wants? The forward plan for the Department is still not finalised. How can she operate without the staff to do so?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and colleague. He is absolutely right, and that is why today is so historic: this is the UK taking that leadership role and hopefully corralling some of the other countries that are more reticent to do the right thing. The International Development Committee and the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, both of which I chair, have long been calling on both the previous Government and this Government to put in place the necessary legislation to ratify this agreement. To have finally reached this point is a credit to the Ministers—particularly the Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), but also the Minister responsible for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. In an era of international fragmentation, I am relieved that 145 states have come together to forge this agreement and safeguard a global public good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) alluded to, 75 countries have already taken the next step of ratification. I am very proud that the Minister for Water and Flooding was championing this in opposition and has delivered on her word, leading this ratification in government. I thank her for that. As a seafaring nation and a centre of expertise in maritime law, the UK is perfectly placed to lead the charge to protect the world’s oceans. Sadly, we are lagging behind many countries, including the Seychelles, St Lucia and Barbados, which ratified the agreement last year. It is not surprising that the small island developing states, or SIDs—or large ocean states, as they prefer to be called—were quick to ratify, because they recognise the existential threat that ocean ecosystem degradation poses to human societies and their economies. As the International Development Committee argued in our report last year, SIDs need reliable partners. The UK talks a good game when it comes to responsible global leadership, but activists and policymakers from SIDs told the Committee they were concerned about the consistency of Britain’s commitment. I hope we will see that change at this moment, under this Government, and that we will stand up for small island developing states, particularly our overseas territories, which the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned. The health of the world’s oceans is not an issue confined to low-income countries; it is an existential issue for all of us. As the Government’s impact assessment acknowledged, the impact of reduced fish stocks and decreased capacity will be borne by all of us, including future generations. The UK must seize this moment to match its international conservation ambitions with tangible action to protect our domestic waters. Bottom trawl fishing, a highly destructive practice, is still permitted across almost all of the UK’s seas, including in more than 90% of our marine protected areas. I welcome the Government’s consultation on that, and hope that they will take the necessary step to ban that practice wherever they can. The Government must consider introducing additional legislation to ensure that the UK’s marine protected areas are actually protected, because sadly, even though they have the title, many of them are not. The Bill also offers plentiful opportunities for the UK’s blue economy as a world leader in marine science and technologies. To support quick progress, the UK needs a definition of the use of “marine genetic resources”, and “digital sequence information”, by the time the agreement is ratified. That is to support all those who will implement it. The UK’s next steps are vital to ensure that we fulfil our leadership role in ocean protection. The 120-day countdown has started. The first conference of the parties, Ocean COP1, will be held within just 12 months. With the clock ticking, will the Minister set out a timetable for the passage of the Bill through both Houses? We need it to pass quickly to allow the UK to play its full part in the first conference. Will the Minister also confirm whether the Bill legally extends the UK’s existing domestic duties to have regard to the precautionary and polluter pays principles to the high seas? If not, will she say whether something to that effect should or could be inserted into the Bill? Will the Minister consider producing an ocean strategy? Ocean issues currently fall between a number of different Departments, which unfortunately means they are under the ownership of none. The Bill is to be commended and must attain Royal Assent without delay. I strongly urge all Members to support it.