Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Deep-sea Mining Exploration Regulations

Tuesday 13 June 2023 · 3 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • UK policy is not to sponsor or support exploitation licences for deep-sea mining unless there is sufficient scientific evidence and strong, enforceable environmental regulations in place.
  • The Government believes it's important to negotiate protections through the International Seabed Authority.
  • Lord Goldsmith will provide more detail to James Gray regarding concerns about deep-sea mining in the Arctic Ocean.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Kerry McCarthy Lab Bristol East
Foreign Affairs Environment
Context

The question arises from proposals for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining exploration at the International Seabed Authority Council and Assembly in Kingston, Jamaica.

Question

What his policy is on the proposals for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining exploration regulations at the International Seabed Authority Council and Assembly in Kingston, Jamaica. The Government have rejected calls for a precautionary pause, saying it's better to negotiate environmental protections. Over 700 scientists from 44 countries support a precautionary pause.

Answer from Anne-Marie Trevelyan

UK policy is not to sponsor or support exploitation licences for deep-sea mining unless there is sufficient scientific evidence and strong, enforceable environmental regulations in place. The Government believes it's important to negotiate protections through the International Seabed Authority.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about agreeing to a precautionary pause was not directly addressed with a commitment or timeline.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Kerry McCarthy Lab Bristol East
Environment
Context

The question arises from the Minister's previous statement rejecting calls for a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining exploration.

Question

The Government have rejected calls for a precautionary pause, saying it's better to be involved in negotiating environmental protections. Over 700 scientists from 44 countries support a precautionary pause. Why won't the Government agree?

Answer from Anne-Marie Trevelyan

The UK policy is not to sponsor or support exploitation licences for deep-sea mining unless there is sufficient scientific evidence and strong, enforceable environmental regulations in place. The Government believes it's important to negotiate protections through the International Seabed Authority.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about agreeing to a precautionary pause was not directly addressed with a commitment or timeline.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 James Gray Con
Climate Environment
Context

The question concerns potential environmental consequences of deep-sea mining in the Arctic ocean as ice retreats, and calls for a temporary 'no digging' agreement.

Question

One of the seas that may become most vulnerable to deep-sea mining is the Arctic Ocean. We are extremely concerned about what the consequences may be for the environment there. The Government agreed to a moratorium on fishing in the central Arctic ocean, why can't they agree to a temporary 'no digging' agreement regarding deep-sea mining?

Answer from Anne-Marie Trevelyan

My hon. Friend is a great champion for and expert on all things to do with the Arctic. I will ask Lord Goldsmith to get back to my hon. Friend with more detail on that. The UK continues to take the firm position that we will engage through the ISA Council to ensure global protections.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific ask about agreeing to a temporary 'no digging' agreement was not directly addressed with a commitment or timeline.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)