Deep Dive: How the UN is Charting a Course for Sustainability

The global fight to protect marine biodiversity took a huge step forward last week, with the announcement that UN delegates reached a historic international agreement after months and years of intense negotiations.

Under the new High Seas Treaty, 30% of all international waters will be protected in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2030 in the most consequential maritime agreement in over 40 years. Oceans provide up to 50% of the planet’s oxygen and are home to 95% of its biomass. However, prior to the agreement just 1.2% of international waters were protected, despite them representing two thirds of all our oceans and seas.

The agreement came following lengthy negotiations on key issues including mandatory environmental impact assessments for deep sea drilling, reducing over-fishing, and new regulation of global shipping lanes. The negotiations’ chair, Singapore’s Rena Lee, announced the conclusion of the agreement to a standing ovation, remarking that the “ship has reached the shore”.

The agreement was hailed by a broad range of environmental groups. A spokesperson for Greenpeace announced that the accords represent “an important sign that multilateralism still works in an increasingly divided world”. These sentiments were echoed by Rebecca Hubbard, director of the High Seas Alliance, who also praised the “superhero efforts” of negotiators.

However, several hurdles remain. The draft agreement still needs to be ratified by 60 states. Furthermore concerns are already being expressed over associated costs which are expected to run into the billions, likely dwarfing the 820m euros (£722.3m) pledged by the EU.

Whilst certain influential countries such as Russia have already “registered concerns” over the final text, it is clear that further rounds of negotiations lie ahead. However, despite these obstacles, the agreement marks a watershed moment in marine conservation, and proves that multilateralism can indeed deliver.

Labour and Conservatives are both playing in a Gray zone

What is Labour playing at with the presumptive appointment of former senior civil servant Sue Gray as Sir Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff?

Is Gray’s appointment, as Starmer suggests, an indication of the seriousness with which Labour intends to take propriety once in government? It’s a plausible line; after all, Gray was once responsible for propriety and ethics across Whitehall before moving to the role of Second Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office. Gray also took over last year’s ‘Partygate’ investigation once Cabinet Secretary Simon Case was forced into a recusal for having attended one of the parties in question.

Or is Starmer’s appointment of Gray a bit of clever political theatre, meant to whip the Tories into an intra-party frenzy over the ‘stitch-up’ of Boris Johnson on ‘Partygate’? Johnson’s supporters are certainly briefing the stitch-up line, a line being given full value on today’s front pages. That Gray’s report was more whitewash than hanging - and that the report was welcomed by Boris Johnson himself - appears to have been memory-holed by any now-livid Tories.

Which raises the question of what the Tories are playing at with news of Gray’s appointment.

Johnson’s allies are certainly clear in their game. Partygate’s wot got their man neutered and they think the party has had no balls since their boss was defenestrated. A chance to reverse that narrative is to be seized with both hands, even if it risks setting back the cause of current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, especially after Sunak looked to have put Boris back in his corner with his deal on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

It would all be fun and games if the stakes weren’t so serious.

The line the Tories are briefing about a ‘stitch-up’ is pernicious, a corrosive story about the ‘non-partisan’ civil service many of their supporters will easily (and willingly) believe. Feeding into the mistrust of the civil service is manifestly what this country does not need if it is to tackle the fearsome public policy challenges ahead. Gray was not the original ‘Partygate’ inquisitor and the Tories have hidden behind her eventual report with respect to Johnson for months now. To suddenly claim the opposite is rank opportunism.

Which brings us to Labour, the party that supposedly believes in the unimpeachable integrity of said public service. Just what the heck are they thinking by appointing Gray, and what the heck is Gray doing in accepting the appointment? In what universe should a super senior mandarin, one who knows most of the behind the scenes on the government’s policy and where a fair few political bodies are buried, be allowed to join the office of the Leader of the Opposition? If Labour were actively looking to sew mistrust in the civil service they could hardly have come up with a better ploy.

If this is Starmer being cheeky merely to stir up the Tories, he should withdraw the appointment, because the bantz just aren’t worth it. And if he is serious about the appointment he should accept the apparent conflict of interest is hugely damaging to the civil service he purports to respect. Moreover, there is nothing Starmer will be able to say to remove the apparent conflict of interest, especially when people are already cynical about everything to do with public life.

For that reason, Starmer should erase Gray and go back to the drawing board.

We should all be worried about Voter ID...

For the very first time, people (on mainland Britain) will be required to present photo identification to cast a ballot in this May’s local elections in a controversial overhaul of how the UK approaches elections. Changes to the Elections Act 2022 have sparked criticism over threats to local democracy, and whether efforts to prevent electoral fraud are in fact disenfranchising vulnerable people.

The primary criticism of the changes to the Elections Act is that they are a “solution in search of a problem,” as reported by the independent Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). To make matters worse, as PACAC also notes, this Act completely misses the opportunity to “consolidate a voluminous and fragmented body of electoral law”. The new law, therefore, fails on two counts:

1. This law seeks to solve problems (voter impersonation) which are not real

2. This law ignores the actual problems facing our electoral system

Electoral fraud in the UK is exceedingly rare. Electoral expert, Professor Toby James, of The University of East Anglia has said that “research has consistently shown that impersonation is not a widespread problem at polling stations”. Furthermore, The Electoral Commission’s annual review of election fraud since 2017 has consistently concluded that there is “no evidence of large scale electoral fraud”. 2019 saw both European and Parliamentary elections conducted nationwide, and just 34 cases of impersonation. This was no exception. By the government’s own admission, there is no evidence of large-scale voter impersonation fraud.

Secondly, these policies will have extreme impacts on democratic participation in the UK. There are currently 2.1 million British citizens (more than 5% of the UK electorate) without approved forms of ID. Furthermore, the Government scheme to provide free voter IDs has been taken up by fewer than 21,000 people (more than 0.5% of the eligible). To make matters worse, recent polling has suggested that an overwhelming majority of voters are not even aware of this change. Omnisis polling has found that fully 60% of Britons did not know that ID was mandatory. When similar changes were introduced to Northern Ireland in 2003, there was a corresponding 2.3% drop in participation.

These changes will not impact everyone equally. William Wragg, Conservative member for Hazel Grove, has raised the alarm on the potential impact on poorer, younger, and elderly voters. In his report he highlighted that the Government’s own research shows that some groups have a “lower rate of identification ownership”. Driving licence ownership rates vary greatly with age. The DVLA found that while over 99% of those aged 32 to 69 own either a driving licence or provisional licence, these numbers drop to 80% for those 18 to 20, and finally just 8% of those 90-plus have valid licence cards. The Government’s choice of acceptable ID also risks alienation of younger voters. Inexplicably, student photo Oysters are unacceptable whilst over-65 oysters are officially promoted. Moreover, student cards, often the only form of photo ID students carry, are not acceptable.

The Government should be commended however for its attempts to improve provisions for people with disabilities. Section nine of the Act mandates that returning officers provide equipment for partially sighted or blind persons to vote independently. However, disability advocates have been muted in their support in light of the perceived anti-democratic nature of the bill.

Thirdly, the Government has further angered the independent PACAC with its last minute change of electoral law for mayoral and PCC elections. The decision to replace the Supplementary Vote with First Past The Post was taken with next to no consultation of the local stakeholders. Dan Norris, Andy Burnham, Dan Jarvis, and many other metro mayors, have been incensed by the lack of consideration they received from the government. Jamie Driscoll, Metro Mayor for Tyneside, went as far as to say that this move would “inevitably fuel cynicism and growing loss of trust in our democracy” and “runs directly counter to the principle of

local control which devolution is meant to enshrine”. Finally, the PACAC’s independent report concluded that the introduction of this change was “unsatisfactory”, and “disrespectful to the House”... a damning conclusion.

So with the Elections Act 2022, we have a seriously flawed piece of legislation. Participation will almost certainly drop. For the youngest, oldest, and most vulnerable in society this drop will be especially harsh. The Government’s stated aim with this bill was to respond to the “loss of confidence in the Electoral Commission”. A laudable aim. Yet, as William Wragg explains, this bill actively “undermines public confidence in the effective and independent regulation of the electoral system.”