Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John. I am very glad that the rain has managed to hold off so far, so let the summer begin.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 15 April 2026, is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—that is, the agreement under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction—the fact that I have had such trouble pronouncing it shows why it is always called “BBNJ”. It helps to implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried on in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before we can ratify it. The draft order enables this by amending the marine licensing regime.
I will begin by underlining why it is so important that the House supports this legislation. The BBNJ is an implementing agreement under the UN convention on the law of the sea which aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems vital to the health of our planet; they are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species, many of which we have not actually discovered yet.
Primary legislation was needed to implement our BBNJ obligations fully. Accordingly, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation needed for the UK to implement the agreement. The draft order is part of that work, and it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first conference of the parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.
The draft order implements the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. The draft order makes provision relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.
Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but only two marine licences for such activities have been issued since 2011. The draft order extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to the types of activities that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.
This instrument also makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an EIA as set out in the BBNJ agreement. The exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet our BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first, to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full EIA.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
What is the maximum fine for a company that does not comply with this regulation?
Mary Creagh
I do not have that figure to hand, but I am sure that the magic of the officials’ box will enable me to give the right hon. Member the figure by the end of the sitting—or perhaps he knows and can enlighten the Committee.
Steve Barclay
My reading last night suggested that it was just £50,000. It is interesting that the Minister does not know what the fine actually is. What does she think the cost of complying with the EIA requirement would be for a company?
Mary Creagh
That would depend on the activity that it was being asked to do. As I said, only two of these licences have actually been allowed under—
Mary Creagh
I am sure that it is expensive. Does the right hon. Member want to tell the Committee what it is?
Steve Barclay
I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.
Mary Creagh
Having been Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member knows the what is involved in monitoring activity in areas beyond our national jurisdiction. What we know is that this regulation will apply to British vessels, British persons and activities that are licensed and under our control. As I said, only two of these licences have been issued in the last 15 years.
We want the areas beyond national jurisdiction to be protected. Those are often areas of deep ocean, where we do not understand and have not mapped the seabed. During my extended sabbatical I went to see some of the marine science work, including marine mapping, going on at the University of Southampton. We want the high seas to be open and accessible to all. These controls are about making sure that, under this new convention, British vessels are not in breach of international agreements. With the right hon. Gentleman’s permission—
The Chair
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a perfect entitlement to contribute to this debate, so perhaps he should wait until the Minister has concluded and then choose to make an incisive but pithy contribution.
Steve Barclay
I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take your steer, Sir John, and make this my last intervention. The Minister has tempted me to intervene once more, because the exact justification that she gave for the cost of compliance being 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine relied on enforcement, but the reason why there have been only two licences granted in the period she cited is that there is so little enforcement because this is beyond national jurisdiction. The Marine Management Organisation has no vessels in the Pacific. There is no impact assessment with this regulation. How will it be enforced in areas beyond our jurisdiction if there is no impact assessment and no additional funding for that enforcement?
Mary Creagh
I will correct the record. The magic of the officials’ box has informed me that the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine, not a £50,000 fine, and/or a term of imprisonment of up to two years. That is significant, so it certainly would be worth a company’s while undertaking an assessment, depending on the activity that it is trying to do. If it were deep sea mining and things like that, it might be financially worth it, but it is certainly worth the company thinking about it.
Of course, we do not need physical vessels to do enforcement, because we have eyes in the sky via satellite, and we can map these things. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire knows that we have satellites, because he contracted with Earth system satellites, which can map down to 100 or 200 metres. We do not need ships there; we can send ships where they are needed and take enforcement action.
Before the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I was talking about the activities that will not need a marine licence and about reducing the burdens on regulators. An exemption will be introduced for the removal of specified subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to fall consistently below the BBNJ screening threshold.
Alongside today’s statutory instrument, I would like to highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence—activities regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. That will ensure that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day that the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.
To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this statutory instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities that are regulated under part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. It also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden.
The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, from advisory letters to formal enforcement action, applied proportionately, based on risk and available evidence. Conditions can be placed on licences, requiring licence holders to keep records and make returns or to provide information to the MMO. It will develop intelligence gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address it. As it is intelligence-based, we would not be expected to say what those methods would be. Having just talked about satellites, I am sure that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will know that that may be one of the routes.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument. It is very appropriate that we are considering it on the day after World Oceans Day.
On our precious planet, we are blessed to have oceans and seas rich in biodiversity. It is an asset that we share in common with the rest of the world—a good in itself that sustains a diverse range of life. From whales to coral reefs, we have a vast array of fish, animals, plants and microorganisms living in our oceans. Our oceans and seas contain more than 80% of the world’s biodiversity.
Biodiversity is vital not only for protecting species and preventing extinction, but for safeguarding human health. Oceans and seas are a key source of the world’s food and oxygen, but they also greatly contribute to our understanding of the natural and life sciences. The UK has long been a global leader in marine research, supported by world-renowned institutions such as the Natural History Museum, the national museums in Wales and Scotland, the National Oceanography Centre and our outstanding universities, many of which hold internationally important repositories of marine biological data.
Marine genetic resources in particular demonstrate the direct link between ocean biodiversity and human wellbeing. Compounds derived from marine organisms have been instrumental in developing new medicines. Treatments for coronavirus, cancer, inflammatory conditions and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s all draw in part from genetic material found in our oceans and seas. Protecting marine diversity is therefore not only an environmental imperative but a foundation for future medical breakthroughs.
The previous Conservative Government understood the need to conserve the biodiversity of our oceans and seas. That led Conservative Ministers to commit in the convention on biological diversity to protect a minimum of 30% of global ocean by 2030. In government, we Conservatives took real, practical steps to protect our marine environment. We strengthened England’s marine protected areas regime, establishing 181 MPAs, which now cover around 40% of English waters. Recognising that the UK’s overseas territories encompass 4.4 million square km of marine environment across every major ocean basin, we worked to conserve those precious ecosystems by halting biodiversity loss, supporting sustainable growth and connecting people with these precious natural environments.
We Conservatives also understood that the challenge does not end at our own shores. Around two thirds of the world’s oceans—roughly 61%—lie in areas beyond national jurisdiction: the waters outside any coastal state’s exclusive economic zone. Those vast areas are home to extraordinary biodiversity, yet no single nation can protect them alone. That is why Conservative Ministers championed general international co-operation to safeguard those waters and to support research into marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As we look ahead, it is vital that we strengthen that co-operation. Safeguarding life in areas beyond national jurisdiction is a shared global responsibility, and only by working with our international partners can we preserve these ecosystems for the benefit of humanity.
The previous Conservative Government played a central role in negotiating the UN’s biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. Signed on 20 September 2023, that landmark agreement represented a major victory for ocean protection and multilateral diplomacy. As the UK follows a dualist approach to international treaties, Parliament must pass domestic legislation before such agreements can take effect. I am therefore pleased that the current Government have continued the work that the Conservatives began by bringing the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 into force. That ensures that the UK now has the legal framework required to implement the agreement fully, responsibly and in line with the commitments that we helped to shape on the global stage.
The Minister will recall that during the passage of the 2026 Act, His Majesty’s official Opposition repeatedly raised concerns that while the Government were seeking to champion biodiversity and conservation on the global stage, they were simultaneously threatening to surrender the Chagos Islands, which may have risked the Chagos marine protected area, particularly should Mauritius not be able to enforce the protection. We therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister appears to have listened to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Chagossian community and wider public concern, as it appears that they have stepped back from proposals that could have jeopardised both the future of the islands and the integrity of the marine protected area. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case?
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft order, albeit it is a shame that it has taken so long to be introduced, which has been noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Once the agreement is ratified, the onus will shift to implementation. Can the Minister provide some reassurance that the Government will continue to work closely with key stakeholders such as the cable sector and marine scientists? We look forward to further progress from the Government in this vital area.
The Chair
Before I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, I want to say that I am happy to have an exchange on the Chagos marine environment, but I do not want a wider debate on the Chagos Islands and their future.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir John. The Liberal Democrats support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, and welcome the draft order, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.
We note that the statutory instrument introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk. While we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, it will be important that these exemptions are kept under review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. While we support the implementation of this treaty and this statutory instrument, we remain clear that the Government must ensure the new licensing exemptions do not become loopholes and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.
Mary Creagh
Allow me to take a moment to reflect on the importance of approving this legislation. Without it, the UK would not be a position to ratify the BBNJ agreement. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, the “30 by 30” commitment was signed under the previous Government and that is an international undertaking which this Government take very seriously. It is all very well signing agreements—
Mary Creagh
The difference is that we are actually now saying where the money is coming from, how we are going to meet that target, and how we are going to aggregate the land and seas. An undertaking to do something, without having a plan to deliver it, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Hon. Members will appreciate that future industry activity is difficult to predict in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Our consultation and previous engagement with stakeholders identified some likely activities in such areas, including telecommunications cable activity, marine scientific research, space flight activity, and deep sea mining, but not all such activities will be in the scope of marine licensing.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about licence applications and the costs. There have been only two licences granted for an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch in 2022—I am not sure if he was the Secretary of State at the time; there were so many in those two years that I cannot be expected to remember who was where at that time. It was before his time, was it?
Mary Creagh
The other was for a dye tracer study in 2015. I am not sure what that means, but perhaps they were putting in chemicals to trace something—currents, for example. We might think, “Well, that’s a bit weird,” but if it is about finding where the currents and tides go, and where the winds are blowing, it all feeds into the brilliant science and weather forecasting we are able to do here in this country. We do not anticipate many activities being covered—I know the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about the volume of activities—although the lack of past case studies makes it difficult to determine the volume of activities that might take place in the future.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest is right to raise the issue of the incredibly important marine environment around the Chagos Islands. It is home to 220 coral species—corals are on the frontline of the climate crisis and we are doing some great work, particularly in Cayman Islands, around tackling stony coral disease—855 fish species and 355 mollusc species, so it is incredibly important. However, I am sorry to say that decisions on what is or is not going to happen with the Chagos Islands are not a matter for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, and he is tempting me to stray beyond my brief. So with your permission, Sir John, I will leave it there, and agree it is an important protected area.
Mary Creagh
Thank you, Sir John.
This is a once in a generation step forward in ocean governance, which ensures areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably as part of that biodiversity sharing agreement that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In the absence of this legislation, we would not have the tools to assess and manage activities and their potential impacts.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was not going to intervene, but this is such a fascinating debate that I cannot help but bring in the fact that Harlow has a coral farm. We all agree that the order is important legislation. Despite some of the to-ing and fro-ing, there is cross-party support for it, but does the Minister agree that international support is also important? Does she get the sense that other countries across the world are implementing the same legislation?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shoe-horning in the Harlow coral farm. I am sure that an invitation for the Minister responsible for water and flooding is in the post and a visit is imminent. It genuinely sounds exciting. Of course, coral farms are important for working out which species are climate resilient and will be the coral reefs of the future. Coral is not just nice to look at when scuba-diving and snorkelling on holiday. In February, I managed to go on a snorkelling trip in Egypt with a broken wrist, for which I think I deserve some recognition. They make them tough in Coventry! Was Nemo swimming one-handed?
My hon. Friend asks a good question about the issue of coral and other states’ involvement. At all the international meetings I went to in 2024, which was my first year in post, people looked to the UK for our leadership on these UN conventions, particularly given the lack of leadership and withdrawal by other large players in the United Nations. We have been encouraged and exhorted to do that, but the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on treaties, so the actual treaty could not be DEFRA legislation. We found a spot to bring in the treaty in our second year, but I am sure it will receive great acclaim. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is soon to attend a conference in Kenya at which this SI and the further movement towards ratification will be warmly welcomed. There is also a Commonwealth summit to look at the ocean, as so much of our Commonwealth is affected and is marine facing or marine vulnerable.
The statutory instrument aims to strike the right balance, providing safeguards to protect the marine environment and meet BBNJ requirements, while avoiding disproportionate or unnecessary regulation. I am sure that hon. Members appreciate the importance of the marine environment and the need for effective and appropriate regulation of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Dr Hudson
I know that the Minister is winding up, and that she has spoken about Ministers going to summits and collaboration, but she spoke about the importance of implementation. I asked specifically about what the Government will do to liaise with key stakeholders in the area, such as the cable sector, marine scientists, merchant navies and so on. The UK has a global footprint, so it is important that this Government take the baton that the Conservatives passed to them and work closely with stakeholders. Can she reassure the Committee that the Government will work closely with stakeholders on the frontline?
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. I recognise that there are concerns about specified cable activity remaining exempt from regulation, but that is based on evidence provided in our consultation responses and discussions with other Government Departments, including the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I reassure hon. Members that, as a result of that evidence and those discussions, we consider cable-related activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction to be of sufficiently low impact as to fall below the threshold, which is why we are maintaining the current cabling exemption. However, science and industry are evolving in this area, so we are working on it. In the consultation, which we held jointly with the Scottish Government and which was open for four weeks in November 2025, we had only 22 responses from industry research organisations, environmental non-government organisations, consultants and consultancies, public bodies and DEFRA arms-length bodies, which shows that this is quite a niche area.
Eighty-nine other states have now ratified the BBNJ treaty and 145 states have signed it, so there is huge international support. We have only one ocean; although we may call it different things in different places, it is the mantle that wraps around the globe. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest says, we are often blind to the treasures that it holds in its deeps, whether that is the glorious seaweed baths on the Atlantic coast, or the next cure for an ailment or disease. Our ocean is vital to so many of our industries and provides proteins for billions of people, so it is important that we protect it for the future. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.