Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Debate between Mary Creagh and Neil Hudson

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[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—

[Dr Hudson]

It is good that you are carrying on with the good work.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Draft Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Debate between Mary Creagh and Neil Hudson

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 General Committees

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important points and for contributing to the debate. I say “citeez” and he says “cites”—let’s call the whole thing off. We will have to agree to differ on the pronunciation, but I will respond on to the important work that he cited. He rightly paid tribute to Border Force and Customs and Excise officials involved in the operations to track down and detect illegal wildlife trade. Members in all parts of the House are in passionate agreement on wanting to eradicate that trade.

The other day, I had the privilege of seeing the Animal and Plant Health Agency exhibit at the Chelsea flower show. Last year, it discussed the Colorado potato beetle, which thankfully has now been eradicated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biosecurity risk: if such animals got in—for instance, if somebody brought a brightly coloured beetle back from America and it suddenly hit the potato crop—we would be in a world of trouble. This year, APHA had a sniffer dog who was trained to help by sniffing out infected and diseased wood; later that day, the dog had the privilege of meeting His Majesty the King. World-leading science is going on in our Animal and Plant Health Agency.

I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the role his party played in banning keeping primates as pets. I was heading up to Manchester on an Avanti West Coast train when an animal, which turned out to be a spider monkey, escaped from its holder. Sadly, the wi-fi on the train was quite shonky, but I was pretty certain that it was illegal to have a monkey as a pet. It was being kept in a transparent cat carrier, and by the time we got to Manchester, I was feeling like saying, “See it, say it, sorted—there’s a monkey on the train.” My first thought was, “Does it have rabies? I don’t want to be bitten,” and my second was, “I’m pretty certain that this animal is not being kept in an enclosure that is suitable for its needs,” so I reported it to the British Transport Police. I also took a photo of the person who had the monkey, but given that, when asked by somebody on the train, he said that he had gotten it off a bloke at a market, I felt pretty certain that there was no CITES certificate for the monkey and that it had been brought into the country illegally. There is a point about legislation, about enforcement and about what you actually do when you see a monkey on the train.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the new deal for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and CITES controls. CITES is not currently in the scope of the SPS agreement negotiations. The CITES convention allows for the waiving of controls only where a comprehensive customs union agreement, such as the EU customs union, is in place, so any SPS agreement would not provide a sufficient basis for the waiving of CITES controls between the UK and the EU. However, the reforms in the statutory instrument seek to reduce the burden of CITES controls for movement to and from the UK. Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the border and the police enforce them inland. The amendments in the statutory instrument will support their efforts by introducing civil sanctions and other changes, giving them a greater range of tools to help the targeting of efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the article 10 regime. We have taken a deliberately targeted and risk-based approach to article 10 certificates. We have not removed the framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering. We have simplified requirements in a very small number of low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit, or where there is duplicate paperwork. Those changes do not weaken protections. They apply only in a very small number of low-risk circumstances, and strong controls remain firmly in place for higher risk species and activities. We will keep that under review and consider further changes where they are supported by the scientific evidence.

On the import of annex B, we have taken a targeted and risk-based approach on those import permits as well. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling higher-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited, low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or duplicate paperwork. Import permits remain firmly in place for higher-risk species and activities, and core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply.

A low-risk list will be developed and kept under review based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence. All annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, and the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight so that we can respond to changes in risk.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is talking about low risk and high risk, and I welcome her comments. Can she give categoric reassurances that the Department and all the enforcement agencies can actually flip to make sure that we can clamp down and change and classify something as high risk if it was classified as low risk initially but subsequent evidence then shows that it has become a higher risk? It needs to be dynamic. Can the Minister assure us of that?

[Mary Creagh]

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. One of the things that we are currently discussing in CITES is the classification of funga. I know the hon. Gentleman is a fun guy—that is my attempt at a joke. I better not do that again.

Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Debate between Mary Creagh and Neil Hudson

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mary Creagh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.

Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.

[Dr Hudson]

The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Debate between Mary Creagh and Neil Hudson

Wednesday 27th November 2024 General Committees

[Mary Creagh]

I thank hon. Members very much indeed for their kind and constructive words. We are seeing today an outbreak of unity on the basis of a project of seven years’ gestation. I remember the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs telling the Environmental Audit Committee, which I then chaired, that they would introduce a DRS scheme back in 2017. Here we are, and it falls to a Labour Government to introduce it. Once we pull one thread out of the packaging bin, we affect the income streams on which councils depend—I have a little joke in the Department that simpler recycling is actually hellishly complex recycling. It is a very complex project. There were issues with it during the covid pandemic and there have been four consultations on these reforms, so it has certainly taken a long time to see the light of day.

I would gently say to the shadow Minister that when we left Government in 2010, the recycling rate was more than 40%. It is now at 44%, and kind of going backwards. The original target in 2002 was for us to be at 50% recycling by 2015. The real lesson for all of us as lawmakers of whatever party is that, if we do not continually update policy, encourage behaviour change and give business certainty, these things do not happen on their own. The shadow Minister asked me about taxes; I welcome his constructive comments on charities, but obviously he knows that taxes are a matter for the Chancellor. I believe that the Finance Bill is still being debated in the main Chamber and I am sure he will have an opportunity, should he want to intervene there.

We talked about support for businesses. My officials have worked incredibly closely with businesses on this scheme. I met with a very large bottled drinks manufacturer yesterday in the Department, and I met with other businesses this morning as part of an all-party parliamentary group. We are not getting any comments from businesses that they have not been heard. There has been a consultation. There have been some philosophical questions about where glass should sit, and glass is now in pEPR. We want anyone involved in the production of packaging, such as the great Quaker Oats brand that the hon. Member for North East Fife has near her. That is an example of absolutely perfect cardboard packaging. It is sort of the perfect recycled package—wholesome on the inside and wholesome on the outside.

Most people know that the hard-to-recycle packaging is the plastic films. That is the really tricky stuff. If we look in our waste bins, by the time we have taken out the cardboard, plastic bottles, milk bottles and cans, what is left is food waste—collected in some areas, but not others, and the main source of methane in our landfill—and then the plastic film. Similarly, coffee cups have a plastic liner a few microns thick and then the thick cardboard around it, but they need the plastic to hold the drink. It is a question of product design and innovation. None of this is new, and a lot of it is happening, with pEPR happening in around 30 other countries in the world. Industry and representative groups have actively engaged with Government on developing these schemes and have offered support by sharing their data on recycling.

I take the point from the hon. Member for North East Fife about the two schemes. In a way, it is a bit like Brexit—we have the old regulations, the new regulations, and there are costs. What was supposed to be a bonfire of legislation actually ends up causing more regulation. We also have a number of industry representative groups taking part in the co-design of the future of scheme administration, including consideration of greater value chain involvement in the scheme. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom—this is the first time we as a nation are doing this.

[Dr Hudson]

I note that the Minister is saying that businesses are feeding in, but my earlier point was that, with changes coming down the track, dialogue needs to go both ways. What plans do the Government have to talk to businesses and sectors in future? They are taking in information, but it is important that information goes the other way, so that people can plan and put measures in place.

[Mary Creagh]

That is a valid point. We have had to collect the data, but the data is not 100% there yet. Illustrative base fees were shared in August and we did new base fees in September to reflect some of the comments from business. We are looking at 2024, which has not ended yet, so we need to look at the tonnage and packaging for 2024 before we publish the final, definitive fees from April. We have tried to share illustrative fees with people, because we know there are long supply chains and they need six to 12 months to plan properly.

Further iterations will follow up to the summer next year, when we will share those final fees. They will be invoiced in October 2025, which will cover the period from 1 April 2025 to March 2026. At that point there will be absolute clarity and certainty. If there is anything that we feel is not working or that is driving behaviour in the opposite direction from what we want to see, we will not hesitate to change things further. As a new Government—we have been in power for only five months—this has been a big elephant to digest, one bite at a time.

The hon. Member for North East Fife asked me about producer obligations in the two schemes. The regulations carry over the obligation on the Environment Agency to publish a list of large producers from the 2023 data regulations, as amended. That should help producers to reduce the risk of double obligation, because we do not want people to be obligated under two separate schemes. If a producer discovers that it has reported packaging that it was not required to report, the regulations enable it to make a resubmission to correct any errors. We will continue to review the reporting requirements and engage with industry to ensure that the regulations operate effectively.

The payments will also apply to online marketplaces, something that is important for all of us as constituency MPs. We have seen the displacement of traditional high street businesses by online retailers, where it is usually cheaper to buy something. These regulations try to reset the level playing field.

We have legislated for that by creating the online marketplace producer class to address the rising prevalence of products imported into the UK as a result of sales on a third-party website. Where that happens, the operator of an online marketplace established in the UK must now take responsibility for that packaging under pEPR. At the same time, we do not want to unnecessarily burden small producers, so we are retaining the current de minimis thresholds. We will use the data gathered in the first year of the scheme to review the approach to small producers after that first year. We need to see if it is working as intended.

I hope I have covered most of the questions raised by hon. Members. The legislation is necessary to kick-start the circular economy, drive up our recycling rates, drive down our carbon emissions and change our approach to packaging in the UK, to ensure that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I hope that hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instrument, and I am grateful for the Committee’s time.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mary Creagh and Neil Hudson

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

T5. Animal and Plant Health Agency staff deserve our thanks for tackling a number of challenges facing our biosecurity. Given the outbreaks of bluetongue in East Anglia, the advance of African swine fever across Europe, and the existing threats posed by avian influenza and bovine tuberculosis, will the Minister support the APHA by affirming that the Government will fully commit to the redevelopment of its HQ in Weybridge—Labour rightly called for that in opposition—to protect the UK’s biosecurity, and human and animal health?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new seat and congratulate him on winning the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Massingham advocacy award. The Department remains vigilant to potential global disease threats and has robust measures in place to prevent and detect disease incursion. We will be looking at funding as part of the spending review, but I pay tribute to those officials and veterinary officers who are working so hard to tackle the outbreaks that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.