Deforestation

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the consumption of forestry commodities in the United Kingdom is not driving deforestation abroad.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forest and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering our approach to addressing the impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility is a flagship project of Brazil’s COP 30 presidency. It is a global financial initiative designed to provide large-scale, predictable and performance-based payments to tropical forest countries for conserving and expanding forest cover. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the UK will show strong support for this important initiative by speeding up pending legislation to ban illegal forest-risk commodities in UK supply chains?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK welcomes the strong focus on forests from the Brazilian presidency at COP 30, and we will continue to shape our approach for putting forests at the heart of the climate agenda at COP 30 in Brazil. We are working at pace to move forward in this area.

Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make regulations under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 to ban the import of forest risk commodities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering their approach to addressing the impact of the use of forestry commodities in our supply chains and will update the House in due course.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister. The problem is that there is no way in which to stabilise our warming planet if we continue to destroy vital sinks like forests. The UK has a real opportunity to show ambition in tackling deforestation at the upcoming COP 30 in the Brazilian Amazon. Will the Government’s ambition be greater than that of Schedule 17, and will it align with the EU deforestation regulation, which is more robust and wide-ranging?

High Seas Treaty

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. I am sure that we were all extremely shocked and concerned on hearing about the collision that has just taken place in the North Sea. It is an emerging picture; we are still hearing more evidence as to exactly what has happened. I assure the House that we are speaking closely in Defra to the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which are leading on the government response. They are assessing the situation, as it has only just happened. I assure the noble Lord and the House that Defra’s agencies including the Environment Agency are engaging on any clean-up that is needed and assessing any pollution. We are not sure at the moment exactly what the situation is. There has been a fire, which makes it much more difficult to look at the extent of damage and pollution. We will keep the House updated as we hear further information.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister a little further on the ratification process for the high seas treaty? Can she confirm that ratification needs to take place before June 2025 if we are to have a voice at the COP process that will take place on the treaty later this year?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To confirm, the UN ocean conference is a separate meeting. Therefore, it is not a deadline for ratification of the treaty, but we are committed to the ratification.

Flooding

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we have planning legislation coming forward. One thing we are doing in Defra is working closely with MHCLG around the future development of planning, particularly as we have ambitious plans for building a large number of homes that are so desperately needed. As part of the new home strategy that we have at the moment, we have committed to ensure that we are building more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. It is important that, when we plan, we also look at the impact on the environment, and that clearly includes the impact on flooding.

The Government are committed to consider whether changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies that are related to decision-making in this area. Where development needs to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding because no alternative sites are available, we are stressing that developments should be flood resilient and resistant, safe for a lifetime and should not increase flood risk overall. The problem you can have is that, if you do not look at this properly in the round, you can build a house that potentially could flood, so you put in place resilience measures and, as the noble Baroness said, they push the water on to another estate that has not flooded before. So it is really important that we look at this carefully in the round.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on when we can expect to see the land use framework that has been much delayed? It will shed some light on the competing priorities for land, including flood plains.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am hoping that we will see it very soon. The target we are working to is that we are hoping to see it some time later this month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.

On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, since there is still a bit of time, may I ask the Minister what thought the department has given to the health of our soils and their decreasing ability to absorb water? A lot of the issues around flooding concern run-off and the reduced capacity of the land to absorb water that it used to be able to. Two issues arise out of that: increased water, which we have little way of dealing with at the moment, and the reduced replenishment of our aquifers, which is causing water shortages around the country. Is the department giving deep thought to that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 October 2023, be approved.

This instrument adds a new substance called perfluorohexane sulfonic acid—PFHxS for short—including its salts and related compounds, to the retained persistent organic pollutants regulation in response to the listing of this substance under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obligated to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention. This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within article 15 of the retained EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument. These regulations are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. POPs are substances recognised as particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This SI preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK.

Let me turn now to the details of the instrument. At the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties last year, PFHxS was added to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention. This decision was communicated to parties and observers by the UN depository in November 2022. The SI adds this new POP to the list of substances prohibited by law from being manufactured, sold and used in Great Britain.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of PFHxS at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which PFHxS can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture, where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. The SI includes two general limits and one that is specific to its presence in firefighting foams.

This instrument was not subject to consultation because, although it represents an update to existing legislation, it implements an international obligation that the UK is required to put into place in law. There were opportunities for UK stakeholders to feed into earlier engagement, both UK and convention led, at various stages before PFHxS was adopted for elimination under the Stockholm convention. The Government have also initiated public calls for information and opportunities to comment on draft evaluation documents for this substance. We received no evidence to suggest that exemptions or derogations were required by industry in Great Britain. Following that previous engagement, a recent Defra-led consultation on other potential amendments to the POPs regulation stated our intention to list PFHxS in annexe 1 of the POPs regulation in order to meet the UK’s obligations under the Stockholm convention.

A de minimis impact assessment was carried out. It concluded that there is no indication that PFHxS chemicals are intentionally produced or used in Great Britain. As such, this SI is not expected to have an impact on businesses, beyond one-off familiarisation costs. It is also not expected to disproportionately burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England, and Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this SI and have no concerns in relation to implementation or resources.

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, the EU POPs regulation 2019/1021 applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the SI and have consented to it being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this SI are needed to implement the requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding the new POP PFHxS, its salts and related compounds to the list of substances prohibited by law. The Environmental Improvement Plan for England has made clear our commitment to support and protect the natural environment, wildlife and human health. This includes our commitment to manage and reduce POPs in the environment. The draft regulations will allow the UK to continue to meet commitments relating to POPs and to continue to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. I hope noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information he gave, and I convey the apologies of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who is unable to be here today—I am standing in her place. The Minister spoke about PFHxS, but I was under the impression that we would be speaking about PFOAs and the extension of the deadline from July 2023 to 2025. I may have got it completely wrong, but that was the brief I was given.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. These POPs are very toxic substances, with a long lifetime in the environment. It is not for nothing that they are called “forever chemicals”. So I am pleased that the Government have taken this firm line and will make sure that they are banned—and I am pleased that they are not being produced in the UK.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, it falls to me to thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. The pedant in me needs to point out that we are invited to consider these regulations, not approve them.

The Minister will be relieved to hear that we support the passage of this statutory instrument, which, as he outlined, implements a June 2022 decision on the Stockholm convention, to which the UK is a party, to list PFHxS, its salts and related compounds as prohibited persistent organic pollutants—POPs. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that PFHxS is

“one of the most frequently detected and predominant PFASs in human blood”.

Although not all PFAS chemicals are POPs, it is worth acknowledging the significant threat posed by many PFASs. These forever chemicals degrade incredibly slowly, bringing a risk of large-scale health and environmental effects. From the debate in another place, I understand that more of these chemicals are due to be listed as POPs under the Stockholm convention in the near future. Is the Minister able to provide any timeline for the designation of these additional chemicals? Will the Minister commit to bringing forward further statutory instruments as quickly as possible?

As my colleague, Ruth Jones MP, noted, this instrument represents

“a very good example of common sense alignment with our neighbours”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/11/23; col. 5.]

Close cross-border co-operation on environmental and chemical threats is vital. It is for that reason that we were puzzled by the Government’s decision not to seek an ongoing relationship with the EU’s REACH programme —the system for the recognition, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. The replacement UK REACH scheme is still very much in its infancy, with worryingly little information about how it will work in practice. Recent media reports suggest that the department will require less hazard information from chemical companies when they register substances in the UK. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case and whether an impact assessment will be made available in due course?

While this SI keeps us in step with international partners in relation to POPs, there is a perception that the UK is falling behind on broader chemical regulation. That flies in the face of promises made by a variety of Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State and Ministers. While we support the passage of this instrument, I hope the Minister will accept that the Government have work to do to convince colleagues that the necessary steps are being taken to preserve the health of the population, wildlife and the natural environment.

Air Quality Strategy Consultation

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend raises a point that cab drivers raise with me frequently. It is a serious point. As she knows, air quality is devolved to the mayor, who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of his policies. Undoubtedly, with ULEZ and other policies, this is causing tensions, but it is for him to answer. Our point is to help local government in all its forms to deliver. We are putting in money to assist local authorities in tackling air quality right across the country. London is the biggest challenge. That is why we work with the mayor when we can to make sure that we are achieving that in the capital.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, Cabinet Office consultation principles state:

“Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time”


and should be judged

“on the basis of legal advice and taking into account the nature and impact of the proposal”.

Air pollution is estimated to be responsible for more than 64,000 deaths in the UK, costing in the region of £20 billion, as estimated by the Royal College of Physicians report, Every Breath We Take. Does the Minister really believe that nine working days is a proportionate amount of time to gather responses on air pollution, the biggest environmental risk to public health?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I cannot add in response to the noble Baroness more than I said in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because I think that we have consulted very widely, not just during those dates that she cited but across the piece. Air quality is one of the key priorities. If the noble Baroness looks at our environmental improvement plan, she will see what we are asking to be delivered right across this country. She will see that it is a priority and that we are consulting in a variety of ways to make sure that we reflect those who have to deliver this, which is, in the main, local authorities.

UK Shellfish Sector

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We are seeking a pragmatic solution to this matter.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to follow on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The Minister said a little bit about what needs to be done to bring our class B waters up to class A standards. Can he say how long he thinks this might take? Will the Government move this into a higher priority area now?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

On the timeframe, there has been a lot of work to improve waters and achieve our water regulation standard results in shellfish waters of high class B quality. As I say, there is investment, and this will need to continue. Part of our 25-year environment plan is to have three quarters of our water in its natural state. This is going to need investment, and we are working on this. But I want to emphasise that our molluscs from class B waters are of very high quality, and we wish to work with permission to ensure that this legitimate trade, which is important around the country, is resumed.

Food Supply and Security

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee when it produced Brexit-related reports on agriculture, and on food prices and availability. The two key vulnerabilities in our food system that the Covid-19 crisis has laid bare were highlighted in those reports: first, the UK’s dependency on the rest of the world, given than half our food is imported; and secondly, the gaping labour gap left by EU workers who do so much of the heavy lifting in all aspects of food manufacturing, in both skills and stamina. Can the Minister say what progress has been made by the Feed the Nation campaign to fill the 80,000 vacancies for this harvest season?

The British Veterinary Association states that 95% of official veterinarians working in abattoirs come mainly from the EU. These OVs are essential to ensuring compliance with food standards and regulations, as well as upholding levels of animal welfare. A reduction in their numbers will seriously compromise the FSA’s ability to sustain a sufficient service. How has the food safety inspections regime been coping with reduced personnel, the difficulty of maintaining social distancing measures in food production settings, and a shortage of PPE? Essentially, is enough being done to safeguard the public against the risk of food-borne disease? Lastly, what advice have scientists given about the risk of SARS-CoV-2 jumping the species barrier from humans back to the animal kingdom—to, say, chickens?

Brexit: Plant and Animal Biosecurity

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as recorded in the register.

In rereading this excellent report, it is clear that what is at issue is the scale of damage to our nation if there were to be a serious lapse in biosecurity. My noble friend Lord Teverson and other noble Lords have already mentioned foot and mouth. Who can forget the terrible scenes as farmers and emergency services battled to rid the country of it, or the nostalgia with which we still regret the absence of the majestic elm from our countryside?

The briefing from the Woodland Trust tells us that, during the UK’s membership of the EU, global biosecurity threats—particularly in plant biosecurity—have increased significantly and that the UK’s response has sadly been less than exemplary. The report is therefore timely and very well put together, and I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the clerks of the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for their skill in helping members of the committee, of which I am one, to access the material to produce such an informative report. I also extend my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Teverson for his excellent chairmanship and masterful introduction to this debate. I will concentrate on two aspects: food safety risk management, which has already been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—although perhaps I can offer something a little different—and compliance and monitoring.

First, what happens to food safety risk management if we do not have a seamless transition from being an integral partner in the EU’s disease notification systems to not having a seat at the table? Just to recap, the four main notification systems are: the animal disease notification system; RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed; the European alien species notification system; and the European Union notification system for plant health interceptions. The importance of these early alert agencies has been recognised by the Government, who have stated their intention to retain access to these systems. It is good that the Government recognise that it is important to be part of the discussion that leads to decisions about what information will be put in the public domain and what will not. As the chemists among us will know, after filtration, both the filtrate and the substrate are of interest. However, as things currently stand, the fact is that the only third countries that take part in any of these organisations are those in the animal disease notification system, and they are either candidate or potential candidate countries, or members of EFTA. For the other three bodies, full participation is restricted to member states only.

Can the Minister say how matters stand with respect to gaining access to these important early alert systems? I know that other noble Lords have asked the same question of the Minister, which goes to illustrate how important we think it is that this matter is addressed and that we have clarification. Does he agree that relying solely on public websites will not substitute for the wealth of information and insight that we currently enjoy, nor the influence we currently exercise—and that that applies even if we take part in international information exchange networks like the Food Industry Intelligence Network and the WHO’s International Food Safety Authorities Network? The plan may be for the FSA to step into the breach, but it is not clear when it will be up and running and firing on all cylinders. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given us a fairly comprehensive run-through of why concerns about the FSA’s role remain. As has been mentioned, it is not clear either that any shadow body that is set up in the interim, until the FSA is up and ready, will be independent of government interference and at a safe distance from the food lobby. I therefore echo the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

It is frightening to think that the Government were once seriously peddling a no-deal Brexit in the knowledge that alternative arrangements for biosecurity, such as they are, were not yet in place and that the UK’s protection from animal pests and disease would have been substandard. It is also concerning that there remain on the Government Benches—and, it has to be said, the Opposition Benches—those who still extol the virtues of a no-deal Brexit. A poorer-quality early alert system, coupled with the proposal for laxer controls on borders, is a recipe for disaster and criminally negligent. Maybe it was merely political posturing and never in serious contention; one can only hope. However, the worry is that the snake-oil proponents of a no-deal Brexit are doing rather well in the polls for the Euro elections next week—a consequence of the failure of the Government and the Opposition to tackle the myth that we can have our cake and eat it, forgetting to mention the listeria or the E. coli lurking within.

The role of monitoring and enforcement is currently filled by the European Commission and the EU’s Food and Veterinary Office, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Trees, will cover in detail. The FVO carries out regular missions to member states to check practices and compliance with animal health, animal welfare and food safety regulations. It is a valuable independent assessor of risk management. In paragraph 38 of the report, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board asks who will perform this function if the UK leaves. The Welsh Government Minister, Lesley Griffiths AM, said in written evidence:

“There will … need to be a body to replicate the audit and advisory support, post EU exit, currently delivered through the FVO”.


The RSPB raised an important issue about enforcement. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 39, where it said that the text of the invasive alien species regulation,

“requires Member States to report to The European Commission on a 6-yearly basis on actions taken to implement the IAS Regulation”.

The Commission therefore has the power to ensure that member states are implementing the IAS regulation and it can take enforcement action if necessary, along with the European Court of Justice. The result is that we currently have a monitoring and risk assessment agency and a Commission that has a record of taking meaningful action against transgressors.

The Minister’s response to the committee when asked about how enforcement would be dealt with post Brexit, was, if I may say so, rather lackadaisical, given the dire consequences should there be a material lapse in vigilance. The Minister in question is the same Minister who is responding on behalf of the Government today, who said to the committee:

“If we need to look at either remits or additional powers to retain our reputation and our requirements, we will look at that … We will take every opportunity, if necessary, to bolster any existing organisations”.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking time is seven minutes.

[Baroness Sheehan]

I am sorry—I am just about to finish.

It sounds very much like we would be willing to shut the stable door once the horse has bolted. I hope that the Minister is now of a more proactive frame of mind. It is much more cost effective to address and manage the risks before catastrophe strikes and farm animals, lives and livelihoods are lost. I hope, if nothing else, that the Government will now take heed of that message from this report.

Ivory Bill

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having taken part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I was unable to do so, but, having seen the amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I was moved to add my name. I will take a few minutes to say why I thought that that was necessary.

The aim of the Bill is well and good within itself and I support it wholeheartedly. The success of the Bill in reducing poaching will, we all hope, lead to a rise in elephant numbers and it therefore makes sense that we should also be alive to any unintended consequences that could arise. That is why I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I am most concerned about the consequences for developing communities in countries where the elephants are found.

The Minister will know—we have already heard about this from around the Chamber this afternoon—that human-elephant conflict is a real and growing issue in regions where elephants and humans live in close proximity. Indeed, the issue has its own acronym—it is frequently referred to as HEC. Smaller farms risk crops being devastated by elephants and the wrath of farmers can translate into hostility towards elephants and the granting of licences to poachers, which rather defeats the purpose of the Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned. In addition, heedless large agribusiness, of the type that Africa is in dire need of, can cut swathes through traditional elephant corridors to food and water, causing major conflict.

The abhorrent practice of destroying majestic, intelligent creatures must be put to a stop, but it must be done so that it is permanently sustainable. If we are serious about the endeavour, we must be proactive in identifying areas where challenges will arise and take action to meet them. Some excellent work being done in this field has highlighted the important insights that local communities can provide, so it is crucial that those communities are involved in designing the initiatives for crop protection that will lead to elephant conservation. It is important that this is done by DfID, because it is best placed and has the best know-how and it will be able to take the lead in efforts to mitigate the impact of rising elephant numbers on the countries where elephants live and, in particular on the local communities, particularly farming communities, that may be adversely affected.

In conclusion, peaceful coexistence of humans and elephants is eminently possible through effective and sensible land management. However, we must be alive to the dangerous unintended consequences and must not neglect to give this issue sufficient attention.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Art Market Federation, as I did on the first day in Committee.

May I ask the Minister about the comments about resources that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made at the beginning of his speech? On the first day in Committee I moved an amendment that the noble Lord will remember, about the requirement to register Clause 7—de minimis—exemptions. These exemptions, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum, are there because they in no way, either directly or indirectly, contribute to the poaching of wild elephants. At the same time, the Minister told the House that government policy had been prepared with the benefit of the widest consultation, with all the relevant interest groups, including the wildlife interest groups. That being the case, having heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, surely it must follow, given the very small number of resources that are available to deal with the problems of ivory, that this stipulation that de minimis exemptions need to be registered is a serious misallocation of resources. The Government admit that they are not contributing to the destruction of wild elephants. Therefore, if it is an offence not to register, they are deflecting resources that could otherwise be put to better purpose. If the noble Lord says that it will not lead to any change or misallocation of resources, I will ask him what the purpose is of having that stipulation in the legislation at all, because it is conceded that it is not achieving anything.