Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I was talking about Suffolk because that is the better of the two counties, but there we are.

The truth of the matter of simply this. Can we take this opportunity to give some real support for small abattoirs near to where the animals are? This means—in Suffolk and in Norfolk—having accommodation that just does not exist at the moment. I hope that now is the opportunity for the department to take this up.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for introducing this set of much-needed regulations, which are aimed at bringing the sheep sector in line with the beef and pork industries through the introduction of mandatory carcass classification and price-reporting schemes. These schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, these schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market. It is only right that the sheep sector now be afforded the same standards.

The proposed regulations, based on the existing Carcase Classification and Price Reporting (England) Regulations 2018, would require regulated slaughterhouses to submit weekly reports detailing price data by carcass classification for individual sheep under 12 months of age. Not only is this move logical, it is also timely. It will enable producers to better understand whether the prices they receive reflect the true value of their animals. It will also support better forward planning, evidence-based policy-making and market monitoring.

As it stands, the absence of a mandatory classification and pricing system has created a fragmented and inconsistent marketplace. While some abattoirs have voluntarily adopted classification systems and reported prices to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, others have used their own internal standards for trimming and weighing carcasses. This misalignment of practices has led to inconsistencies in carcass weights and a lack of price comparability, leaving many sheep farmers at a disadvantage.

Non-standardisation presents real-world consequences. It means that farmers often struggle to negotiate fair payment for the quality of their livestock and lack the data needed to make informed decisions that may improve both their businesses and productivity.

The proposals put forward today have been supported by a consultation held by Defra and the Welsh Government last year, which found broad support from stakeholders. Notably, the National Farmers’ Union, which has long campaigned for the reform, welcomed the proposals. David Barton, chair of the NFU livestock board, greatly looked forward to the proposals, which will benefit farmers, processors and customers all across the wider supply chain. The Meat & Livestock Classification has also voiced its support, recognising the potential of these changes to promote transparency and high standards in the British sheep industry.

Those processing 2,000 sheep or more weekly will be required to comply, and smaller abattoirs slaughtering between 1,000 and 1,999 sheep weekly on a rolling annual average will have the choice to opt in. This threshold strikes the right balance, capturing approximately 85% of all sheep slaughtered, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory pressure on smaller operations.

The instrument also includes a licensing regime for classifiers and automated classification methods, with an authorisation process in place to ensure the reliability of automated systems before they are approved for use.

I shall briefly touch on the subject of mobile abattoirs and smaller abattoirs, as referenced by my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Shephard and Lord Deben. I know from personal experience that abattoirs are on the decline; I do not know the exact statistics, but the decline has been significant. Will the Minister come back to us on what has already been asked, but also on the small abattoir fund, a fund that we introduced, of around £4 million? What are the Government’s plans for that fund? Will it remain? Will the funding be increased? How are the Government promoting it to smaller abattoirs? What regulations can we look at changing in order to make mobile abattoirs easier to be set up and used throughout the country?

In conclusion, we welcome today’s statutory instrument, which seeks to ensure that sheepmeat producers get a fair price for the product. It is a sensible, proportionate and long-overdue step towards a more transparent and equitable marketplace. It gives sheepmeat producers the clarity and confidence they need to ensure that they are receiving a fair price, and it should result in the system operating to a higher standard.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their strong support for these regulations; it is much appreciated. These regulations are important, so it is very good that we can bring them in smoothly.

The key issue raised in the debate is that of small abattoirs: every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the problem of the closure of small abattoirs. One of the reasons we wanted to exempt small abattoirs from the scheme, in order not to put extra administrative regulatory burden on them, is because we know what pressures they face. I am acutely aware that many small abattoirs have closed over, I would guess, the last decade. It is much harder for abattoirs to stay open, and I am very aware of the extra stress that that puts on farmers. Farmers like to know where their animals are going, and with abattoirs becoming more centralised and larger, they do not necessarily know the abattoir and the people running it in the way they used to. As noble Lords have said, animals have longer travel distances, often in hot vehicles, so it is not great for animal welfare.

When I was president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, we had a campaign around small abattoirs, so this is something I know quite a lot about; it is very close to my heart. In fact, last year, I chaired the Oxford Real Farming Conference session on small abattoirs and talked to people from the industry, as well as to the people running mobile abattoirs, who were represented at that meeting.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, talked about the small abattoir fund, which Defra was running at that time. That fund was for a fixed period, which has now come to an end. I have been talking recently to the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, about small abattoirs—I know that he has a particular interest in them—and what we can do next to support the industry, because we in Defra are extremely aware that this is particularly challenging in more rural areas. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is from Yorkshire, others are from East Anglia and I am in Cumbria, and we all have the same problem. Our nearest abattoir is probably a two-hour drive in a farm vehicle.

One of the issues we are coming up against is the skill set. It is an extremely skilled job, and there is a problem with staffing abattoirs. We need to look at that, because it is all very well having funds, but if we do not have people with the skills to do the job, and people who want to train to do that job in future, we are never going to solve the problem. We are looking at how we can encourage people to look at this as a career choice. It is not always an easy career choice to sell, but it is an important and valuable job and it can be very well paid.

Water Companies: Fines

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for securing this important debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because she highlighted the work of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution. I had no idea she would make this reference, but the River Windrush runs through the village I live in.

I believe that under our watch we committed to cracking down on pollution by water companies. We continue to work collaboratively and constructively with the Government to help guarantee that the country has effective measures in place both to tackle water pollution and ensure that water companies are properly held to account when they do not abide by the rules.

It will not surprise the Minister to hear that we believe government can always do better, whether that is His Majesty’s Official Opposition or the current Administration. We are proud of our record. We increased the number of storm overflows monitored across the network from 7% in 2010, to 100% today. The Thames Tideway Tunnel is now complete—a £4 billion project that happened because we stood up to opposition to guarantee the scheme by an Act of Parliament.

Aided by improved monitoring, we took firm action against persistent polluters, delivering the strictest targets ever for water companies to reduce pollution from storm overflows. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences. On that note, how does the Minister plan to ensure that the Environment Agency will chase all perpetrators? I understand, from a freedom of information request, that there remain outstanding around 465 illegal sewage charges that the Environment Agency is aware of, none of which has led to fines or enforcement action beyond warnings. Will the Minister commit to act on these?

We agree with His Majesty’s Government that much more must be done to tackle water pollution, which is why we have engaged constructively on both their Water (Special Measures) Bill and the wider review and legislation to which they have committed. My understanding is that the wider review will be completed this year and that the Government will bring forward the resultant legislation in 2026. Can the Minister confirm that this is still Defra’s expected timetable?

At this point, I should say that we are disappointed that we have been unable to secure agreement with His Majesty’s Government on the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to strengthen parliamentary oversight of the remuneration and governance rules which will be established under the Water (Special Measures) Bill. I know that my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra will continue to work constructively with the Minister on that.

As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we established the water restoration fund in order to ensure that water company environmental fines and penalties are ring-fenced to directly improve our water system and prevent sewage overflows. Does the Minister agree that the water restoration fund, for spending on freshwater recovery, will help improve the quality of water in the UK? Can she please give a commitment today, as other noble Lords have requested, that all fines levied against water companies will go directly into the fund?

When this was debated in Committee on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Minister recognised that it was the previous Government that had established the fund in 2024 but she was unable to give your Lordships’ House more detail because the Government are still working on their spending review. Can the Minister please give the House an assurance that we will not be waiting much longer for these details?

The Environment Secretary from the other place has written to the chief executives and chairmen of every water company, setting out the performance improvements that he expects in 2025. Can the Minister say what percentage benchmark of improvement on sewage spills the Government will insist the water companies have to meet before they face fines and repercussions for non-compliance?

To finish, I thank the Minister for her tireless work to tackle this issue. We look forward to hearing her response on this most important subject.

Thames, Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water: Ofwat Proposed Fines

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On 19 December last year, Ofwat published its consultation notice, which set out the provisional decision to impose the financial penalty on Thames Water, as my noble friend laid out. As I explained earlier, there is a legal process that Ofwat has to go through. That consultation closed on 16 January—so, very recently—and Ofwat is now looking at those responses.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, at Report stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, my noble friend Lord Cromwell successfully secured the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House for his amendment on financial reporting by water companies. Given that many water companies are overleveraged, it is crucial that we have a laser focus on managing debt in the water sector, and the Government have indeed recognised the importance of water companies’ financial resilience. Can the Minister therefore please explain why the Government have removed my noble friend’s amendment from the Bill in the other place?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl is correct that tackling financial leverage and debt in water companies is important, and it is a priority for this Government. We are currently in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, regarding his amendment.

Farming Families

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, as many of the 13,000 farmers on the streets of Whitehall flagged on Tuesday, the Government’s policy is a hammer blow to farmers, and taxation into bankruptcy is not sustainable.

I urge the Minister to listen to her own team. The Labour MP Steve Witherden has called on the Government to reveal their modelling so that everyone knows where they stand and can plan accordingly. Defra figures show that 49% of farms are worth more than £1.5 million pounds, and Defra states that there are 70,000 farms more than 200 acres in size, which, according to the CLA, means at current land rates that they will be subject to the new tax. We desperately need transparency and clarification on the model. Please will the Government provide it?

These changes to inheritance tax for family farms will mean that those who I have just highlighted, who have farmed their land for generations, will be unable to afford the tax bill, forcing them to sell their farm. Will the Minister, who I know to be a friend to our farming communities, say what impact the Government expect this policy to have on the mental well-being of our farmers, who are already at a higher risk of suicide than the rest of the population? Will she commit to publishing the Government’s data on suicides, including among farmers and business owners, for the past few years and on an ongoing basis?

His Majesty’s Official Opposition are committed to reversing the family farms tax if the Government refuse to listen to farmers before the next general election. These rules will be extremely challenging for farming families when the current owners of farms die, and many noble Lords have pressed the Government on this point already. Tenant farmers farm one-third of the farmed land in England. Can the Minister confirm whether the impact assessment for the changes to inheritance tax specifically addressed the effect these changes would have on the number of tenant farmers in the UK?

Regarding fertiliser, in the Budget the Government confirmed that carbon pricing will be applied to fertiliser from 1 January 2027. Does the Minister accept that this will see fertiliser prices rise, hammering our hard-working farmers, many of whom already struggle to turn a profit each year?

Given that this tax will hit many families who have to secure other incomes to keep their farms and smallholdings going, does the Minister accept that this tax will see many farms sold to larger corporates and foreign businesses? What impact do the Government expect this to have on our countryside?

Finally, what might the Minister say to a young woman or man today who has already spent years helping their parents working on the family farm who has just seen their future dashed by the Government’s policy? What hope does a young woman or man in that position have now?

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. It is a pleasure to support this SI. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, introduced this into the Chamber by way of a Private Member’s Bill, we have all been anticipating that it would be implemented as soon as possible. The instrument itself and the Explanatory Memorandum are clear as to what is to happen and who will perform the duties of enforcement. Much of it will fall on local authorities which, as we all know, are struggling to make their budgets balance. Can the Minister say whether local authorities will be recompensed for this additional work? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also raised this.

No one has any doubt that animals should not be transported live to Europe or other countries specifically for the purpose of slaughter. It is unnecessary to have transported animals suffering cramped conditions, often with no access to water and food, and for disproportionately long periods. Animals which are going to slaughter should be dispatched as near to their living quarters as possible. The distress that transportation causes should be kept to a minimum and access to abattoirs should be within close proximity. Other noble Lords have referred to this.

I have received a brief from the RSPCA, which has asked two questions. First, how does the instrument ensure that transporting live animals for slaughter or further fattening, including horses, is not authorised to Northern Ireland from England, if they would then be re-exported to the Republic of Ireland? The noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Elliott and Lord de Clifford, also referred to this matter. Secondly, the RSPCA asks: when will the Government come forward with proposals on improving the rules on the internal transportation of live animals in England, now that it is no longer limited by the transport times in Regulation 1/2005? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide answers to these two questions.

I also have a question of my own relating to the date of implementation for this SI. In the EM, at paragraph 5.2, we learn that Royal Assent was granted for the Act on 20 May of this year. Then in paragraph 5.3 we learn that the prohibition on transportation of live animals from and through the UK

“came into force on 22 July 2024”.

Again, that is this year. However, in the SI itself, Regulation 1(b) states—I am sorry that this is very nerdy —that the regulations

“come into force on 1st January 2025”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the ban is already in place, as from 22 July, or whether animals will have to wait until 1 January 2025 to be totally protected. I realise that no animals have been exported for slaughter since 2020, but it is important that the dates on the legislation are accurate.

I look forward to the SI which will come forward to cover horses, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Apart from these queries, I totally support this vital SI and the sooner that it is enacted, the better.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the Government’s Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024. In government we took the issue of animal welfare very seriously, as evidenced by the passing of the Act to which this statutory instrument refers. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 prevented the exportation of livestock for the sole purpose of slaughter or preparation for slaughter and received cross-party support.

We are pleased that the current Government continue to focus on this area by implementing the practical steps to ensure that the correct people are held responsible. Increasing the necessary requirements of evidence submission will allow inspectors to examine more closely the intentions of a transporter and ensure that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that an animal is not being taken to slaughter.

I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. We are satisfied that this is a sensible approach and have no issues to raise.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been a good debate and I am pleased that so many noble Lords have taken part in it, because this is an important piece of legislation and we were very pleased when in opposition to support the Bill through Parliament to becoming an Act.

As I said, the instrument contains a proportionate set of powers necessary for the Animal and Plant Health Agency and local authorities to enforce the live exports ban effectively. Without these powers to carry out checks and investigations and take enforcement action, there is a risk that the ban could be undermined.

I will check to make sure that I have answered the questions that were asked properly. If I have not, I will get back to noble Lords. There were some questions around equines—horses—from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned horses. One question was around the delay in bringing in pre-export controls for equines. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that equines are currently exported for multiple purposes ranging from bloodstock moves to leisure activities. They can be privately or commercially transported and fall under numerous industry bodies or none at all. Registered equines are not subject to journey log controls, so at present there is no control point at which intervention by the regulator can occur to stop an export movement that might contravene the ban.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It is right that the common hippopotamus, the killer whale, the narwhal and the sperm whale are to be included in the category of protection for their ivory. I have to say that it has taken a long time to reach this point. In 2018, when we were discussing the Ivory Bill, the Minister’s predecessor on the Labour Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who I am delighted to see in her place, was tireless in trying to persuade the Government to include narwhals and other species in the categories to be classed as having ivory, but to no avail. The then Conservative Government were content to leave it at elephant ivory. The passage of the Bill was not easy, with the antique ivory lobby pressing hard for exclusions to the Bill. I began to wonder whether we would ever get the ban on elephant ivory through, but in the end we succeeded.

I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not share my view. He referred to the destruction of items made of ivory that are of no antique value but are sent to landfill. He also referred to scrimshaw items made by sailors. I have some sympathy with his view on these items and I look forward to the Minister’s answer to his question about changing the policy on destroying ivory.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to historical antique ivory collections that may have been donated to museums and form part of history. This is a very valid argument. I note that a public consultation that took place between 17 July and 11 September 2021 overwhelmingly supported the measures we have before us.

Paragraph 7.1 of the EM states:

“Walrus ivory is not included in the extension of the Act under this instrument because it will remain prohibited subject to certain narrow exemptions under Council Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009”,


which relates to the Windsor Framework. The Minister referred to this exemption, but I am slightly confused by it and would be grateful if she could explain exactly what it means in terms of protection for the walrus species.

I am reassured that items containing ivory or made of ivory will be protected. I am also pleased that the burden of proof will lie with any accused to prove that the item is not ivory from an elephant or from the other four species covered in the SI. Scientific tests are to be used to determine the exact origin of the article and the age of the antique artefacts.

I welcome that this debate has covered both sides of the argument and we have heard opposing views. Nevertheless, I fully support this SI.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in favour of any measures to preserve the rich tapestry of species on this planet, particularly those threatened with extinction. However, we have some concerns, not with the objective of this SI and the Ivory Act more broadly, but with some of the consequences of its drafting.

The SI extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Although we agree with the banning of selling of modern items manufactured from these sources, there is no modern market for whale teeth or narwhal tusks. Old pieces of art, such as inscribed sailor’s knives or mounted narwhal tusks, will fall foul of these regulations and will have to be landfilled.

As we have heard already from my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Carrington, there is virtually no import or export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. In 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, and just two teeth were exported. Narwhals are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

While it could be argued that this legislation is an important aspect of our soft power, it is debatable whether this soft power has worked. It has not had much influence on the EU, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. Will the Minister please clarify to the Committee what outcomes she foresees from this decision? Will she outline why these measures have been implemented and say whether she can see that they may have unforeseen and unintended consequences?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for raising important points. As described earlier, extending the Act to these four species demonstrates UK leadership in support of international conservation efforts, setting an example at home to encourage similar actions globally. It makes the existing ban more effective and adds protections to four species that will complement those already in place internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

I was involved with this the first time around, back in 2018, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, it seems to have taken an awful long time to get here. I wonder whether, like me, she had a stuffed narwhal on her desk—which my grandchildren have now chosen to play with. From our perspective, it is good to see these regulations in front of us.

This measure is part of a comprehensive package of UK leadership to tackle the illegal wildlife trade and reduce poverty, including through our Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund, which has allocated £57 million to 173 projects across 60 countries. These projects are reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening law enforcement, establishing effective legal frameworks and promoting sustainable livelihoods.

I turn to answer some of the questions, and hope that we do not have another vote in the middle this time. I will look first at the consultation and stakeholder engagement that took place ahead of this. There was a call for evidence in 2019 and a public consultation from 17 July to 11 September 2021 on extending the Act to other species. The consultation received 997 responses and a clear majority supported an extension to these species. The previous Government published their response to the consultation in May last year.

There is a conservation risk to each species as exhaustible natural resources, which includes the trade in their ivory, both legal and illegal, and how this relates to their conservation status and other threats that they face. There was a clear demonstration in the proportion of respondents who supported this option and the comments submitted that commercial exploitation of species that are endangered or accepted as being in need of protection from the threat posed by trade in their parts violates public morality. So that was the consultation and its outcomes.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked specific questions around the effectiveness of the Act. One was how many elephants had been saved to date. This is a cross-cutting policy, so it is not possible to say what impact the Ivory Act alone has had. For example, the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund is a grant scheme that funds actions to tackle illegal wildlife and poverty reduction in developing countries. These projects contribute to reducing the demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening enforcement and establishing effective legal frameworks, and promoting sustainable livelihoods through innovative approaches, partnerships and evidence-based interventions that protect endangered species, including elephants. So I cannot be specific, but it does play a role.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked for more information about why we are not extending it to walrus. As I said, walrus were included in the original consultation but are not now, because they continue to be protected under existing regulations on the trade in seal products. Under these regulations, seal products, including walrus ivory, can be imported and placed on the UK market for sale only in very limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions. You can bring seal products to Great Britain and sell them only if they qualify under the Inuit and other indigenous communities exemption and have a seal catch certificate. This is an attestation document that proves that the item is exempt and that the seal products are certified as coming from a traditional hunt carried out by the Inuit or other indigenous communities. The hunt must be carried out for and contribute to the subsistence of the community, and must consider the welfare of the animal. I hope that goes some way towards answering the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, around the fact that we work with indigenous communities on these pieces of legislation.

Further questions from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, were to do with trade and why we decided to add these species. The main problem is that international trade in these species needs to be regulated to ensure that it does not threaten the species’ survival. The UK is also a net exporter of ivory from these species, and we are concerned that it fuels global demand and the market for these ivories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just going through the exemptions to the Ivory Act and had just finished talking about portrait miniatures. Also exempt are items a qualifying museum intends to buy or hire and items made before 1918 that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. I mention that because it has come up quite a lot during the debate, and for clarification because it is some years since the Act came into play.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked a specific question about people going on holiday, small items and so on. This fits with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about indigenous peoples. To be clear, the Act bans imports for the purposes of dealing. Individuals who are visiting communities outside the UK can purchase items from them directly and bring them into the UK as personal possessions as long as they meet the requirements under CITES. That provides clarification on that point.

With that, I hope I have answered most questions; I will check and come back to noble Lords if I have not.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I think the Minister said that narwhals are an endangered species, but we believe that they are not endangered; there are around 80,000 mature adults in their population. If the Minister could come back to us at some point, it would be much appreciated.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I clarify that all four species being added to the Act are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I hope that helps to answer the noble Earl’s question.