Farmers: Competitiveness

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I take issue with the idea that our home-grown food security is declining. The data we have does not support that. Regarding the senior Defra team, including Ministers, not having any farming experience, although I spend far too much time in London these days and not enough time in Cumbria, I am actually a registered farmer on our smallholding, so that is not quite true.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that competitiveness should include not just price but environmental costs? Given that our farmers can produce meat and dairy products from our sheep and cattle with substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions than the global and even European averages, should we not be buying British, trying to minimise imports and exporting as much as we can to protect our farming industry and benefit the planet?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some important points. Interestingly, since Brexit our exports have gone down by 21%. We are very hopeful that the new agreement we are working on with the EU at the moment will enable our farmers to export more, help our agri-food trade be cheaper and easier, and help us align more with the EU. On costs, environmental costs clearly have to be taken into account as well. It can also save farmers money if they buy into the different innovative options available at the moment. For example, grants are available to reduce pesticide use. There are lots of opportunities through the different environmental schemes for farmers to become more productive and more competitive.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support these regulations; I do not regret them. The UK is a leader in these technologies, and exploiting and implementing them will be an integral part of developing our biosciences expertise to help drive economic growth in the UK. But much more than that, critically, they will help us feed not only ourselves in the UK but the world, in the face of a growing population, constantly emerging disease threats and environmental challenges.

I would just like to point out the rather obvious: the fruit, vegetables and crops we grow and consume now are very different from their natural progenitors and have been subject to genetic changes by humans over hundreds of years, through selective processes involving no knowledge of what other genes might be affected. We have been eating genetically modified food for years and years.

Historically, the world, and especially populations in some of the poorest countries of the world, benefited from the green revolution in the decades after the Second World War, when varieties of wheat and rice in particular were improved such that many people could be fed adequately in those countries. Again, that was achieved by traditional methods. But the modern techniques enable us to make changes extremely quickly, and with incredibly sustainable and environmentally friendly means, to benefit humankind by reducing parasiticides, chemicals, fertilisers and even water—and by reducing food waste. So I find it difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and our colleagues in the Green Party oppose them.

I have confidence in our molecular biologists and our plant scientists—and these regulations. For these reasons, I support the Government strongly, but I urge them to press ahead with similar enabling regulations to permit precision-breeding technologies in animals. They offer, for example, the prospect of creating avian flu-resistant chickens, which would not only prevent disease in chickens but could reduce the possibility of spillover infections into humans of, for instance, the highly pathogenic avian influenza strain H5N1. Doing that has the potential to prevent the possible adaptation to human-to-human transmission. So I strongly support these regulations for plants, and I urge the Government to consider bringing similar enabling regulations for animals to this House as soon as possible.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, my career has been in the communication of science and evidence, helping to give people the information that they need and want to make decisions. There have been 25 years of studies on the communication of genetic modification and all these techniques. Some of them were done by the FSA, which neatly summarises the decades of research, saying that consumers

“saw a range of risks and benefits to PB food but on balance consumers thought the benefits outweighed the risks if properly regulated … they trust the FSA to regulate PB food”—

but they

“wanted labelling to enable them to make choices at the point of purchase”.

The FSA says:

“The power to decide on the mandatory labelling of PBOs for non-safety related purposes in England sits with … Defra. FSA officials have shared results of the consumer research and public consultation with Defra”.


I am really concerned about the lack of labelling here, not because it is a safety issue but because going against what consumers want carries risks. Defra responded:

“Based on the scientific advice that the risk associated with precision bred plants is no greater than for traditionally bred counterparts, we do not consider that mandatory labelling focused on the breeding technology or process used is appropriate”.


I have heard those arguments echoed by noble Lords today already. But the problem with this is that a lot of people’s concerns about this technology are not safety based, and ignoring the fact that people have other concerns, which they feel are not being listened to, might create a public backlash to this technology.

Often, people feel that something will not be fair here. They are worried about this benefiting the big players and the rich over the smaller players or the poor in the world. Defra’s response, focusing only on food safety, does not even make sense because, as we have heard, labels on food are often about things that are not direct food safety. Labelling of country of origin is mandated, for example. This allows consumers to make decisions on things they want to decide on when they are buying things at the point of sale.

I worry that, if the Government continue on this path of not having mandatory labelling, organic producers, who cannot allow gene-edited material into their supply chains, will have to take the responsibility to do all that tracing and labelling of products themselves. It will be very difficult, as we all know and have already heard, to trace a product all the way from a register—a variety—right through the supply chain. So, if people are not able to do that work or if it will be very expensive, how is the organic labelling supposed to work and how are consumers supposed to make a choice?

If we dig down into the FSA’s material on labelling further, we find a paragraph that says that labelling

“is likely to add extra costs. Providing this additional verification and assurance for all PB food would add extra cost to the whole PB food market, making it less affordable, reducing the incentives for food businesses to innovate and bring new products to market”.

That is the sort of phrase—“incentives for food businesses”—that is likely to trigger the sentiment that we have already experienced around genetic modification, and around the fear that the Government are pandering to big multinational companies, allowing their profits to override concerns about the environment or small businesses such as small farms.

I have a positive solution here for the Government. Rather than making organic and small brands, usually SMEs, label their products as “GM free” or choose whatever label they want—thereby causing resentment among the public about the costs to small businesses and worries about the lack of transparency—it would be far better for gene-edited products to be clearly labelled with what modification has been made to them and why. The Royal Society mentioned this in its consultation response. For example, labels could say: “Genetically enhanced to contain more vitamin C”. This would give people an understanding of the potential benefits and would let them know, and reassure them, that things have been traced through. To respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if something has been edited and it has shown stability through the generations, it does not matter how many generations later you are: that edited gene is present in that product—and it is there for a reason. This is why people are doing this work: we want these beneficial genes.

Giving people that understanding, through labelling, that it has been enhanced to do whatever it has been enhanced to do allows people to make an informed consumer choice, and it minimises the costs and places them fairly on the people doing the gene editing. I beg the Minister to reconsider on this issue. She should listen to people’s concerns; they are not irrational or misunderstanding science—it is about establishing trust and about your priorities and ensuring that they are the same as the public’s priorities. If you do not act in a trustworthy manner, you cannot expect people to trust you. Once you have lost trust, we know what happens: we have been there before on this issue.

Farming: 25-year Road Map

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware that there are a lot of concerns around some of the recent decisions regarding funding and farming. However, one reason this has been quite difficult is that farming has been facing a lot of challenges for many years now. There has been far too little security for farmers and far too little decent payment to farmers for the goods that they have been producing. The point of the farming road map is to provide some long-term security for the first time in many years.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I want to press the Minister on the land use framework and when we might see that. It will be essential to ensuring that we have a coherent and strategic plan for how we use all the land in the limited area that we have in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The land use framework will be critical in a lot of areas. Because we have only a limited amount of land, we have to ensure that we are using it in the best interests of the country, whether that is for supporting farmers and food production, for energy production or for housing and so on. It is important that we are bringing that together. I do not have a date for the noble Lord today, but I assure him that we are actively progressing the report.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Lord Trees Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Lord Trees Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, insurance is a difficult issue. It becomes difficult in many areas—I am sure noble Lords are aware of the difficulties for businesses during flooding as well. Getting insurance in certain business cases is complex. All I can say is that we are extremely aware of the problems that occurred last time for poultry farmers in getting insurance. The outbreak this time is very low compared with previous years, but we are being proactive and doing our best to prevent further outbreaks. We are working with insurance companies to make sure that we have the best outcomes that we can, should this outbreak get worse.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, with the outbreak of avian influenza, the challenge of bluetongue virus in ruminants and the ongoing battle to reduce bovine TB incidence—to say nothing of the biosecurity threats to, for example, our pig population from African swine fever—is the Minister confident that her department and APHA have the necessary resources to cope?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.

Solar Farms and Food Production

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding tenant farming, the noble Baroness I am sure will be aware that we have announced that we are appointing the first ever commissioner for tenant farming. Clearly, part of their role will be ensuring that we have a fair, balanced, collaborative relationship between tenants and landowners. Part of that relationship will be to ensure that we do not have the kinds of scenarios that she refers to—so, absolutely, we will keep a close watching eye.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, this is about a lot more than solo farms. Financial bodies are buying up estates and farms and planting trees, aided by large subsidies, then selling off the new woodlands to offset carbon emissions. We do need tree planting in the UK, but this irreversible change of land use is continuing unabated and we are losing food production capability. Can the Minister tell us, by letter if need be, the current rate of irreversible loss of agricultural land? If we do not know that, should not His Majesty’s Government be monitoring it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail on this but, as I said earlier, we expect only a very small percentage of land to be taken up with solar farms, as raised in the Question. Also, it comes back to the central importance of developing a fit-for-purpose land use framework. The reason we need to do that has been shown by the kinds of questions that have come up today.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

Finally, it is extremely important that sufficient, timely advice and guidance are given to the enforcing authorities, in particular on the plans for the animals retained under the hold notice but also on other parts of the regulations. Who does she expect to give that advice and at what stage of the process will it be given? Obviously, this is a new set of circumstances in which hauliers and farmers will find themselves. Those are my concerns, but I welcome the enforcement regulations following the Bill.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations, which enforce and extend measures in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, which was passed earlier this year, to prohibit the export of certain animals for fattening or slaughter from or through Great Britain to countries outside the British Isles. These geographical restrictions are very precise and important; we will come to that in a minute.

I note that the Act has no restriction on export for breeding purposes and did not include poultry. Both of those exemptions are fully justified and remain, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, alluded to, there are problems with exporting live breeding mammals. I also note, as she has done, that the original Act included equids but the regulations under discussion do not. I repeat the question: when might consideration be given to having equivalent regulations for equids? Although I do not think that a functioning ferry for horses is working at the minute, the export of live horses for slaughter is something that potentially concerns a lot of veterinary and animal welfare bodies.

I further note that, because of the present occurrence of bluetongue in England, the movement of all live ruminants to Northern Ireland from England is currently suspended. We hope that that will not be indefinite, of course.

The original Act allowed movement for slaughter and fattening to Northern Ireland as part of the UK. Since there is, under EU jurisdiction, free movement of animals from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic and to the EU beyond that, this is a potential loophole that could be exploited; like others, I drew noble Lords’ attention to it in the debate on the original Bill in February. This movement to Northern Ireland was and is subject to certain conditions, including direct movement to either an abattoir or a farm, at which there should be a standstill on movement for at least 30 days. However, unscrupulous persons could move animals after standstill, or even before that, to the Irish Republic then onwards to anywhere in the EU, perhaps even to north Africa.

Given the scale of movements between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—the figures I have suggest that, in 2022, 337,000 sheep were moved between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic for fattening and slaughter—it is clearly possible that a substantial number of animals might be legally moved, ultimately for slaughter, into the EU or beyond by unscrupulous persons. So, again, I ask: to what extent will we be able to monitor those movements to try to detect whether there are illegal movements within that traffic?

I welcome the fact that the current regulations appear to try to close this loophole by requiring the exporter in Great Britain to submit evidence of the purpose of export to the APHA before the journey log can be approved. The APHA must be satisfied that the animals will not be exported for fattening and slaughter before movement is approved, and it will have the power to require supplementary evidence demonstrating that. This is a very welcome measure; I congratulate the Government on introducing it.

Lastly, do His Majesty’s Government have any plans to review movement regulations in the UK, now that we are no longer bound by EU rules? We all acknowledge that animal welfare can be compromised by long-distance live transport. As well as the total distance travelled, the frequency of loading and unloading is a hazardous procedure that can give rise to injury and welfare problems. The movement of sheep within the UK can involve very long journeys, for example from Caithness to Cornwall, and the normal rearing process for sheep involves frequent long-distance movements between owners. Are His Majesty’s Government satisfied that the current rules and regulations with regard to journey times and transport conditions within the UK are appropriate? Having said all that, I very much welcome these regulations on livestock export.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to speak here. I welcome the Minister to her place. I declare an interest as a farmer in Northern Ireland; we heard some mention of Northern Ireland. I suppose I have a few queries around these regulations.

One of my concerns is how it will be managed, with animal welfare being a devolved issue in both Scotland and Wales. Will that cause any complications with these regulations, because quite often we find that devolved institutions are very precious and protective of their own rights? I am just concerned that it will fall between two stools.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already asked whether the farmer or haulier will be responsible when there is a check and an inspector looks at the issues.

I am also curious about journey log records. The regulations mention applicable guidance that will focus on changes to the application process for journey logs, especially the need to provide corroborating evidence on the purpose of the export. I am wondering what level of evidence will be required to corroborate that with the journey log, because quite often that can be manipulated. We have heard some instances of concern around export to Northern Ireland and how that may provide extended journeys that are not covered within the legislation.

The next point I am curious about is animals that are being transported from Northern Ireland to Great Britain; will they be required to have exactly the same journey logs? Will the same record-keeping system be required for them and will the corroborating evidence be the same as that required in other parts of Great Britain?

Those are just a few of the queries that I have on these regulations; I know that the debate on the main legislation has already taken place. I just have some concerns that we may find that some issues drop through loopholes and may not be fully accountable to the authorities that look over the regulations.

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

Lord Trees Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests, as in the register. I am the president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, which is an honorary and, sadly, unpaid position. However, I am of course speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of any outside body.

I want to take this opportunity to review a little of the relationship that this statutory instrument has with the 2018 Act, as well as the way in which the two operate together. I hope that the Grand Committee will bear with me in this. I should start by saying that I hope we are all in favour of preserving wildlife, particularly endangered species and those threatened with extinction. We should all, therefore, be in favour of improving the Ivory Act so that it helps to achieve that aim.

The concern that some of us have about the Ivory Act, had when that Act passed through your Lordships’ House in 2018 and now have about this statutory instrument is not about their noble objectives. It is about whether they work to achieve their aspirations, the all-encompassing way in which both the Act and the SI are drafted and the unintended consequences that they lead to, not least the destruction of items made of or containing ivory above the de minimis limit—in other words, low-value items of historic interest and often of great beauty, but not of museum quality, being put in landfill because they cannot be sold.

The statutory instrument extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. I do not have a problem with banning the sale of modern products made from whale teeth and narwhal tusks, although I do not think there is much evidence that there is any market for modern items made from whale or narwhal.

Historically, whale teeth were used by sailors to make scrimshaw in one form or another. Whale scrimshaw can be a tooth, which has patterns or pictures inscribed into it using a sailor’s knife or another sharp object. They are of great historic interest because they shed light on the often difficult and miserable lives of sailors in the 18th and early 19th centuries. They are of particular value because of their being works of art made by the poor and working classes, so little of which has come down to us as compared to the art of the aristocracy and the upper classes. They are folk art. They are not of great monetary value. A good early example will typically sell for £100 to £200 at auction. They can be faked but rarely are because they cannot be sold for enough to justify the work that goes into them. In any case, modern scrimshaw is easily distinguished from old.

Narwhal tusks are rarely worked. Historically, they were mounted and displayed, sometimes whimsically as unicorn horns. Perhaps the most famous example is in Fishmongers’ Hall, used as a weapon to stop the terrorist on London Bridge in 2019.

The Ivory Act allows a limited trade in some antique objects containing ivory, hence the Act’s exemptions—including one permitting trade in registered antiques with less than 10% ivory content. I understand that, under this exemption, some 19,000 elephant ivory items and portrait miniatures painted on ivory have now been registered under the Act. A further 325 items of outstandingly high historical value have exemption certificates.

However, in stark contrast to elephant ivory, virtually all old objects in this statutory instrument are solid ivory, so scrimshaw cannot benefit at all from the Act’s de minimis exemptions. Nor are any of these items likely to be granted an exemption certificate for being of outstandingly high historical value, since they are folk art. So, for scrimshaw and old ethnographic objects, this statutory instrument means a 100% prohibition on sales to antique collectors—zero trade. If they cannot be sold, they will inevitably end up in landfill in time.

Why are we doing this? There is virtually no import/export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. For example, in 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, while just two teeth were exported. Narwhal are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

The major concern about the way the Act and the SI work comes down to the impact on historical objects of beauty and artistic merit made of ivory. We debated extensively in Committee on the now Act whether antique ivory objects had to be destroyed to stop modern ivory knick-knacks being made in China and Vietnam. The market in Asia is for modern ivory items, often from newly poached elephant tusks, not for antiques.

One of the claims made to justify the draconian impact of the Act and statutory instrument is that it is impossible to tell whether the ivory came from an animal killed 100, 200 or 300 years ago or from one killed yesterday. However, now that we have experience of the working of the Act, it is clear that museum experts in antiques and specialists in the antiques trade can prove the age of ivory objects with or without using simple scientific tests. Indeed, the Act itself set up panels of experts to determine whether an ivory artefact of high artistic and historic importance was genuine and worth preserving. These panels seem to have no trouble distinguishing between old and new ivory. Now that it is well established that it is possible to tell the difference between old and new ivory, why can we not widen this vetting by a panel of experts to other ivory objects? It should be possible to allow them to be sold through licensed dealers and auction houses, for example.

The other argument used to justify the Act and this statutory instrument is the more nebulous one: it is all about the United Kingdom’s soft power—that is, if we crack down on the sale of ivory, Asian countries will wake up to their responsibilities to save endangered species and follow the UK’s lead, apparently not having realised that they should do so until we showed them the way. The view that we are the moral leaders of the world seems weird, patronising and possibly colonial.

How has our soft power worked? It has not had much influence on the European Union, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. That is very different from the UK, where the trade is completely banned. Dare I say, as a Conservative, that the EU’s response is much more logical and sensible than ours. As far as I can tell, ivory is also still freely available in much of Asia.

That brings me to a few questions for the Minister. First, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact of the Ivory Act on the poaching of elephants in Africa? Secondly, which countries have followed the UK in introducing a total ban on the trading of ivory items? Thirdly, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the number, type and value of objects containing ivory that have been destroyed as a consequence of the Act? Finally, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the number of narwhal tusks and whale teeth imported into and exported out of the UK in recent years?

I know that this SI will pass but I hope that we can have a Government who understand our heritage in beautiful objects created down the ages, redolent of social and artistic history; and that such a Government can realise that saving the elephant, the whale and the narwhal can be done successfully without the destruction of hundreds of years of historic and beautiful art.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, the Ivory Act 2018 and subsequent statutory instruments pertained only to ivory of elephant origin. Although those instruments covered the vast majority of ivory products, these new regulations extend the meaning of ivory to include the “tusk or tooth” of a hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal or sperm whale. These species are listed under CITES, and although they compromise only a small amount of the broad definition of “ivory”, the amending regulations limit opportunities for laundering ivory under the guise of another species that is not prohibited. The regulations also mitigate the risk of poaching displacement—a lovely word I had not come across but which was in the Explanatory Memorandum—to non-elephant ivory-bearing species.

The current legislation places the burden of proof on anyone accused of potential ivory trading to prove that the ivory is not from a prohibited species. It is very useful that specific institutions are named as able to provide expert advice to the Secretary of State. I wonder whether that could partly satisfy some of the noble Lord’s concerns. I note that walrus products are already covered under the assimilated EU regulations, as the Minister mentioned.

The regulations sensitively recognise that certain indigenous communities, such as the Inuit, rely on subsistence hunting of some of these species for food and derive part of their income from the sale of ivory products as a by-product of this hunting. As I understand it, these regulations would not prevent UK tourists acquiring small amounts of ivory items made from the species covered by these regulations from these communities and bringing them back as personal possessions under CITES regulations—that is, with a permit and declaration at customs—but will prevent any degree of commercial trade and onward sale in the secondary ivory market in the UK. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of this permitted trade with indigenous communities?

The miscellaneous amendments in the instrument will further strengthen the protection of endangered species around the world. I welcome them, although I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s concerns.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I very much concur with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham. I declare my interests as listed in the register.

I will comment on the detrimental impact that extending the Ivory Act will have on the formation of collections of historical objects. Most museum collections in this country, whether quirky municipal ones or great national ones, were formed as a result of the philanthropy of community-spirited collectors. Those collectors may have spent their lives—and, I hasten to add, their own money—being passionate about and studying a particular branch of history, and acquiring historical artefacts or works of art to reflect their passion. After decades of forming a collection they may have wanted the public to have access to it, so they gave or sold it to their local museum.

One such example of this is the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, which has a scrimshaw collection formed by Surgeon Captain AWB Livesey RN. The collection comprises etched sperm whale teeth from the first half of the 19th century, depicting subjects such as naval engagements from the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 between Britain and America, the bombardment of Algiers to release Christian slaves in 1816, and the struggle of many countries in central and South America to achieve independence from Spanish rule. All these etchings were created from the perspective of the ordinary sailor, armed with a sharp blade and some lamp soot. Had Captain Livesey been alive today, this statutory instrument would have prevented him forming such a remarkable collection.