(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can observe the silence. I call Clive Efford.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. For anyone watching this debate who is unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals, usually big game, that are murdered by huntsmen in what is the most despicable form of hunting that remains today. In the words of Sir David Attenborough, trophy hunting is
“what people did in the 19th century. One would have thought people would have got over that.”
To bring their hunting trophies—bits of mutilated animals—back to the UK, the hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still license the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies, because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto at the last election. The purpose of this debate is not to convince the Government that the importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays.
We know that those in the pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well-connected. They deploy arguments to confound Governments and defuse arguments against hunting. They claim that it is essential for conservation and for reducing human-wildlife conflict, and that it brings economic benefit to rural communities—but none of that is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest “Living Planet” report, and its shocking conclusion was that wildlife numbers in Africa have fallen by 80% since 1970.
The global conservation body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that many species are affected by hunting. CITES, the international wildlife trade body for the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, tells us that some of the world’s most endangered animals are being shot by trophy hunters, including British trophy hunters.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. The late, great Dr Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as
“unconscionable…utterly cruel…and…disastrous from a conservation perspective.”
Since 2015 we have seen 1,764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party support for a ban, and that the need for the Government to bring forward the legislation is urgent?
Clive Efford
Yes, I agree, and I welcome the support of the Green party in urging action on this matter.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have looked into the question: since the July 2024 general election, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamuses, 21 African elephants, a scimitar-horned oryx, Marco Polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by that, and does it not show that the Government need to crack on and implement the promises of their manifesto and ban trophy hunting?
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to crack on. The examples that he has read out are shocking. We should not countenance that by importing the parts of the animals that have been slaughtered.
LionAid says that hunting endangered and vulnerable species contributes directly to the dramatic decline in their populations by adding an extra mortality factor to the threats already facing them. Stopping hunting will reduce death rates, stabilise animal populations and promote biodiversity. The main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation, nor does it address wild animal-human conflict. I have seen testimony from local community members of the Maasai, who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where it is taking place, increasing the likelihood of attacks on humans. There is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal-human conflict, it makes attacks more likely.
Neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the testimonies that I have seen, members of the Maasai communities talk of families being forced from ancestral lands and, if people resist, beatings and kidnappings—not my claim, but the claim of people from communities being forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting.
Amnesty International conducted research into forced evictions of the Maasai indigenous people in Loliondo between June 2022 and May 2024. It reported on suppression of protests by Maasai people:
“On 10 June 2022, Tanzanian security forces resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protests by Maasai residents of Ololosokwan village in Loliondo. The demonstrators had gathered to resist a demarcation exercise by the security forces, who were trying to displace them from their ancestral lands in the name of so-called ‘conservation’. More than 40 people were wounded, others were left homeless, and many were forced to flee the country.”
Tigere Chagutah, regional director of Amnesty International for east and southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian Government:
“It is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under the pretext of ‘conservation’, while in reality, they have allowed Otterlo Business Corporation to do improper or illegal trophy hunting activities, in clear violation of Tanzania’s Wildlife Conservation laws”.
Otterlo Business Corporation is a trophy hunting company. Far from being of benefit to these people, hunting is taking away their human rights.
I urge the Government not to turn their back on these atrocities. We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country from being used to encourage human rights abuses by ending forthwith the import of hunting trophies, listening to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting industry and introducing an immediate ban on hunting trophies, with a view to introducing legislation at a later date. That has been done in other countries, and we should not delay.
I have been on safari. I have visited Botswana and Zambia, where I saw wonderful animals in their own habitats. The experience was nothing like seeing captive animals. I was armed—with my camera—and captured moments that will live in my memory for the rest of my life, and I was not alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing similar experiences. Of course, we left the animals behind for others to see at a later date, rather than killing them and stealing them away for our own gratification. That is the sustainable way for communities to benefit from wildlife and invest in conservation. Trophy hunting is doing the exact opposite.
This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neo-colonialists. It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. More than 90% of the British public approve of a ban on animal body parts being imported as trophies. A ban imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on this vile trade. Research by anti-hunt campaigners confirms that some of the world’s leading trophy hunters are British. British trophy hunters have shot the critically endangered black rhinoceros, shot monkeys out of trees and shot African elephants, which are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since the 2024 general election were for those magnificent creatures.
That is despite African elephants recently being upgraded by IUCN’s red list. Savannah elephants are listed as endangered and forest elephants are now critically endangered. Yet British trophy hunters are still shooting them for their ears, feet, tails and tusks.
British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and canned lions. Canned lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. The semi-tame animals are fenced in fields from which there is no escape before they are slaughtered. British hunters have shot polar bears, which face extinction thanks to climate change, and Africa’s most endangered big cat, the cheetah, of which 7,000 remain. We know all that because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It is time to bring this to an end once and for all.
Even Donald Trump’s America will not allow imports of the last three cases I quoted—canned lions, cheetahs and polar bears. That should tell us something. Of all those, the canned lions tell us most about the mentality of the people who hunt. How does someone get a thrill from slaughtering an animal that cannot escape? The word “sport” is often associated with hunting, but how can it be a sport when one side of the game cannot choose to play and does not know it is fighting for its life until it is shot?
Trophy hunting is not about conservation, it does not resolve issues of wildlife-human conflict, and it does not bring economic benefits to rural areas—certainly not in the way that tourism can. Local people have been attacked, their land stolen and their human rights abused. Private companies are stealing their homelands. Britain should not be accommodating this industry.
Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports exists and that officials at DEFRA have drafted it? If Government time does not exist for that Bill, will the Minister pass it to me, so that I can put it forward as a ten-minute rule Bill? The overwhelming support across the House would get it through quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on such imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do that, will the Minister explain why? Above all, will the Minister accept that there can be no further delay?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing a significant amount of parliamentary time for this debate.
Most people know of Cecil, the iconic lion lured from a protected area in Zimbabwe, wounded by an American trophy hunter and killed some hours later. Cecil’s death sparked a global outcry and public calls to ban the outdated and inhumane practice of trophy hunting. As the hon. Member said, trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and so-called sport. Animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters, and the animals’ suffering is not just celebrated, but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt. Animals that are shot but escape can take hours or even days to die in agony.
The trophy-hunting industry is based on an economic model that incentivises the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife. It conflicts with and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco-tourism. As the hon. Member described, trophy hunting is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programmes operating around the world, in countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica, that do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect. Yet we see organisations such as the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the United Arab Emirates, making millions from this horrible so-called sport.
I have been contacted by a number of constituents. Like my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I see an awful lot of traffic in my inbox on this topic. The messages all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. In that correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour’s manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister when that Bill will be introduced. Can she confirm that work has actually begun on such a Bill?
As the practice continues, one British hunter even boasted recently of proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino—one of the rarest and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made to ban the import of hunting trophies. In that time, another 2,000 trophies from animals considered to be endangered by CITES have been brought back to Britain, including the ears of elephants, the feet of giraffes and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in their countries of origin and gain value only when imported. That is the key to the legislation promised by this Labour Government.
Across the Atlantic, the vice-president of the United States, J. D. Vance, has met Safari Club International, the trophy hunting group that targets endangered animals including pygmy hippos. The UK Government need to stand against any influence from the White House against proposals for a ban.
The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. It is no coincidence that the most recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Tanzania. The country is a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations against the Maasai tribesmen and tribeswomen. These are not minor matters. I am sure he has seen the same footage that I have seen of Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, the slaughter of cattle, corruption, bribery, false fines and paramilitaries operating on behalf of the Government. There are claims that allowing trophy hunting is all about conservation and reducing human-animal conflict. No, it is not about those things; it is about a multimillion-dollar industry called trophy hunting.
The fact that the 153rd meeting of the IPU was held in Tanzania should be of great interest to us. I have read the report, especially the section on human rights, and there is no mention of trophy hunting. That meeting of the IPU was attended by Mr Speaker. It is about time that the UK Government acted and introduced a Bill to ban trophy hunting imports.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for introducing the debate and setting out the arguments for change so well.
Banning trophy imports was in Labour’s 2024 manifesto and is an incredibly popular topic with the public, as we have heard. In common with other hon. Members, my office receives many emails about the issue. Over 80% of people in the UK are very much in favour of a ban, although I think the number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is: animals are chased for long distances, with many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. Around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the last decade, including from giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more, which is very distressing.
Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. The conservation argument for the continuation of trophy hunting is very weak. It is shocking that trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, such as many giraffe subspecies that have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014. Hunters target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations.
Moving away from the topic slightly, it is important to note that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find upsetting. In 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag’s head. In Scotland, a red stag can be shot and exported for £500 to £1,250. I know that is not what today’s debate is about, but we should consider discussing it in the future. As well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. We may not have lions and elephants, but we have other beautiful animals, such as many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for showing such passion and determination for bringing about these much-needed changes.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, this matter strikes a deep chord not only with my Strangford constituents, but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My constituents have contacted me in large numbers about the archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice of importing hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Let us be quite clear: this debate is not about traditional, sustainable hunting for food. If it was, and if people were starving, there could be some justification. It is about the execution of some of the world’s most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more than a sick thrill, a photo opportunity and a gruesome souvenir to put on a coffee table or to hang on a wall. Society has moved on. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that is the reality. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos and cross-party consensus in both this Chamber today and the main Chamber, the UK’s doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade.
Recent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paint a deeply concerning picture. Between July 2024 and September 2026, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) mentioned in his intervention. Let that sink in: 41 permits in just over two years.
Those permits cover animals that are on the brink of extinction, with some 21 permits issued for African elephants. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant—I cannot get my head around that one. Five were issued for lions and four for hippopotamuses, and there were others issued for leopards, polar bears and rhinos. We see lovely nature programmes on TV where animals roam free, but some men—and probably some women as well, unfortunately—wish to kill them. Every single permit represents an animal that died in distress, often slowly, from blood loss or infection, just so a British hunter could boast about it. It is a national embarrassment that, in 2026, we are still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures.
The public support for taking action is overwhelming. Up to nine in 10 British people—almost 90%—want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I wish the Minister well in the role she plays—she knows that we wish her the best in what she does—but the Government should take the action that people overwhelmingly want. It will go through Parliament without any hiccups or problems whatever. We have seen private Members’ Bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time because of a small minority. This is something that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe should be law.
The current Government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yet—I say this with respect to the Minister and the Government—when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, Ministers provided no dates and no timeline. Today the Minister is in the hot seat: I ask her to give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it will happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while the Government drag their feet.
We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down the British people’s standards. We should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, but to do that we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world’s biodiversity.
I am not the only one who loves David Attenborough’s TV programmes. They are all about the oceans at the moment, and he has done other wonderful programmes in the past. They motivate us to speak out, and today we are doing that. I urge the Minister to please stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching; our constituents demand action. The wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. Give this House and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date by which legislation will be introduced, and let us finally consign this cruel trade to the history books, where it belongs.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.
We have been here before. I am deeply passionate about banning the import of hunting trophies. Indeed, I was proudly part of the shadow DEFRA team that ensured that a commitment to such a ban was included in our manifesto at the last election. Despite that commitment, two years on from the election, we are still yet to legislate for a ban. Indeed, we are yet to see a lot of progress on the broad range of ambitious pledges that the Government made before the last election and in the recent animal welfare strategy.
This is not a new issue—there have been such debates before in Westminster Hall, the main Chamber and the other place—but I believe that we now have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary Session. I share the public’s frustration at the delay, which is made worse by the confident knowledge that we have won the argument in the House and among the public. As we have heard, polling consistently shows more than 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, the Government have issued 41 permits to import hunting trophies since the election. That means we are complicit in this vile trade until we do something about it. We cannot afford to wait until the next parliamentary Session for a ban, or to replicate the dither and delay of the Conservatives; we need change now. Any further delay risks this critical legislation being timed out before the next general election. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that DEFRA will introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that it will include a comprehensive ban on the import of hunting trophies.
I believe that the case for a ban has been comprehensively and emphatically proven—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees—so I will focus the remainder of my remarks on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and on how to tackle poaching. Due to the actions of humans, more species are threatened with extinction today than ever before. A major global biodiversity study in 2019, co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of the decline. Despite that, internationally protected species—those protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list—remain the focus of trophy hunters. Thousands are killed each year; we have already heard the list.
We cannot turn a blind eye to this crime against nature. The populations of hunted species are declining dramatically, with studies showing that hunting has knock-on effects on animal populations in protected areas. Indeed, local populations have recovered only when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently.
Another myth is that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin. Permitted and illegal activity are rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of that is the Selous game reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa. Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. That prompted the Tanzanian Government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in a national poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park, in which hunting was banned.
I pay tribute to all those who have continued to campaign over the years to get this ban in place, including the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Let us be clear that trophy hunting drives international demand for the body parts of threatened species, whether licensed or poached. That directly undermines global efforts to tackle the illegal trade in animal parts, such as ivory or rhino horns. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK’s participation in this immoral enterprise. That requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.
We have been here before. We have had the debate before, we know the arguments and we know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support; we have heard that very clearly today. Please, Minister, let us just get on with it.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I first commend my friend, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to the Chamber. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo.
There will be an element of repetition in this debate, but the points are worth restating. It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and the African economy. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was President of Botswana he banned trophy hunting and promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved and the populations grew. It was a win-win. His successor—wined, dined and probably bribed by Safari Club International—overturned the ban. Tourism fell and wildlife suffered, as did the economy. That classic example kicks the bottom out of the argument that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash. It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and corrupt people in Africa benefit considerably, mainly from the United States’ trophy hunting tourist trade.
There is a myth that trophy hunting also involves some kind of macho courage. Men, and occasionally women, go and slaughter wild endangered species. What is courageous about slaughtering an effectively tamed animal that has been bred and fed in captivity, caged in a small area and then murdered so that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcase and the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall? A yellow streak runs right through those people and they are revolting. It is time that everybody stood up and said so.
In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting. I applaud the work that continues to be done by Eduardo Gonçalves and his campaign. He has been an absolute stalwart to the cause and he deserves our thanks.
In the last Parliament, two Bills were brought before the House of Commons. One was a Conservative-led Bill, presented by the then Member of Parliament for Crawley; the other very similar Bill was brought by John Spellar, then a Labour Member of the Commons and now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both those Bills went through virtually unopposed, but they were killed off by the neanderthal tendency in the upper House.
With great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the idea that he will present a Bill—I would support that, of course—if the Government cannot find time to do this is a forlorn cause. This has to be Government legislation. I understand that a Bill has already been prepared by DEFRA. The point has been made that it features in the Labour party manifesto, and as far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever why this measure should not be brought swiftly on to the statute book. It can be done; it must be done. The time is right—in fact, it is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we certainly have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his tenacity in pursuing this issue and his speech today. I know the passion the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has for this issue and the hours and hours he has spent making the case in such a formidable way, as he has today.
The number of mammals in Africa has dropped 80% in my lifetime. Many are brought back dead to these shores, diminished to rugs and relics for the enjoyment of a few people who take pleasure in presiding over the extinction of some of the world’s greatest mammals. Parliament has long supported the banning of this practice, and it was an honour to serve on one of those Bill Committees when we last sought to legislate. However, that was unsuccessful due to the other place, and this sickening trade continues while other nations have brought it to an end. We should have led the way, not least in the light of the number of people from the UK who hunt. Instead, there has been painful dither and delay. We have to do this in this Parliament.
Across Europe and the world, laws on this are tighter. Britain is one of just four countries that still allow the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from hunts, alongside polar bears, cheetahs, lions, giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts are being brought into the UK under this Labour Government. I urge the Minister to go back to her Department and place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences; that would be action before the legislation comes before us. This has to stop. We could see the extinction of some species in my lifetime if we do not. I congratulate the armed forces, who we send to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves. But it seems unconscionable that we also allow the trophies to return to the UK.
We need to address this, but I want the Government to think about going further and making it illegal to advertise safari hunting and for anyone to hunt on those trips. Given the depravity that goes with this barbaric practice, people should face criminal charges. Those who promote the trips should have the full force of the law thrown at them. There is little point in banning the import of so-called trophies when people already have the photos, have destroyed their prey and, in some cases, have left the animals wounded and in pain. We have to stop the shooting and the killing.
The 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, the 10,000 lions killed since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and the 2,800 African elephants killed in 2024 alone—their population has declined from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today—show that our failure to legislate over decades has let the trophy seekers off the hook. Add to those the monkeys, gorillas and baboons, which share our DNA and are now the second most hunted species. That is shocking.
Labour Ministers need to get a ban over the line. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for DEFRA, we committed to an immediate ban as soon as we came into government. Two years of this Labour Government have passed, and we are halfway through this Parliament. We have to legislate. If the Government are looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time. Ban the imports, the adverts, the hunters and—one more—the publication of photos. We must make it a criminal offence for a UK resident to celebrate their kill on social media or in an advert—no carve-outs, no exceptions. There is no need for a new King’s Speech or manifesto—86% of the public support a ban. We must not delay, but be proud to see it through.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate and bringing us all together.
Yesterday, I visited a drop-in for assistance dogs. Two dogs were available for photographs—and, frankly, to pet. That was smart of the organisers—the queue was out the door, and they were running out of leaflets. The organisers knew that we are a nation of animal lovers, and that that is reflected in Parliament. However, that is not yet reflected in our action on trophy imports. Whatever our intent and feeling, and however much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind. The US, Canada, Australia and many more have implemented trophy bans, and we have not. In the past decade, almost 2,000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK. These are endangered animals—body parts of species we cannot afford to lose and individual animals whose lives were much too precious to be ended for entertainment.
There is no public opposition to a ban—the vast majority of people in the UK support one—and there is little political opposition. Virtually all Members of Parliament support a ban. Issues that unite us in this place to that extent are vanishingly rare. We should value that and celebrate it; we should take the chance to do the right thing—an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. On so many issues, the drama and division make a lot of noise and take up a lot of space. We all participate in that—it is one of the ways that we make things happen—but a consensus does not mean a lack of importance, urgency or determination. It means quite the opposite. This is an issue on which people who agree on little else have come together, and that is significant.
We really are a nation of animal lovers. On this issue, there is a simple way to reflect that in our laws: we must make parliamentary time to ban the import of hunting trophies, and to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support that ban when it happens. We have the power to do this. Let us use it soon.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his very good speech on this important subject. A few weeks ago, I was in Zambia for the first time, as part of a global public health trip to look at HIV, malaria and tuberculosis control. While we were driving between villages, we got to see elephants and giraffes just walking along the side of the road. It was an absolute dream come true for me. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is an absolute hero of mine for the years he has campaigned on animal welfare issues, including many years on this subject specifically.
I very much appreciate and recognise the work that has been done on this issue, and the public agree. Some 84% of responses to the Government’s consultation were in support of a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Despite overwhelming support, successive Governments have failed to act and get a ban over the line. When in government, the Conservatives promised a ban and held a consultation, but when the legislation passed through the Commons, opposition to it in the Lords used deliberate delaying tactics to prevent it from becoming law. The Labour party promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto, yet we are still waiting. There is no Government Bill, no clear timetable, and no mention of trophy hunting in the animal welfare strategy.
We should be clear that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster, not in Washington. We know that the Trump Administration have written to the UK Government urging them to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.
I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the mindset of somebody who travels thousands of miles, pays tens of thousands of pounds and then deliberately kills one of the most magnificent creatures on the planet simply for the pleasure of doing so, especially when that creature may well be endangered. Like all vets, I have had to end the lives of animals on many occasions—more than I can remember. We do it out of compassion and to relieve suffering. Even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times we have done it, taking a life is never something that we take lightly. I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, healthy wild animal and then bring it back and mount its head or body part as a trophy. What kind of achievement is it to kill an elephant? What is there to celebrate in shooting a lion or a rhinoceros? What sort of person, having killed an endangered animal, then wants to see that body part mounted on a wall?
The British public want a ban, the House of Commons has already voted for a ban and the Government committed to a ban in their manifesto. I urge the Minister to please bring forward legislation, stop any delaying and let us show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing this important debate and setting out the importance of the issue.
I declare a strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the many organisations that have campaigned against trophy hunting for many years, including Four Paws, Humane World for Animals, Born Free, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. I am pleased to be here as the shadow DEFRA Minister speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies.
We have heard many powerful contributions from all parties. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) introduced us to the story of Cecil, whom I will talk more about. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) is a wonderful, proud animal welfare advocate in the House, and I consider her a close colleague and friend. She is a member of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare—in fact, three officers of that APPG, which I chair, are present. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted, while the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about the importance of her work when she was in the shadow DEFRA team.
Like my veterinary colleague and friend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his animal welfare advocacy from the Conservative Benches. He worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess, and I pay tribute to him. My right hon. Friend talked about his passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, which I will touch on soon.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered and mentioned the importance of our UK armed forces working to help conservation efforts. Finally—I do not think I have missed anyone—the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke with huge passion about how we are very much a nation of animal lovers. It sounds like a cliché, but it is so true. This is an issue that unites us across the House, so I thank her for saying that.
Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion—a horrific event that caught the world’s attention and ignited global outrage and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies to the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique: every year, trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not with lethal weapons.
Since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported to the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcases or parts thereof back to Britain is outdated and unnecessary. Ending this trade would send a clear message that the United Kingdom does not support the killing of precious, majestic and often endangered wildlife.
In the UK, we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am proud of the Conservatives’ work in government to advance animal welfare standards and strengthen protections for animals at home and abroad. This included banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which I hope will survive next week’s EU reset; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the important Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. We must remember that Cecil the lion was a large, majestic, magnificent, sentient animal that was hunted and senselessly and horrifically struck down.
I was extremely proud to co-sponsor the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 with my veterinary colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Winchester. It was a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing and unethical pet importation practices such as the importation of under-age puppies, heavily pregnant dogs or cats, dogs that have been horrifically ear-cropped and cats that have been barbarically declawed—senseless procedures that have no clinical indication whatsoever. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), the shadow Nature Minister, strengthened penalties and expanded police powers to tackle livestock worrying.
Back in 2018, the Conservative Government passed the Ivory Act 2018, one of the world’s strongest ivory bans, providing vital protection to elephants at risk. Later, as a shadow Minister, I was proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition in support of the expansion of that Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and hippopotamuses. As I said at the time:
“Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 4.]
across the House.
The United Kingdom can again use its global soft power and put pressure on countries that, horrifically, continue to kill animals such as whales and dolphins. We must tell those countries to stop these barbaric practices once and for all. Now is the time to get serious about protecting the world’s wildlife and habitats, protecting animals, halting further damage and restoring what has been lost. The UK has a significant part to play in that work.
In 2019, the Conservative Government held a consultation on the scale and impact of the import and export of hunting trophies. It received more than 44,000 responses, 84% of which were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response, the Conservative Government rightly set out plans to ban imports of hunting trophies from endangered and threatened species.
Sadly, it is now more than six years since a UK Government first committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. It is also six years since the IPBES—the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services—global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. Yet to this day, trophy hunting continues, with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the numbers of trophies imported.
I was very disappointed when, in the previous Parliament, the Conservative-led Bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed after receiving unanimous support and passing through the House of Commons. So much work had been done to get to that position—consultations carried out, the Bill drafted and parliamentarians across the House briefed—but we now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation. I am sure we all feel this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who brought the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill back to the House in the 2024-26 parliamentary Session, where it again received cross-party support. But it now feels like groundhog day, because once again we are waiting for legislation to come forward. The previous Conservative Government started the process; the baton has now passed to the current Government, who also had a ban in their manifesto.
There is a saying: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.” The same is true here. We should have taken action sooner after Cecil the majestic lion was killed, but we can and must take action now. I urge the Government to act; will the Minister say how and when they will do so? Together, parliamentarians and animal welfare organisations—all of us as a human race—must do something powerful and great for animals. Let us get a ban over the line and consign this practice to the history books.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
It is an honour to respond to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. We are used to hearing different views from different sides of the House, but I have heard the overwhelming consensus in the room today.
This is an issue that understandably generates strongly held views, both within Parliament and beyond, and raises important questions about the role that the United Kingdom should play in helping to protect biodiversity around the world. I therefore welcome the opportunity to clearly restate the Government’s position, which, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitment in 2024. The Government have made a clear commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern, and we remain committed to delivering on that promise.
The United Kingdom has a long history of championing global action to protect endangered species, demonstrated most recently by our chairing of the standing committee of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—our leadership and engagement at the convention on biological diversity COP, and our more recent work under the UN convention against transnational organised crime to tackle the serious and organised crime that drives the illegal wildlife trade. Our approach to hunting trophy imports forms part of that wider commitment to protecting biodiversity and ensuring that international wildlife trade does not undermine the conservation of threatened species.
Irene Campbell
What has come over very clearly during the debate is that we are looking for a timeline. Can the Minister confirm whether one is forthcoming?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
My hon. Friend raises a critical point, which I acknowledge was the key and overwhelming theme of the debate. I have 10 minutes to talk and there are some other points that I want to make first, but I will come to it in a moment.
Ensuring that the UK plays its part in reducing pressures on species of conservation concern and supporting wider global efforts to protect biodiversity remain core commitments. I know that Members, campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this issue has been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest in it. The Government recognise that strength of feeling. Our commitment has not changed, and we will deliver a ban when parliamentary time allows. We are working to ensure that we are in a strong position to move forward when the opportunity arises.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will not, because I am addressing the point of timing, but I will come back to my hon. Friend if she would like to intervene in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) all raised very valid questions about timings. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling. Our aim is clear: to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, asked how we have progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and are ready to move quickly when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures Members.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Let me continue for one more moment.
I recognise that Members and stakeholders will want to see faster progress, but our objective is not simply to put legislation on the statute book that is not fit for purpose. We want to deliver a ban that is robust, enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.
Jim Shannon
I understand the process only too well, but I encourage the Minister and the Government, because we all want to ensure that they get a win-win out of this. Eighty-six percent of the people of this nation want this to happen. That has to be a win-win for the Minister, for the Government and for all of us.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier contributions. I hope I have made it clear that this formed a part of our manifesto commitment and we remain committed to it. I understand and recognise the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows.
Imogen Walker
There have been clear cross-party calls today and in the lead-up to the debate. If the Minister is not able to give us a timetable here and now, will she commit to updating us at the earliest possible opportunity when this will be progressed in Parliament and when parliamentary time will be found?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her speech earlier. I reiterate that we will bring forward the legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows. I am sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course.
Clive Efford
With all due respect, “when parliamentary time allows” is not good enough. We have had too many delays on this issue. Other countries have introduced a moratorium, with the intention to legislate later. Will the Minister explain why we cannot do that, so that we can move urgently and quickly, here in the UK?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. A moratorium was the theme of many hon. Members’ contributions today, and I understand the strength of feeling behind that. We do not have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we are focused on doing this properly, so that the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will make some progress, if I may.
I recognise that this is not always a straightforward issue. That is why we want to continue to engage with stakeholders representing different perspectives and to consider the evidence carefully as we develop a robust policy. That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence, to ensure that the policy, when it comes, is robust, defensible and deliverable.
Ruth Jones
With all due respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) said, we have had the debates and arguments. We know what the stakeholders say and believe. We know we need action. My fear is that the planned legislation will come too late. It is no good bringing it in at the fag-end of this Parliament because we will not get it enacted. That will be a tragedy for us and the animals.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I hear the issues and the sentiment loud and clear, both in this room and from the public. Forming the right robust legislative process is different from having a debate. We have to get the legislation tight, robust and defensible. That work is ongoing and it requires engagement and evidence. We have committed to delivering that when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that provides reassurance that work is ongoing to build the most robust and defensible legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Apologies, but I need to make progress.
My colleague Baroness Hayman has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including in discussions with representatives from southern African countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others—where concerns have been raised about the implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, she has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and concerns.
Although we may not be able to reconcile every view on this deeply contested issue, we can and must ensure that the policy we bring forward is informed by evidence, by the experience of affected countries and communities, and by those organisations that have rightly and tirelessly worked on these issues for many years. Engagement will continue as we work towards legislation that delivers our manifesto commitment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A point I raised in the debate was that the Government could place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences. Will she go back to the Department and raise that with civil servants, and ensure that the Government put that immediate moratorium in place?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I think I have made clear the point on a moratorium: we need primary legislation to ensure that we bring in a ban that is defensible and robust. I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point she raises in further detail, but I hope I have been clear that we stand by our manifesto commitments and we are committed to bringing forward a ban when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament. I am happy to meet colleagues to discuss this in further detail.
Sir Roger Gale
This really is not good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this Chamber. All this work has already been done, twice. The Bill has been approved; the Minister’s Department has a drafted Bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the Government to introduce the legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I hope I have been clear that we are committed to delivering this. We are committed to making sure that we bring forward the most robust piece of legislation, which is defensible and workable, and it will happen when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament.
Let me conclude by saying that protecting species is central to our wider ambition to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard nature for future generations. We are determined that the UK should play its part, and we will deliver on our commitment to ban hunting trophy imports in a way that is robust, enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for bringing this important issue before the House, and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to the Minister for her response but, quite frankly, it really is not good enough. Who are the Government afraid of? Such a tiny minority of people would be affected by a ban on hunting trophy imports. The Government have overwhelming power behind them; they could defend their position.
On the idea of “robust” legislation, what is so sensitive about this piece of legislation compared with any other? Are we to expect that the Government will introduce a perfect Bill that will not be amended in any way? Over my years in this House, I have seen Bills that have had hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments made to them after they have been brought before the House. What is the debate that is taking place within DEFRA that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? That concerns me greatly. This issue has been debated widely, over a great many years; there is not much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. This is the time that the Government have to act and move forwards.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this morning—we have to keep the pressure on—and to all the campaigning groups. I have mentioned some of them, but I thank in particular the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which supported me in preparing for the debate. The Government have to listen. This is not just about the animals themselves; it is becoming more and more apparent that it is a human rights issue as well. The time has come for the Government to stand by those people, stand up for the animals that are being slaughtered and take forward this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.