Westminster Hall
Wednesday 11th November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 4 hours, 39 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. The house will observe a two minute silence at 11 a.m., in remembrance of those killed in conflict. At the beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 a.m. so that members can observe the silence order. Clive Efford to move the motion.
09:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Mr. Stewart, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and. I would like to move that this House has discussed hunting trophy imports. For anyone watching this debate who's unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals that are murdered by huntsmen, usually big game in what is the most despicable form of hunting, which 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 gotten over that in order to bring their trophies or bits of mutilated animals hunting trophies back to the UK.
The hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still licence the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies. We know this because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto for the last election. So the purpose of this debate is not to convince the government that importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays. We know that Pro-hunting, the Pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well connected.
They deploy arguments that can found governments and defuse arguments against. They claim that hunting is essential for conservation. Reducing human wildlife conflict, that it brings economic benefit to rural communities. But none of this is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest Living Planet report. 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 of these species are affected by hunting and cites the international wildlife trade body 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.
The hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still licence the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies. We know this because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto for the last election. So the purpose of this debate is not to convince the government that importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays. We know that Pro-hunting, the Pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well connected.
They deploy arguments that can found governments and defuse arguments against. They claim that hunting is essential for conservation. Reducing human wildlife conflict, that it brings economic benefit to rural communities. But none of this is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest Living Planet report. 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 of these species are affected by hunting and cites the international wildlife trade body 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.
09:32
09:32
09:32
09:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Honourable member for giving way, and I'm very grateful to him for bringing this debate. The late, great doctor Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as unconscionable, utterly cruel and disastrous from a conservation perspective. And since 2015, we've seen 1764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Would the honourable member agree that there's strong cross-party support for this ban, and the need for the government to bring forward this legislation is urgent?
09:33
09:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He's giving a really powerful speech. I having looked into this since the July general election of 2024, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamus, 21 African elephants, a scimitar horned oryx, Marco polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by this and does this not show that the government needs to crack on and implement the promises of its manifesto and ban trophy hunting?
09:33
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to crack on with the examples that he's read out are shocking, and we shouldn't be countenancing that by importing those those parts of the animals that have been slaughtered. Lions are 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. So the main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation.
Neither does it address wild animal human conflict. I've seen testimony from local community members of the Masai who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where hunting is taking place, and increases the likelihood of attacks on humans. So there is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal human conflict, that it makes attacks more likely, and neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the. 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 which have been forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting. Amnesty international conducted research into forced evictions of the Masai indigenous people in Orlando between June 2022 and May 2024. Amnesty. Amnesty reported on suppression of protests by Masai people on June and I quote on. On the 10th of June 2022, Tanzanian security forces reported resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protest by Maasai residents of San Juan 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. Tigre Suguta, regional director of Amnesty International East and South Southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian government it is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under pretext of conservation, while in reality they have allowed Otterlo 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 its back on these atrocities.
We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country being used in a way that encourages human rights abuses by ending forth with the import of hunting trophies. Listen to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting hunting industry and move to introduce an immediate ban on hunting trophies with a view to reducing introducing legislation at a later date. This has been done in other countries and we should not delay. I've been on safari, I've visited Botswana and Zambia. 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 wasn't alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing, capturing similar experiences. And of course, we left the animals behind for others to see. On 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 the that. This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neocolonial colonialists.
It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. Over 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 critically endangered black rhinoceros shot monkeys out of trees. They have shot African elephants. These are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by Defra since 2020 for general since 2020.
The 2024 general election were of these magnificent creatures. This is despite the fact that African elephants have recently been upgraded by IUCN 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, their feet, their tails and for their tusks. British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and kande lions. Kande lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. Their 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 there are now seven 7000 remaining.
We know all this because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It's time to bring this to an end once and for all. The last three cases I've quoted Cannes lions, cheetah and polar bears. Even Donald Trump's America will not allow them to be imported. And that should tell us something. Of all these, I think the Cannes 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 whether it wants to play and doesn't know its life is fighting for its life until it is shot? Trophy hunting is not about conservation. It doesn't resolve issues of wildlife, human conflict, and it doesn't bring economic benefits to rural areas or 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. Can the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports already exist, and that officials at Defra have already drafted it?
If government time doesn't exist for this bill, then will she pass it to me and I will put it forward as a ten minute rule bill, and the overwhelming support we have across the House will get this through very quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on hunting trophy imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do this. Can she explain why? And above all, will she accept that there can be no further delay.
here?
Neither does it address wild animal human conflict. I've seen testimony from local community members of the Masai who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where hunting is taking place, and increases the likelihood of attacks on humans. So there is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal human conflict, that it makes attacks more likely, and neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the. 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 which have been forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting. Amnesty international conducted research into forced evictions of the Masai indigenous people in Orlando between June 2022 and May 2024. Amnesty. Amnesty reported on suppression of protests by Masai people on June and I quote on. On the 10th of June 2022, Tanzanian security forces reported resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protest by Maasai residents of San Juan 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. Tigre Suguta, regional director of Amnesty International East and South Southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian government it is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under pretext of conservation, while in reality they have allowed Otterlo 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 its back on these atrocities.
We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country being used in a way that encourages human rights abuses by ending forth with the import of hunting trophies. Listen to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting hunting industry and move to introduce an immediate ban on hunting trophies with a view to reducing introducing legislation at a later date. This has been done in other countries and we should not delay. I've been on safari, I've visited Botswana and Zambia. 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 wasn't alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing, capturing similar experiences. And of course, we left the animals behind for others to see. On 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 the that. This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neocolonial colonialists.
It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. Over 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 critically endangered black rhinoceros shot monkeys out of trees. They have shot African elephants. These are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by Defra since 2020 for general since 2020.
The 2024 general election were of these magnificent creatures. This is despite the fact that African elephants have recently been upgraded by IUCN 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, their feet, their tails and for their tusks. British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and kande lions. Kande lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. Their 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 there are now seven 7000 remaining.
We know all this because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It's time to bring this to an end once and for all. The last three cases I've quoted Cannes lions, cheetah and polar bears. Even Donald Trump's America will not allow them to be imported. And that should tell us something. Of all these, I think the Cannes 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 whether it wants to play and doesn't know its life is fighting for its life until it is shot? Trophy hunting is not about conservation. It doesn't resolve issues of wildlife, human conflict, and it doesn't bring economic benefits to rural areas or 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. Can the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports already exist, and that officials at Defra have already drafted it?
If government time doesn't exist for this bill, then will she pass it to me and I will put it forward as a ten minute rule bill, and the overwhelming support we have across the House will get this through very quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on hunting trophy imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do this. Can she explain why? And above all, will she accept that there can be no further delay.
here?
09:42
09:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
A pleasure to serve under you again, and I want to congratulate the member for Eltham and Chislehurst on securing this important debate and in fact, getting a significant amount of parliamentary time for it. Now, most people in this room, if not everyone knows of Cecil famous 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. Now is the honourable member has said Trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and sport.
So-Called sport animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters and animal suffering is not just celebrated but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt animals who 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 incentivizes the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife it conflicts with, and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco tourism. Trophy hunting is not, as the honourable member described. It is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programs operating around the world in countries including Kenya and Costa Rica, which do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect.
Yet we see organisations like the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the A e , making millions from this horrible so-called sport. I've been contacted by a number of constituents. In fact, like my colleague beside me, we see an awful lot of traffic in our inbox on this topic, and they all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. And this correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour's manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. Now, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to ask the Minister when will that bill be introduced?
In fact, can the Minister confirm that work has actually begun on such a bill as the practice continues? One British hunter even boasted recently about proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino, one of the most rare and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made that hunting trophies would be banned. In that time, another 2000 trophies of animals considered endangered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. That's quite a mouthful. Seats for short have been brought back to Britain.
2000 trophies, including the ears of elephants and feet of giraffes , and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. And I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in the countries of origin, but only gain value when they're imported. And that's the key to the legislation that the Labour government promised. Indeed, across the Atlantic, we see the vice president of the United States, JD Vance, meeting with the trophy hunting group Safari Club International, who target endangered animals, including pygmy hippos. The UK government needs to stand clear against any influence from the white House against proposals for a ban.
Now, the honourable member mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. I do not think it's a coincidence that the most recent IPU was held in Tanzania. Tanzania are a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations in Tanzania against the Maasai tribesmen and women. And these are not minor matters. The allegations, and I'm sure the honourable members have seen the same footage that I have seen Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, slaughter of cattle corruption, bribery, false fines, paramilitaries operating on behalf of the government claims that it's all about conservation and reducing human animal conflict.
No, it's not about those things. It's about a multimillion dollar industry called trophy hunting. And the fact that the IPU was held in Tanzania is should be of great interest to us. 153rd meeting of the IPU. I've read their report, especially the Human Rights section. Not a mention of trophy hunting that IPU is attended by our own speaker, Mr. Stewart, Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
It's about time, I believe, that the UK government acted and introduced this bill to ban trophy hunting imports.
So-Called sport animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters and animal suffering is not just celebrated but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt animals who 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 incentivizes the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife it conflicts with, and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco tourism. Trophy hunting is not, as the honourable member described. It is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programs operating around the world in countries including Kenya and Costa Rica, which do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect.
Yet we see organisations like the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the A e , making millions from this horrible so-called sport. I've been contacted by a number of constituents. In fact, like my colleague beside me, we see an awful lot of traffic in our inbox on this topic, and they all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. And this correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour's manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. Now, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to ask the Minister when will that bill be introduced?
In fact, can the Minister confirm that work has actually begun on such a bill as the practice continues? One British hunter even boasted recently about proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino, one of the most rare and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made that hunting trophies would be banned. In that time, another 2000 trophies of animals considered endangered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. That's quite a mouthful. Seats for short have been brought back to Britain.
2000 trophies, including the ears of elephants and feet of giraffes , and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. And I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in the countries of origin, but only gain value when they're imported. And that's the key to the legislation that the Labour government promised. Indeed, across the Atlantic, we see the vice president of the United States, JD Vance, meeting with the trophy hunting group Safari Club International, who target endangered animals, including pygmy hippos. The UK government needs to stand clear against any influence from the white House against proposals for a ban.
Now, the honourable member mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. I do not think it's a coincidence that the most recent IPU was held in Tanzania. Tanzania are a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations in Tanzania against the Maasai tribesmen and women. And these are not minor matters. The allegations, and I'm sure the honourable members have seen the same footage that I have seen Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, slaughter of cattle corruption, bribery, false fines, paramilitaries operating on behalf of the government claims that it's all about conservation and reducing human animal conflict.
No, it's not about those things. It's about a multimillion dollar industry called trophy hunting. And the fact that the IPU was held in Tanzania is should be of great interest to us. 153rd meeting of the IPU. I've read their report, especially the Human Rights section. Not a mention of trophy hunting that IPU is attended by our own speaker, Mr. Stewart, Sir Lindsay Hoyle.
It's about time, I believe, that the UK government acted and introduced this bill to ban trophy hunting imports.
09:47
09:47
09:47
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Eltham and Chislehurst for introducing this debate and setting out the arguments so well for why there has to be change. Banning the import of trophy imports was was in our manifesto was in Labour's 2024 manifesto, as we have heard, and is a topic that is incredibly popular with the public. As we have also heard with. Again, my office receives many emails about this too, and over 80% of people in the UK, as we have heard, are very much in favour of a ban.
I think that number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is. We've heard it being outlined. Animals are chased for long distances, many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. And around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the past decade. And as we have heard that this includes giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more. And it's it's very, very distressing. Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. So I think the conservation argument for why trophy hunting should continue is very weak. Trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, which is absolutely shocking.
For example, many giraffe subspecies have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014, and hunters also target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations. However, one thing I would like to note, and I'm going off script slightly here, is that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find really quite upsetting. And in 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag's head , and in Scotland at the moment for around 500 to £1250, you can shoot a red stag and actually export it.
Now, I know that's not what today's debate is about, but I think that is something that we should consider and discussing in the future. So as well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. And while we may not have lions and elephants, we still have other beautiful animals, for example, deer and many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but also here.
I think that number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is. We've heard it being outlined. Animals are chased for long distances, many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. And around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the past decade. And as we have heard that this includes giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more. And it's it's very, very distressing. Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. So I think the conservation argument for why trophy hunting should continue is very weak. Trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, which is absolutely shocking.
For example, many giraffe subspecies have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014, and hunters also target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations. However, one thing I would like to note, and I'm going off script slightly here, is that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find really quite upsetting. And in 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag's head , and in Scotland at the moment for around 500 to £1250, you can shoot a red stag and actually export it.
Now, I know that's not what today's debate is about, but I think that is something that we should consider and discussing in the future. So as well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. And while we may not have lions and elephants, we still have other beautiful animals, for example, deer and many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but also here.
09:53
09:53
09:53
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Mr. Chairman, a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and a big thank you to the honourable gentleman for Eltham and for his passion, which he showed very clearly in the debate and determination to bring about this much needed changes. I rise to speak on a matter that strikes, as my honourable friend said, a deep core not only with my constituents in Strangford, but I believe across this whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have contacted me in large numbers on this issue, and we're not talking about an archaic, barbaric and utterly sorry.
We are talking about an archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice the importation of hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So let's be quite clear, Mr. Chairman, what this debate is about. This is not about a debate about traditional sustainable hunting for food. If it was and the people were starving, there could be some justification. This is about the execution of some of the world's most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more. And I say this honestly 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. I think that's where we are today. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that's a reality of where we live. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos, cross-party consensus and there is in this chamber today and there is in the main chamber as well, I believe the UK doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade. Recent figures from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paints a deeply concerning picture. Between July 24th and September 26th, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies.
Let's just let that sink in. As others have done. An intervention is not here 41 permits in just over two years. And what species do these permits cover? They cover the very animals that are on the brink of extinction. 21 permits were issued for African elephants. For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I can't understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant. I really can't get my head around that one. Five for lions, four for hippopotamuses, others for leopards, for polar bears and for rhinos. Some of those lovely nature programmes we see on TV, where animals roam free.
And 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's a natural embarrassment. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in 2026, we're still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures. The public support for this action is overwhelming. Up to nine out of ten, almost 90% of the people, British people want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I hope that the minister and I wish her well in the role the minister plays, and she knows she has all our best wishes for her and what she does.
But honestly, and this one, Mr. Chairman, I think government should take something that the people want, that the people overwhelmingly want and something that will go through, pardon, without any hiccups or problems whatsoever. We've seen private member's bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time by a small minority. This is one we 90% of the of the United Kingdom people believe should be should be law. And the current government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yep. And asked and I say this with respect to the minister and to the government.
Yet when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, ministers provided absolutely no dates and no timeline. So Minister today and put you on the on the hot seat and and just give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it's going to happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while government drags its feet. I'm going to finish with this. We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down our standards and the British people's standards. If we want to lead the world and we should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world's biodiversity.
I'm not the only one, Mr. Chairman, who loves the the David Attenborough programmes on TV. It's all about the the oceans at the minute. But in the past he's done some wonderful programmes and they, I think, motivate us all, I believe to, to to speak out. And they were doing that. So I urge the minister please to stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching my constituents and our constituents are demanding action, and the wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. So I give this House and this nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date.
Introduce their legislation and let us finally, finally, consign this cruel trade to the history books where it belongs.
We are talking about an archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice the importation of hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So let's be quite clear, Mr. Chairman, what this debate is about. This is not about a debate about traditional sustainable hunting for food. If it was and the people were starving, there could be some justification. This is about the execution of some of the world's most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more. And I say this honestly 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. I think that's where we are today. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that's a reality of where we live. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos, cross-party consensus and there is in this chamber today and there is in the main chamber as well, I believe the UK doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade. Recent figures from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paints a deeply concerning picture. Between July 24th and September 26th, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies.
Let's just let that sink in. As others have done. An intervention is not here 41 permits in just over two years. And what species do these permits cover? They cover the very animals that are on the brink of extinction. 21 permits were issued for African elephants. For the life of me, Mr. Chairman, I can't understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant. I really can't get my head around that one. Five for lions, four for hippopotamuses, others for leopards, for polar bears and for rhinos. Some of those lovely nature programmes we see on TV, where animals roam free.
And 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's a natural embarrassment. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in 2026, we're still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures. The public support for this action is overwhelming. Up to nine out of ten, almost 90% of the people, British people want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I hope that the minister and I wish her well in the role the minister plays, and she knows she has all our best wishes for her and what she does.
But honestly, and this one, Mr. Chairman, I think government should take something that the people want, that the people overwhelmingly want and something that will go through, pardon, without any hiccups or problems whatsoever. We've seen private member's bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time by a small minority. This is one we 90% of the of the United Kingdom people believe should be should be law. And the current government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yep. And asked and I say this with respect to the minister and to the government.
Yet when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, ministers provided absolutely no dates and no timeline. So Minister today and put you on the on the hot seat and and just give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it's going to happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while government drags its feet. I'm going to finish with this. We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down our standards and the British people's standards. If we want to lead the world and we should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world's biodiversity.
I'm not the only one, Mr. Chairman, who loves the the David Attenborough programmes on TV. It's all about the the oceans at the minute. But in the past he's done some wonderful programmes and they, I think, motivate us all, I believe to, to to speak out. And they were doing that. So I urge the minister please to stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching my constituents and our constituents are demanding action, and the wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. So I give this House and this nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date.
Introduce their legislation and let us finally, finally, consign this cruel trade to the history books where it belongs.
10:04
10:04
10:04
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
And I'd like to start by thanking my honourable friend, the member for Eltham and Chislehurst, for bringing forward this important debate. As you'll be aware, Mr. Stuart, we've been here before. Banning the import of trophy hunting of hunting trophies is an issue I am deeply passionate about. Indeed, I was proudly part of the Shadow Defra team who ensured that commitment to such a ban was included in our manifesto at the last election. Despite such a commitment, two years on from that election, we are still yet to see a ban to be legislated for. Indeed, we are yet to see a lot of progress on the broad range of ambitious pledges made by this government before the last election and in the recent animal welfare strategy.
We know this is not a new issue. We've had the debates before, both here and in the other chamber and in the other place. But I believe now, Mr. Stuart, we have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary term. I share the public's frustration at this delay. Such frustration is only made worse by the confident knowledge we have won. The argument both in the House and amongst the public. But as we've already heard, polling has consistently showed that over 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, as we've heard, 41 permits to import hunting trophies have been issued by this government since the election.
This 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. We cannot afford 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. So I would therefore ask the Minister in her speech that to confirm that Defra will be bringing forward a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that this will include a comprehensive ban on the import of trophy hunting. Whilst I believe the case for a ban to be comprehensive, comprehensively and emphatically proven, and I'm sure my hon.
Friend the Minister does agree with me on this point. I will reserve the remainder of my remarks to focus on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and about and 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, coordinated by the Ipbes, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of this decline. Despite this, international protected species, those protected by the convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red list, remain the focus of trophy hunters.
Thousands are killed each year. We've 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 only recovered when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently. Another myth is the belief that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin, with permitted and illegal activity being rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of this is the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa.
Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were still poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. This prompted the Tanzanian government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in international poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park banning hunting. Mr. Stewart, I do 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. So let's be clear Trophy hunting hunters targeting a threatened species drives international demand for their body parts.
Whether licensed or poached. This directly undermines global efforts to tackle illegal trade in animal parts such as ivory or rhino horn. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK's participation in this immoral enterprise. This requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring this forward as soon as possible. Mr. Stewart, we have been here before. We've had the debate before. We know the arguments. We know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support. We've heard this very clearly today. Please, Minister, let's just get on with it.
We know this is not a new issue. We've had the debates before, both here and in the other chamber and in the other place. But I believe now, Mr. Stuart, we have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary term. I share the public's frustration at this delay. Such frustration is only made worse by the confident knowledge we have won. The argument both in the House and amongst the public. But as we've already heard, polling has consistently showed that over 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, as we've heard, 41 permits to import hunting trophies have been issued by this government since the election.
This 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. We cannot afford 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. So I would therefore ask the Minister in her speech that to confirm that Defra will be bringing forward a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that this will include a comprehensive ban on the import of trophy hunting. Whilst I believe the case for a ban to be comprehensive, comprehensively and emphatically proven, and I'm sure my hon.
Friend the Minister does agree with me on this point. I will reserve the remainder of my remarks to focus on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and about and 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, coordinated by the Ipbes, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of this decline. Despite this, international protected species, those protected by the convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red list, remain the focus of trophy hunters.
Thousands are killed each year. We've 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 only recovered when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently. Another myth is the belief that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin, with permitted and illegal activity being rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of this is the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa.
Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were still poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. This prompted the Tanzanian government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in international poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park banning hunting. Mr. Stewart, I do 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. So let's be clear Trophy hunting hunters targeting a threatened species drives international demand for their body parts.
Whether licensed or poached. This directly undermines global efforts to tackle illegal trade in animal parts such as ivory or rhino horn. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK's participation in this immoral enterprise. This requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring this forward as soon as possible. Mr. Stewart, we have been here before. We've had the debate before. We know the arguments. We know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support. We've heard this very clearly today. Please, Minister, let's just get on with it.
10:13
10:13
10:13
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Can I first commend my friend, the honourable gentleman, the member for Eltham and Chislehurst, for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to this chamber. Those of us who have had that privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and it's certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo. Mr. Stewart, there's going to be an element of repetition in this debate, but I think the points are worth restating.
It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and that it contributes to the economy of the continent of Africa. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was the president of Botswana, he banned trophy hunting and he promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved, and the populations grew, and it was win win. His successor. Wined and dined and very probably bribed by Safari. Club International, overturned the ban. Tourism fell, wildlife suffered , and the economy suffered as well. That, I think, is a classic example that kicks at the bottom out of the argument that this has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash.
It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and very corrupt people in Africa do benefit very considerably from mainly the United States tourist trade in trophy hunting. There is a myth that somehow also this involves some kind of macho courage. Men and occasionally women go and slaughter wild endangered species. Mr. Stewart, what is the courageous. About slaughtering an animal that is effectively tame, been bred in captivity, fed in captivity, is caged within a very small area and then murdered. So that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcass. And then have the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall.
There is a yellow streak that runs right through these people, and they are revolting. And it's time that everybody stood up and said so. In the last Parliament, Mr. Stewart, I had the privilege to chair the All-Party parliamentary Group against Trophy Hunting, and I'd like to applaud the work that has been done. Continues to be done by Eduardo Goncalves and his campaign. He has been absolutely stalwart in this cause and he deserves our thanks. During 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 Croydon.
The other was a Labour Bill very similar, brought by John Spellar, then a member of the Commons. Now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both of those bills went through virtually unopposed. And they were killed off by the Neanderthal tendency in the upper House. So with great respect to my friend the honourable gentleman, I think the idea that if the government can't find the time to do this, then he'll pick up the bill, which I would support, by the way, of course, is a forlorn cause. This has to be government legislation. There is a bill, I understand, that has been prepared already by Defra.
Point has been made. It features in the Labour Party manifesto and there is, so far as I can see, absolutely no reason whatsoever why this measure should not and ought not to be brought swiftly onto the statute book. It can be done. It must be done. The time is right. It is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we most certainly can and do have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.
It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and that it contributes to the economy of the continent of Africa. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was the president of Botswana, he banned trophy hunting and he promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved, and the populations grew, and it was win win. His successor. Wined and dined and very probably bribed by Safari. Club International, overturned the ban. Tourism fell, wildlife suffered , and the economy suffered as well. That, I think, is a classic example that kicks at the bottom out of the argument that this has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash.
It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and very corrupt people in Africa do benefit very considerably from mainly the United States tourist trade in trophy hunting. There is a myth that somehow also this involves some kind of macho courage. Men and occasionally women go and slaughter wild endangered species. Mr. Stewart, what is the courageous. About slaughtering an animal that is effectively tame, been bred in captivity, fed in captivity, is caged within a very small area and then murdered. So that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcass. And then have the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall.
There is a yellow streak that runs right through these people, and they are revolting. And it's time that everybody stood up and said so. In the last Parliament, Mr. Stewart, I had the privilege to chair the All-Party parliamentary Group against Trophy Hunting, and I'd like to applaud the work that has been done. Continues to be done by Eduardo Goncalves and his campaign. He has been absolutely stalwart in this cause and he deserves our thanks. During 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 Croydon.
The other was a Labour Bill very similar, brought by John Spellar, then a member of the Commons. Now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both of those bills went through virtually unopposed. And they were killed off by the Neanderthal tendency in the upper House. So with great respect to my friend the honourable gentleman, I think the idea that if the government can't find the time to do this, then he'll pick up the bill, which I would support, by the way, of course, is a forlorn cause. This has to be government legislation. There is a bill, I understand, that has been prepared already by Defra.
Point has been made. It features in the Labour Party manifesto and there is, so far as I can see, absolutely no reason whatsoever why this measure should not and ought not to be brought swiftly onto the statute book. It can be done. It must be done. The time is right. It is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we most certainly can and do have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.
10:25
10:25
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Stewart, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair today, and I congratulate the tenacity of my hon. Friend the member for Eltham and Chislehurst in pursuing this issue and the presentation he's made today. I also, in following the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and sandwich know his passion for this, but also the hours and hours he has pursued in making the case in such a formidable way as he has again today. The mammals of Africa have dropped 80% in my lifetime. Many are brought back dead to these shores, diminished to rugs and relics for the pleasure of a few people who take pleasure in presiding over the extinction of some of the world's greatest mammals.
This 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 unsuccessful, due to the other place, this sickening trade continues. Whilst other nations have brought it to an end, we should have led the way, not least in the light of the numbers of people who hunt that come from the UK. Instead, there has been a painstaking dither and delay. And I say to the minister, we have to do this in this Parliament, across Europe and across the world, laws are tighter.
Britain is one of just four countries which still allows the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from a hunt, alongside polar bears and cheetahs, lions and giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts brought into the UK under this Labour government. So I call on 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, because it has to stop. We could see extinction of some species in my lifetime if we don't. And I congratulate, for instance, the armed forces, we send our armed forces out to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves, and therefore, it seems unconscionable that we also allow the the trophies to then return to the UK.
So we need to address this. But I want government to think about going further to make it illegal to advertise safari hunting. Make it illegal for anyone to hunt on these trips. The depravity which goes with this barbaric practice should face criminal charges. Those who promote these 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 they have already got the photos destroyed, their prey and in some cases left the animals in pain and wounded. We have got to stop the shooting and the killing.
With 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, 10,000 lions since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and 2800 African elephants in 2024 alone, seeing a population decline from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today, shows how our failure to
This 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 unsuccessful, due to the other place, this sickening trade continues. Whilst other nations have brought it to an end, we should have led the way, not least in the light of the numbers of people who hunt that come from the UK. Instead, there has been a painstaking dither and delay. And I say to the minister, we have to do this in this Parliament, across Europe and across the world, laws are tighter.
Britain is one of just four countries which still allows the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from a hunt, alongside polar bears and cheetahs, lions and giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts brought into the UK under this Labour government. So I call on 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, because it has to stop. We could see extinction of some species in my lifetime if we don't. And I congratulate, for instance, the armed forces, we send our armed forces out to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves, and therefore, it seems unconscionable that we also allow the the trophies to then return to the UK.
So we need to address this. But I want government to think about going further to make it illegal to advertise safari hunting. Make it illegal for anyone to hunt on these trips. The depravity which goes with this barbaric practice should face criminal charges. Those who promote these 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 they have already got the photos destroyed, their prey and in some cases left the animals in pain and wounded. We have got to stop the shooting and the killing.
With 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, 10,000 lions since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and 2800 African elephants in 2024 alone, seeing a population decline from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today, shows how our failure to
10:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
From 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today, shows how our failure to legislate over decades has let the trophy seekers off the hook. Monkeys, gorillas, baboons which share our DNA. And now the second most hunted species. It is so shocking. And now labour ministers need to get this over the line. When I was the Shadow Secretary of State for Defra for the environment, we made a commitment then to ensure that there was an immediate ban as soon as we came into government. There's two years have passed since this Labour government.
We're halfway through this session. We have got to legislate. If the government is looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time ban the import, ban the adverts, ban hunt hunters and one more no publication of photos. If a UK resident celebrates their kill on social media or in an advert, make it a criminal offence. No carve outs, no exceptions, no need for a new King's Speech or manifesto. 86% of the public supports a ban.
We must not delay but be proud to see it through.
We're halfway through this session. We have got to legislate. If the government is looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time ban the import, ban the adverts, ban hunt hunters and one more no publication of photos. If a UK resident celebrates their kill on social media or in an advert, make it a criminal offence. No carve outs, no exceptions, no need for a new King's Speech or manifesto. 86% of the public supports a ban.
We must not delay but be proud to see it through.
10:35
10:35
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'm grateful to my honourable friend for securing this very important debate and bringing us all together today. Yesterday, I visited a drop in for assistance dogs, and there were two dogs available there for photographs and frankly, pets, which was very smart of the organisers. There were queues out of the door and they were running out of leaflets. They knew that we are a nation of animal lovers and that that is reflected in Parliament, but it is not yet reflected in our action on trophy imports.
Whatever our intent, whatever our feeling. However much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind the US, Canada, Australia and many more have been implementing trophy bans and we have not. In the last decade, almost 2000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK from endangered animals, body parts of species that we cannot afford to lose, and individual animals whose lives were so much more precious than to be ended for entertainment. There isn't public opposition to a ban. The vast majority of the people in the UK support it, and there is little political opposition.
It is supported by virtually all members of Parliament. It is so vanishingly rare to find an issue that unites us in this place to this extent, and we should value that and celebrate it and take the chance to do a good thing, the right thing, an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. There are so many issues where the the drama and the division make a lot of noise and take a lot of space. We all do it, and it's one of the ways that we make things happen. But where there's consensus, that doesn't mean there's a lack of importance or urgency or determination.
It means quite the opposite. This is an issue where people who agree on little else have come together, and that is very significant indeed. We really are a nation of animal lovers, and 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. We must make parliamentary time to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support this ban when it happens. We have the power to do it.
Let's use it soon.
Whatever our intent, whatever our feeling. However much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind the US, Canada, Australia and many more have been implementing trophy bans and we have not. In the last decade, almost 2000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK from endangered animals, body parts of species that we cannot afford to lose, and individual animals whose lives were so much more precious than to be ended for entertainment. There isn't public opposition to a ban. The vast majority of the people in the UK support it, and there is little political opposition.
It is supported by virtually all members of Parliament. It is so vanishingly rare to find an issue that unites us in this place to this extent, and we should value that and celebrate it and take the chance to do a good thing, the right thing, an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. There are so many issues where the the drama and the division make a lot of noise and take a lot of space. We all do it, and it's one of the ways that we make things happen. But where there's consensus, that doesn't mean there's a lack of importance or urgency or determination.
It means quite the opposite. This is an issue where people who agree on little else have come together, and that is very significant indeed. We really are a nation of animal lovers, and 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. We must make parliamentary time to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support this ban when it happens. We have the power to do it.
Let's use it soon.
10:41
10:41
10:42
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I want to congratulate the honourable member for Chiselhurst, because this was a very good speech he gave at the very beginning. It's a really important subject. And a few weeks ago, I was in Zambia for the first time as part of a global public health trip looking at HIV and malaria and TB control. And while we're driving between villages, we got to see some elephants and giraffes just walking along the side of the road. And it's an absolute dream come true for me.
I also want to pay tribute to the member for Herne Bay and sandwich, who's an absolute hero of mine for the years he's campaigned on animal welfare issues and also, you know, on this subject specifically for many years and very much appreciate and recognise the work that's been done on this. The public agrees that the government's consultation showed that 84% of responses supported a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK, and despite overwhelming support, successive governments have failed to act and get over the line. So when in government, the conservatives promised a ban and they held a consultation and were.
Legislation did pass through the Commons. The opposition in the Lords using deliberate delaying tactics, prevented it becoming law, and our Labour have promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto. And yet we're still waiting. There's no government bill, there's no clear timetable and no mention in the. Of trophy hunting, the animal welfare strategy. We should also be clear, Mr. Stewart, that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster and not in Washington. And we know that the Trump administration has written to the UK government urging it to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.
Mr. Stewart, I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the 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, and especially one that may well be endangered as well. Like all vets, I've had to end the lives of of animals on many occasions, more than I can remember. And we do it out of compassion. We do it to relieve suffering. And even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times you've done that.
Taking a life is never something that we take lightly. So I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, wild, healthy 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? And what sort of person, when 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.
The government has committed to a ban in its manifesto. So I'd urge the Minister please bring forward the legislation, stop any delaying and let's show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting. Thank you.
I also want to pay tribute to the member for Herne Bay and sandwich, who's an absolute hero of mine for the years he's campaigned on animal welfare issues and also, you know, on this subject specifically for many years and very much appreciate and recognise the work that's been done on this. The public agrees that the government's consultation showed that 84% of responses supported a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK, and despite overwhelming support, successive governments have failed to act and get over the line. So when in government, the conservatives promised a ban and they held a consultation and were.
Legislation did pass through the Commons. The opposition in the Lords using deliberate delaying tactics, prevented it becoming law, and our Labour have promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto. And yet we're still waiting. There's no government bill, there's no clear timetable and no mention in the. Of trophy hunting, the animal welfare strategy. We should also be clear, Mr. Stewart, that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster and not in Washington. And we know that the Trump administration has written to the UK government urging it to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.
Mr. Stewart, I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the 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, and especially one that may well be endangered as well. Like all vets, I've had to end the lives of of animals on many occasions, more than I can remember. And we do it out of compassion. We do it to relieve suffering. And even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times you've done that.
Taking a life is never something that we take lightly. So I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, wild, healthy 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? And what sort of person, when 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.
The government has committed to a ban in its manifesto. So I'd urge the Minister please bring forward the legislation, stop any delaying and let's show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting. Thank you.
10:50
10:50
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Can I first of all, congratulate the honourable member for Eltham and Chislehurst for securing this important debate and really setting out the importance of this issue. I declare a strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and as a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I want to start by thanking the many organisations who 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 very pleased to be here today as the shadow Defence Minister, speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies. Now, we've heard many powerful contributions today from across the House. The member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East introduced us to the story of Cecil. I will be talking more about Cecil. My honourable friend, the member for Ayrshire and Arran, who I know is a wonderful, proud advocate for animal welfare in this House. I'm really consider as a close colleague and friend, and she is on the all party group for animal welfare.
And in fact, today we've got three officers of that Appg that I chair, the honourable friend for Strangford. He talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted. The honourable member for Newport West and Insulin talked about the importance of the work that she did when she was in the Shadow Defra team. My right hon. Friend the member for Herne Bay and sandwich, and as my veterinary colleague and friend has said, I pay tribute to him in terms of his advocacy for animal welfare. From our side of the benches, I know he worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess as well, and I pay tribute to, to to him.
But he talked about the passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, and I will touch on that soon. The member for York Central talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered, and mentioning the importance of how our UK armed forces are actually working to help with the conservation efforts. And then finally, I think I don't think I've missed anyone. The member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley spoke with huge passion about how we are very much. And it sounds like a cliche, but it is. It's so true. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is an issue that unites us across the house, so I thank her for saying that.
Last year, we marked ten years since the tragic killing of Cecil the Lion, a horrific event which caught the world's attention and ignited global outrage, and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies into the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Cecil's story, sadly, was not unique, and every year trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice, which should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should only be shot with cameras, not with lethal weapons.
Now, since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported into the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcasses, 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. Now, here 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 this regard. I am proud of the work the conservatives achieved on this in government, in advancing animal welfare standards and strengthening protections for animals both at home and abroad.
This included the banning of the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter with the Animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act 2024, something I hope will survive the EU reset next week. It included the banning of keeping primates as pets, passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021 and enshrining animal sentience into UK law with the Animal Welfare Sentience Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee such 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 also extremely proud to co-sponsor with my veterinary colleague and friend The Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets Act 2025, a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing, and unethical Pet importation practices such as the importation of underage puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and cats and dogs that have been horrifically ear cropped, and cats that have been barbarically declawed procedures that are senseless and have no clinical indication whatsoever. And then we had the Dogs Protection of Livestock Amendment Act 2025.
LED by my hon. Friend the member for Chester South and Eddisbury and Shadow Nature Minister, which strengthens penalties and expands police powers to tackle livestock worrying. Now, Mr. Stewart, back in 2018, the conservative government also passed one of the world's strongest ivory bands, providing vital protection to elephants at risks. As a shadow minister, I was proud to be able to speak on behalf of His Majesty's most loyal opposition in support of the expansion of that Ivory Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and the hippopotamus. As I stated at the time, animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity.
Across the House. And again, the United Kingdom can use its global soft power on this and also put pressure on countries that still horrifically continue to kill animals like whales and dolphins. We must tell these countries that they must 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 and halting further damage, restoring what has been lost. And I believe 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 import and export of hunting trophies.
The consultation received over 44,000 responses, and 84% of respondents were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response to the consultation, the previous 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, and also six years since the IIBES global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. And yet to this day.
As I have said, trophy hunting continues with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the number of trophies imported. I was very disappointed in the last Parliament when the conservative led bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed through Parliament after it had unanimously passed 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. We now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation, and I am sure we all feel, as we've heard today, this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.
I pay tribute to my conservative colleague, my hon. Friend the member for Exmouth and Exeter East, who brought the Hunting Trophies Import prohibition Bill back to the House in the 2024 to 26 parliamentary session that again was supported cross-party. But like Groundhog Day with this issue, we are in the situation where we await legislation to come forward. The last conservative government started the process. The baton has now been passed to the current government, who also had it 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 we must take action now. I urge the current government to act. And I ask the Minister how and when will they do this? As parliamentarians and as animal welfare organisations and as a human race, let's do something powerful and great together for animals.
Let's get this ban over the line. Let's consign this practice to the history books.
I am very pleased to be here today as the shadow Defence Minister, speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies. Now, we've heard many powerful contributions today from across the House. The member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East introduced us to the story of Cecil. I will be talking more about Cecil. My honourable friend, the member for Ayrshire and Arran, who I know is a wonderful, proud advocate for animal welfare in this House. I'm really consider as a close colleague and friend, and she is on the all party group for animal welfare.
And in fact, today we've got three officers of that Appg that I chair, the honourable friend for Strangford. He talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted. The honourable member for Newport West and Insulin talked about the importance of the work that she did when she was in the Shadow Defra team. My right hon. Friend the member for Herne Bay and sandwich, and as my veterinary colleague and friend has said, I pay tribute to him in terms of his advocacy for animal welfare. From our side of the benches, I know he worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess as well, and I pay tribute to, to to him.
But he talked about the passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, and I will touch on that soon. The member for York Central talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered, and mentioning the importance of how our UK armed forces are actually working to help with the conservation efforts. And then finally, I think I don't think I've missed anyone. The member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley spoke with huge passion about how we are very much. And it sounds like a cliche, but it is. It's so true. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is an issue that unites us across the house, so I thank her for saying that.
Last year, we marked ten years since the tragic killing of Cecil the Lion, a horrific event which caught the world's attention and ignited global outrage, and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies into the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Cecil's story, sadly, was not unique, and every year trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice, which should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should only be shot with cameras, not with lethal weapons.
Now, since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported into the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcasses, 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. Now, here 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 this regard. I am proud of the work the conservatives achieved on this in government, in advancing animal welfare standards and strengthening protections for animals both at home and abroad.
This included the banning of the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter with the Animal Welfare Livestock Exports Act 2024, something I hope will survive the EU reset next week. It included the banning of keeping primates as pets, passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024, increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years with the Animal Welfare Sentencing Act 2021 and enshrining animal sentience into UK law with the Animal Welfare Sentience Act 2022, thereby establishing the very important Animal Sentience Committee such 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 also extremely proud to co-sponsor with my veterinary colleague and friend The Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets Act 2025, a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing, and unethical Pet importation practices such as the importation of underage puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and cats and dogs that have been horrifically ear cropped, and cats that have been barbarically declawed procedures that are senseless and have no clinical indication whatsoever. And then we had the Dogs Protection of Livestock Amendment Act 2025.
LED by my hon. Friend the member for Chester South and Eddisbury and Shadow Nature Minister, which strengthens penalties and expands police powers to tackle livestock worrying. Now, Mr. Stewart, back in 2018, the conservative government also passed one of the world's strongest ivory bands, providing vital protection to elephants at risks. As a shadow minister, I was proud to be able to speak on behalf of His Majesty's most loyal opposition in support of the expansion of that Ivory Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and the hippopotamus. As I stated at the time, animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity.
Across the House. And again, the United Kingdom can use its global soft power on this and also put pressure on countries that still horrifically continue to kill animals like whales and dolphins. We must tell these countries that they must 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 and halting further damage, restoring what has been lost. And I believe 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 import and export of hunting trophies.
The consultation received over 44,000 responses, and 84% of respondents were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response to the consultation, the previous 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, and also six years since the IIBES global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. And yet to this day.
As I have said, trophy hunting continues with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the number of trophies imported. I was very disappointed in the last Parliament when the conservative led bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed through Parliament after it had unanimously passed 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. We now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation, and I am sure we all feel, as we've heard today, this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.
I pay tribute to my conservative colleague, my hon. Friend the member for Exmouth and Exeter East, who brought the Hunting Trophies Import prohibition Bill back to the House in the 2024 to 26 parliamentary session that again was supported cross-party. But like Groundhog Day with this issue, we are in the situation where we await legislation to come forward. The last conservative government started the process. The baton has now been passed to the current government, who also had it 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 we must take action now. I urge the current government to act. And I ask the Minister how and when will they do this? As parliamentarians and as animal welfare organisations and as a human race, let's do something powerful and great together for animals.
Let's get this ban over the line. Let's consign this practice to the history books.
11:12
11:12
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It is an honour to respond to this debate. Under your chairmanship, can I start by thanking the honourable member for Eltham and Chislehurst for securing today's very important debate? I'd also like to thank all the other honourable members for their thoughtful contributions. We usually to having a debate with different views and different sides, but I can hear overwhelmingly the consensus in the room today. This is an issue that understandably generates strongly held views both within Parliament and beyond. Beyond. And it raises important questions about the role the United Kingdom should play in helping protect biodiversity around the world.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to restate the government's position clearly today, which, as the honourable member for Eltham and Chislehurst rightly acknowledges, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitments in 2024. This government has made a clear commitment to ban the import 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 through our chairing of the Standing Committee to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora cites.
It's our leadership and engagement at the convention for biological, 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, 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 underpin, not undermine, undermine the conservation of threatened species. I will.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to restate the government's position clearly today, which, as the honourable member for Eltham and Chislehurst rightly acknowledges, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitments in 2024. This government has made a clear commitment to ban the import 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 through our chairing of the Standing Committee to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora cites.
It's our leadership and engagement at the convention for biological, 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, 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 underpin, not undermine, undermine the conservation of threatened species. I will.
11:15
11:16
11:16
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I acknowledge that, if I may, I will come on to that in a moment because I appreciate that there are. I think that was the key and overwhelming theme of today's debate. I do have ten minutes to talk, and I feel like there's some other points I want to make. But she raises a really critical point that I do acknowledge was that the main focus for today's debate and our commitment to ensuring that the UK plays its part in reducing pressures on species of conservation concern and supporting wider global efforts to protect biodiversity. Biodiversity remains a core commitment.
I know that members and campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this is the issue that's being debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest. That strength of feeling is recognised by this government. Our commitment has not changed and we will deliver a ban when Parliament time allows, and we are working to ensure that we are in a strong position. I will not because I'm just addressing the point of timing. So that's okay, but I'll come back to you if you would like to intervene in a moment.
We are in a strong position to move forward when that opportunity arises. Now , to the to the point that's been raised already. The member for Eltham and Chislehurst. Aberdeenshire North Moray East, Strangford, Newport West, Herne Bay and Sandwich, Hamilton, Clyde Valley all raised the very valid questions about the timings and when we will introduce that now. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling and our aim is clear it's to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament, within this Parliament. We have undertaken considerable preparations. I just want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.
We have we have undertaken considerable preparation, and that was asked specifically by a number of members, including the member leading the debate. Have we. How have we progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and. We are ready to move quickly when parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures member. Let me continue for one more moment, if I may. 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, is enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.
I will give way.
I know that members and campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this is the issue that's being debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest. That strength of feeling is recognised by this government. Our commitment has not changed and we will deliver a ban when Parliament time allows, and we are working to ensure that we are in a strong position. I will not because I'm just addressing the point of timing. So that's okay, but I'll come back to you if you would like to intervene in a moment.
We are in a strong position to move forward when that opportunity arises. Now , to the to the point that's been raised already. The member for Eltham and Chislehurst. Aberdeenshire North Moray East, Strangford, Newport West, Herne Bay and Sandwich, Hamilton, Clyde Valley all raised the very valid questions about the timings and when we will introduce that now. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling and our aim is clear it's to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament, within this Parliament. We have undertaken considerable preparations. I just want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.
We have we have undertaken considerable preparation, and that was asked specifically by a number of members, including the member leading the debate. Have we. How have we progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and. We are ready to move quickly when parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures member. Let me continue for one more moment, if I may. 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, is enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.
I will give way.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I understand the process only too well. But but to encourage the minister and encourage government, because that's what we all want to do. We want to ensure that the government gets the win win out of this. 86% of the people of this nation want it to happen. That's got to be a win win for the minister. It's got to be a win win for government. It's got to be a win win for us all.
11:21
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Mr. member, for his contribution now and his speech and contributions earlier. I hope I have made it clear it was a core formed a part of our manifesto commitment. We remain committed to it. I understand and recognize the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation. When parliamentary time is, I will.
11:22
11:22
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The Minister, for giving way. There have been calls from across cross-party very clearly today and leading up to today, if the minister isn't able to give us a timetable here and now, will she commit to updating us at the soonest possible opportunity when this will be progressed in Parliament and when parliamentary time will be found?
11:22
11:22
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank the honourable member for her contribution and her speech earlier. I would like to reiterate that we will be bringing forward the bringing forward the legislation when that parliamentary timetable allows, and I'm sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course. I will give way.
11:24
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Can I thank the honourable member for his intervention? That was a theme. The moratorium was a theme of a number of members contributions today, and I do understand the strength of the feeling of why members are asking for a moratorium. We don't have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we're focused on doing this properly. So the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation. Now, I'll make some progress. I'll make some progress, if I may, but thank you. I do recognise that it's not always as straightforward an issue, and that is why we want to continue to engage with stakeholders, representing different perspectives, and consider the evidence carefully as we develop the robust policy.
That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence and to ensure that the policy, when it comes as robust, defensible and deliverable.
That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence and to ensure that the policy, when it comes as robust, defensible and deliverable.
11:26
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I thank the Minister for giving way, and with all due respect, my hon. Friend in front said it. We've had the debates, we've had the arguments. We know what the stakeholders say. We know what they believe. We know we need action. And my fear is that the planned legislation will come in too late. It's no good bringing it in at the fag end of this Parliament. We won't get it enacted and that will be a tragedy for us and the animals.
11:27
11:27
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Look, I'm in this room and I and I hear the issues and the sentiment loud and clear. And that's true in this room and in the public. Forming the right robust legislative process is different to just having a debate. We have to get the legislation right, robust and defensible. That is a piece of work that's ongoing now and requires engagement, requires evidence, and we have committed to delivering that when parliamentary session allows, when the parliamentary timetable allows. So I hope that provides reassurance that works ongoing to build the most robust and defensible legislative piece of work that can come forward through it now.
May I continue? I need to make progress, if I may. Apologies . My honourable friend and colleague, Baroness Hayman, has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including discussions with representatives from southern African countries, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others, where concerns have been raised about the potential implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, Baroness Hayman has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and
May I continue? I need to make progress, if I may. Apologies . My honourable friend and colleague, Baroness Hayman, has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including discussions with representatives from southern African countries, Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others, where concerns have been raised about the potential implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, Baroness Hayman has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and
11:30
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
He 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 .
11:30
11:31
11:31
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable member for her contribution. I think I've made clear the point on the moratorium. We need primary legislation in order to make sure that we that we that we bring a ban that is defensible and robust. I am happy to meet with the honourable member to discuss the specific point that she raises in further detail, but I would like to say that we are. We are committed, as I have been clear, hopefully in my position here today. We are clear to commit standing by our manifesto commitments. We are. We are committed to bringing forward the trophy ban hunting when parliamentary time allows within this Parliament, and I hope that's clear.
I am happy to meet with colleagues to discuss this in further detail.
I am happy to meet with colleagues to discuss this in further detail.
11:32
11:32
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
This really isn't good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this chamber. All of this work has already been done twice. The bill has been approved. Her department has a drafted bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the government to introduce this legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.
11:33
11:33
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Can I thank the honourable member for his contribution? I hope I've been clear. We are committed to delivering this. We we we have committed to making sure we're bringing forward the most robust piece of legislation that defensible, defensible and workable. And it will happen when parliamentary timetables allow within this Parliament. Now, let me conclude, Mr. Stewart, 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, in a way that is enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation.
I would once again like to thank my honourable friend for bringing this important issue before the House, and for all honourable members who have contributed to today's debate.
I would once again like to thank my honourable friend for bringing this important issue before the House, and for all honourable members who have contributed to today's debate.
11:35
11:35
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Mr. Stewart. I'm grateful to the Minister for her responses, but quite frankly, it really isn't good enough. And my big question is who is the government afraid of? It's such a tiny minority of people that are affected by this ban on, on on imports of hunting trophies that the government has overwhelming power behind it, that it could defend its position. And this idea that robust legislation. What is so sensitive about this legislation that unlike any other bit of legislation, and are we expecting the government to bring forward a perfect bill, which won't be amended in any way?
Because I've seen bills over my years in this House that have had hundreds and hundreds of government amendments to that legislation when they brought it before this House. So I'm wondering what it is. What is this debate that's taking place within Defra that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? And it concerns me greatly, because this is an issue that has been debated widely over a great many years. There isn't much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. So this is now a time when the government has to act and it has to, to, to , to move forwards.
I'd like to explain my couple of minutes that I've got to express my gratitude to all the honourable members who have spoken this morning. We've got to keep the pressure on. And to all the campaigning groups, some that I've mentioned, but the ban trophy hunting, who supported me in preparing for today's debate. But the government has got to listen. This is not just an issue about the animals themselves. Now it's becoming more and more apparent that this is a human rights issue as well. And so the time has come for the government to stand by those people, stand up for those animals that are being slaughtered, and take this legislation forward.
Because I've seen bills over my years in this House that have had hundreds and hundreds of government amendments to that legislation when they brought it before this House. So I'm wondering what it is. What is this debate that's taking place within Defra that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? And it concerns me greatly, because this is an issue that has been debated widely over a great many years. There isn't much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. So this is now a time when the government has to act and it has to, to, to , to move forwards.
I'd like to explain my couple of minutes that I've got to express my gratitude to all the honourable members who have spoken this morning. We've got to keep the pressure on. And to all the campaigning groups, some that I've mentioned, but the ban trophy hunting, who supported me in preparing for today's debate. But the government has got to listen. This is not just an issue about the animals themselves. Now it's becoming more and more apparent that this is a human rights issue as well. And so the time has come for the government to stand by those people, stand up for those animals that are being slaughtered, and take this legislation forward.
11:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that this House has considered hunting trophy imports, as many as are of that opinion, say I, of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The. We will reconvene at 1103 after the 11:00. Silence! Order! Order! Call Adam. Dance to move the motion. I will then call the minister to respond. I remind members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member to in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates, and we will still have to finish strictly on time at half past.
Order! Order! Adam, dance to move the motion.
Order! Order! Adam, dance to move the motion.
12:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I beg to move that this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a minister for neurodiversity. Around 20% of the population are what we would call neurodivergent. Yet there is no one person working across government departments to ensure that the needs of this 20% are considered. NeuroDivergent is an umbrella term that describes people who think, learn, process, inform and interact with the world differently from the normal, so it captures both medical and non-medical differences, including ADHD, autism or dyslexia, and so many more. As I call it myself. I'm very spicy.
And while each of these traits and learning difficulties are unique, we use this term because there is not only overlapping traits, but you share a lot of the same challenges with your health, school, and work. If you have ADHD or autism, for example, the main challenge when it comes to government for years has been unacceptable. Lack of understanding of neurodivergent policy makers just have not got it and make life harder, not better for 20% of the population. In fact, that lack of understanding is why I got involved in politics in the first place with campaigning to stop the closure of my youth club that helped save my life.
When I was struggling with dyslexia and ADHD and also severe bullying, it's just made no sense to me that the government and then the conservative run Somerset County Council could not understand the damage they were doing by cutting funding to youth service by 100% in Somerset, particularly for neurodiverse people. But even after we saved my youth club, that feeling that decisions make us just did not understand has followed me through politics. It is what drove me to stand for election and being misplaced today, because for far too long it has felt like the world has just been set up by someone else, a neurodiverse.
People are are an afterthought. Of course. I'll give way to my honourable friend.
And while each of these traits and learning difficulties are unique, we use this term because there is not only overlapping traits, but you share a lot of the same challenges with your health, school, and work. If you have ADHD or autism, for example, the main challenge when it comes to government for years has been unacceptable. Lack of understanding of neurodivergent policy makers just have not got it and make life harder, not better for 20% of the population. In fact, that lack of understanding is why I got involved in politics in the first place with campaigning to stop the closure of my youth club that helped save my life.
When I was struggling with dyslexia and ADHD and also severe bullying, it's just made no sense to me that the government and then the conservative run Somerset County Council could not understand the damage they were doing by cutting funding to youth service by 100% in Somerset, particularly for neurodiverse people. But even after we saved my youth club, that feeling that decisions make us just did not understand has followed me through politics. It is what drove me to stand for election and being misplaced today, because for far too long it has felt like the world has just been set up by someone else, a neurodiverse.
People are are an afterthought. Of course. I'll give way to my honourable friend.
12:13
12:13
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr. chairman, can I commend the honourable gentleman for all that he does and how he has been able to overcome the difficulties in the past and what he does? But does many neurodivergent people report being understood by those around them, leaving them feeling isolated and without adequate support? A dedicated minister for neurodiversity could help drive a more targeted approach. So does the honourable member agree that appointing a dedicated minister would therefore help prevent neurodivergent people from being from falling through the cracks and ensure that they receive the understanding that they very much deserve and would help them in their lives.
12:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I completely agree with my honourable friend, and I thank you for bringing that up. I will come on to lots of those points later on. Thank you very much. Honestly, I was really hopeful coming into this Parliament with a new group of MPs and a new government. I thought we would get things done cross-party, and there are some fantastic MPs and ministers who really do get it, but there are still far too many in power that just are clueless as the Tories were when they tried to shut my youth club. I've been in meetings where ministers have suggested ADHD is just a mental health illness, and that is not the case.
All meetings and debates where MPs and others have leant into toxic narratives about ADHD or autism being a myth. And while we seem like lots of insignificant things, when you put them together, you get a culture that makes policy that is just not bad, but damaging for neurodiverse people. In fact, in many ways, I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. But damaging for neurodiverse people. In fact, in many ways, I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. Underinvestment in diagnosis and support pathways in the NHS, meaning we have got a two year minimum wait for ADHD and autism assessments if you're lucky, and way too many missing out on actual support or .
While we have a whole generation that have gone without any identification or support at all. Research by the charity The Hidden suggests that between 250,000 and 600,000 autistic adults over the age of 50 in England have never been diagnosed. The education system is not set up to support neurodiverse people. Years of underinvestment in local councils who are for some reason responsible for Send support, has seen a crisis in Somerset. That means that over 85% of children wait 20 to 52 weeks to get their GP implemented if they're lucky. So many more are going without support at all.
Meanwhile, vocational, technical and creative pathways have been shut down and there is too much focus on exams for dyslexic spelling, punctuation, grammar marks and non-English exams. Just punish you for having a learning difficulty. What a lack of investment in training and support for teachers. See them struggling to support pupils or just are not understand them altogether. Arm length bodies are just as bad to recently removed training material from Ofsted or prevent suggests you were more likely to be dangerous extremists just because you have autism. Because you may develop special interests, which is insane. My assistant's younger sister is autistic.
Her special interest is frogs. How does that make her more likely to be a terrorist? But it is guidance like that, which sees people with autism more likely to get these types of referrals, rather than addressing the factors that are actually leading to radicalisation. But it is not just health care or schools. The failure spreads to the workplace. You are 80% more likely to be not in employment, education or training if you have sinned. There is still too little understanding how to adjust and make the most of neurodiverse people's skills. Sadly, what all this means is that you are far more likely to end up in prison or taking your own life if you are on a diversion.
Without the support I had, that would have been me. And what is the most frustrating of all is that none of the work across government to solve this is joined up well enough. You do not stop struggling with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or any other neurotype difference when you leave school. Believe me, being neurodivergent means your experience are education, health, justice, work and pension and government systems differently for your whole life. And that is why we have so many campaigners out there fighting for support for neurodivergent people. Because after years of terrible policy, too many people feel like I did as a young person, that decision makers just do not get it and cannot be trusted.
Government is supposed to serve all its people, and yet we are failing to provide representation for 20% of the population. Think about it like this , Mr. Stewart. If I honoured the needs of 20% of my customers when I own my own landscaping company and made up their gardens with plants that they were allergic to or made it impossible for them to get around their gardens, I'd rightly be out of business. While the government will probably not go out of business. Well, I hope not. Well, at least as long as Liz Truss is not allowed anywhere near the government again, its failures to properly represent the needs of 20% of the people it was elected to represent is more than just policy failures.
It's dangerous, damaging our democracy. So what we need in government is someone whose job it is to listen, to understand and to represent the needs of neurodiverse people. It is not about special treatment, but making sure politics big and small, national and local, do not do what they so often unfairly impact neurodivergent lives. That is why considering appointing a neurodiversity minister could not, could, could not come at a better time, given all the big challenges in government. Our health service is being. Restructure. Our local integrated care boards are being merged. Why cut in their budget?
Our education system is undergoing generational change. The Milburn and Timberview are going to see an overhaul of work and benefit support. Local government are being totally restructured, and our justice and prison system is undergoing serious overhaul as it faces collapse. Yet despite the fact that these are the systems that educate, diagnose, support and rehabilitate neurodivergent people, no one in government is currently responsible for neurodivergent people through this transition, and we all know what institutions, politics and government are like. If there is not someone with authority in the room making the case to consider the needs of neurodivergent people, they will get drowned out and forgotten and that cannot be allowed to happen any more.
And ultimately, that is why we need a minister for neurodiversity in the cabinet officer. Now a minister for neurodiversity is obviously no silver bullet. No one policy solution is going to fix this. But what we do need is one officer holding responsibility for making sure we join up all the different solutions, someone who's working across government and is able to go in and hold government departments, bodies and local authorities to account, but also someone who can coordinate and help government bodies get it right. Because the whole point is not that there is some evil group of neurodiverse and hating elite that we need to get rid of.
Well, I hope not. That would be way too easy. There are so many fantastic people across government of all levels who do want to do the right thing by neurodivergent people. But right now, our institutional culture across government just does not give policy makers the space or the tools to consider neurodivergent people properly. I will give way.
All meetings and debates where MPs and others have leant into toxic narratives about ADHD or autism being a myth. And while we seem like lots of insignificant things, when you put them together, you get a culture that makes policy that is just not bad, but damaging for neurodiverse people. In fact, in many ways, I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. But damaging for neurodiverse people. In fact, in many ways, I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. Underinvestment in diagnosis and support pathways in the NHS, meaning we have got a two year minimum wait for ADHD and autism assessments if you're lucky, and way too many missing out on actual support or .
While we have a whole generation that have gone without any identification or support at all. Research by the charity The Hidden suggests that between 250,000 and 600,000 autistic adults over the age of 50 in England have never been diagnosed. The education system is not set up to support neurodiverse people. Years of underinvestment in local councils who are for some reason responsible for Send support, has seen a crisis in Somerset. That means that over 85% of children wait 20 to 52 weeks to get their GP implemented if they're lucky. So many more are going without support at all.
Meanwhile, vocational, technical and creative pathways have been shut down and there is too much focus on exams for dyslexic spelling, punctuation, grammar marks and non-English exams. Just punish you for having a learning difficulty. What a lack of investment in training and support for teachers. See them struggling to support pupils or just are not understand them altogether. Arm length bodies are just as bad to recently removed training material from Ofsted or prevent suggests you were more likely to be dangerous extremists just because you have autism. Because you may develop special interests, which is insane. My assistant's younger sister is autistic.
Her special interest is frogs. How does that make her more likely to be a terrorist? But it is guidance like that, which sees people with autism more likely to get these types of referrals, rather than addressing the factors that are actually leading to radicalisation. But it is not just health care or schools. The failure spreads to the workplace. You are 80% more likely to be not in employment, education or training if you have sinned. There is still too little understanding how to adjust and make the most of neurodiverse people's skills. Sadly, what all this means is that you are far more likely to end up in prison or taking your own life if you are on a diversion.
Without the support I had, that would have been me. And what is the most frustrating of all is that none of the work across government to solve this is joined up well enough. You do not stop struggling with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or any other neurotype difference when you leave school. Believe me, being neurodivergent means your experience are education, health, justice, work and pension and government systems differently for your whole life. And that is why we have so many campaigners out there fighting for support for neurodivergent people. Because after years of terrible policy, too many people feel like I did as a young person, that decision makers just do not get it and cannot be trusted.
Government is supposed to serve all its people, and yet we are failing to provide representation for 20% of the population. Think about it like this , Mr. Stewart. If I honoured the needs of 20% of my customers when I own my own landscaping company and made up their gardens with plants that they were allergic to or made it impossible for them to get around their gardens, I'd rightly be out of business. While the government will probably not go out of business. Well, I hope not. Well, at least as long as Liz Truss is not allowed anywhere near the government again, its failures to properly represent the needs of 20% of the people it was elected to represent is more than just policy failures.
It's dangerous, damaging our democracy. So what we need in government is someone whose job it is to listen, to understand and to represent the needs of neurodiverse people. It is not about special treatment, but making sure politics big and small, national and local, do not do what they so often unfairly impact neurodivergent lives. That is why considering appointing a neurodiversity minister could not, could, could not come at a better time, given all the big challenges in government. Our health service is being. Restructure. Our local integrated care boards are being merged. Why cut in their budget?
Our education system is undergoing generational change. The Milburn and Timberview are going to see an overhaul of work and benefit support. Local government are being totally restructured, and our justice and prison system is undergoing serious overhaul as it faces collapse. Yet despite the fact that these are the systems that educate, diagnose, support and rehabilitate neurodivergent people, no one in government is currently responsible for neurodivergent people through this transition, and we all know what institutions, politics and government are like. If there is not someone with authority in the room making the case to consider the needs of neurodivergent people, they will get drowned out and forgotten and that cannot be allowed to happen any more.
And ultimately, that is why we need a minister for neurodiversity in the cabinet officer. Now a minister for neurodiversity is obviously no silver bullet. No one policy solution is going to fix this. But what we do need is one officer holding responsibility for making sure we join up all the different solutions, someone who's working across government and is able to go in and hold government departments, bodies and local authorities to account, but also someone who can coordinate and help government bodies get it right. Because the whole point is not that there is some evil group of neurodiverse and hating elite that we need to get rid of.
Well, I hope not. That would be way too easy. There are so many fantastic people across government of all levels who do want to do the right thing by neurodivergent people. But right now, our institutional culture across government just does not give policy makers the space or the tools to consider neurodivergent people properly. I will give way.
12:13
12:13
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I congratulate the honourable member for securing this really important debate, and I recognise that our society and government indeed is set up in a neuro typical way, as opposed to looking at divergence, and also congratulate the government on all the work it's doing around young people. But we know that we need to look at a life course around that. So I will support his call to ensure that we have got that cross-cutting mainstreaming of focus on Neurodivergence, but also ensure that we embed that into the policies and the structures of our society.
12:13
12:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the honourable member for giving for doing an intervention, and I totally agree with you. And it's really good to have cross party. Sorry. It's really good. The honourable member for us to have cross party support. And so, just as the Prime Minister has argued that we need mayors as a force to drive change in local authorities areas, we need one person in government to drive positive change on neurodiversity policy, too. So you're probably thinking, Adam, that is all great, but how are you actually going to do it? Well, to put it simple, I'm asking the government to do three things.
One, make way for a new minister by restructuring current posts or by amending the ministers of the Crown Act to span the number of ministers we can have. Two give the Minister funded statutory powers by presenting Parliament with a cross-departmental strategy for neurodiversity that the new minister would be responsible for implementing, because this does not work if the Minister does not have teeth free. Appoint a Minister of neurodiversity, which is probably the most difficult and political part of the whole process. Now, that is obviously easier said than done, I know, but like with most things, the answer is there.
It just requires political willpower. Look at the new AI cabinet minister post. We see this time and time again with government. We are told, oh, that's too complicated or oh, that, that wouldn't be practical. Then the public kicks up a fuss and suddenly it is not too difficult to do, but could actually be done rather quickly. And let's not forget 20% of the public. Obviously, though, the minister today cannot snap their fingers and make a promise to do this. I'd love it if you could. That is just not how this works. And I get that.
Instead, I would ask the minister to commit today to starting the process by having a civil servants review across departmental policy on neurodiversity and the merits of neurodiversity. Minister, and then meet with myself and campaigners to talk through these findings with us and hear our suggestions in more detail. I know this puzzle is obviously ambitious, but it is the lack of ambition on neurodiversity policy that has got us into this mess in the first place, and it is the only with bold action that we are going to make a difference. Because I do not want to live in a country where the next generation of neurodivergent kids feel.
I did when they tried to shut my youth club that decision makers just do not get it and just do not care. Thank you for listening.
One, make way for a new minister by restructuring current posts or by amending the ministers of the Crown Act to span the number of ministers we can have. Two give the Minister funded statutory powers by presenting Parliament with a cross-departmental strategy for neurodiversity that the new minister would be responsible for implementing, because this does not work if the Minister does not have teeth free. Appoint a Minister of neurodiversity, which is probably the most difficult and political part of the whole process. Now, that is obviously easier said than done, I know, but like with most things, the answer is there.
It just requires political willpower. Look at the new AI cabinet minister post. We see this time and time again with government. We are told, oh, that's too complicated or oh, that, that wouldn't be practical. Then the public kicks up a fuss and suddenly it is not too difficult to do, but could actually be done rather quickly. And let's not forget 20% of the public. Obviously, though, the minister today cannot snap their fingers and make a promise to do this. I'd love it if you could. That is just not how this works. And I get that.
Instead, I would ask the minister to commit today to starting the process by having a civil servants review across departmental policy on neurodiversity and the merits of neurodiversity. Minister, and then meet with myself and campaigners to talk through these findings with us and hear our suggestions in more detail. I know this puzzle is obviously ambitious, but it is the lack of ambition on neurodiversity policy that has got us into this mess in the first place, and it is the only with bold action that we are going to make a difference. Because I do not want to live in a country where the next generation of neurodivergent kids feel.
I did when they tried to shut my youth club that decision makers just do not get it and just do not care. Thank you for listening.
12:13
12:13
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'm grateful to the honourable, honourable member for Yeovil for securing this important debate and to all other members for their contributions as well. And I know the honourable member speaks very truly from his own heart and his own experience about these issues, and I want to ensure him that I've taken his contribution very seriously, but also that I'll make sure that the points he has raised are heard across government, particularly the Department for education, Health and Social Care and DWP as well. And I think it's so important we have people like the honourable member in this Parliament, in this place, making sure that voices and experience that he's had are heard not just here but across the country as well.
So I want to thank him for that. And.
So I want to thank him for that. And.
12:13
12:13
12:13
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you. I agree with the honourable member. He is a role model for many thousands, if not millions of people out there who would often think that certain their neurodiversity might hold them back from an office like this. But he is showing that it absolutely does not. And actually, you can use your role in Parliament to make sure that these issues are brought to the forefront of government, to the media and other things as well. So I congratulate him on doing that today and more widely during the time that he's been in this place as well.
And supporting people who are neurodiverse is of critical importance to the government. And he is right to say we don't have a minister solely responsible for neurodiversity. He will know that ministerial portfolios and the machinery of government, more generally, are the responsibility in a matter that are exclusively for the Prime Minister himself. But I do want to assure him that this is a core focus of government policy across departments. And actually, I would expect, and I'm sure ministers and people more widely would expect, that neurodiversity and the issues that affect neurodiverse people need to be weaved in and out of all government policy across all departments, regardless of whether or not there is a minister.
And we should expect that and hold the government and ourselves accountable to ensure that that is happening. The particular issues are overseen. That is, some of the issues he's raised today are overseen by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Education and Work and Pensions, and all of these ministers and their departments work closely together, and the government continues to work on the needs for people who are neurodiverse, and the independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions. ADHD and autism recognise that ADHD and autism referrals and waiting lists for diagnosis have risen dramatically, and we want to ensure that people of all ages get the right support and, crucially, that support at the right time without having to wait for a diagnosis before they can get access to help.
The government recognises that waits for ADHD and autism assessment remain too long and have a huge impact on individuals and their families, and we will all know that from our constituency inboxes. Oh yeah.
And supporting people who are neurodiverse is of critical importance to the government. And he is right to say we don't have a minister solely responsible for neurodiversity. He will know that ministerial portfolios and the machinery of government, more generally, are the responsibility in a matter that are exclusively for the Prime Minister himself. But I do want to assure him that this is a core focus of government policy across departments. And actually, I would expect, and I'm sure ministers and people more widely would expect, that neurodiversity and the issues that affect neurodiverse people need to be weaved in and out of all government policy across all departments, regardless of whether or not there is a minister.
And we should expect that and hold the government and ourselves accountable to ensure that that is happening. The particular issues are overseen. That is, some of the issues he's raised today are overseen by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Education and Work and Pensions, and all of these ministers and their departments work closely together, and the government continues to work on the needs for people who are neurodiverse, and the independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions. ADHD and autism recognise that ADHD and autism referrals and waiting lists for diagnosis have risen dramatically, and we want to ensure that people of all ages get the right support and, crucially, that support at the right time without having to wait for a diagnosis before they can get access to help.
The government recognises that waits for ADHD and autism assessment remain too long and have a huge impact on individuals and their families, and we will all know that from our constituency inboxes. Oh yeah.
12:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The Minister for giving way, one of one of my projects last year was a ten minute rule bill for universal screening, which I've been working and talking to ministers about. So that would screen everyone at primary school to pick up their neurodivergent. Do you think it's something we can read? Sorry, does the minister think it's something that we can reopen that discussion about?
12:13
12:13
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank him for that. I suspect that is something that I probably can't decide here at the despatch box, but I will take it back to the relevant departments and see if it's something I suspect that'll be. Department for education, and ask that they have another look at your ten minute rule bill, his ten minute rule bill. Oh, so support is too often organized around diagnosis rather than people's needs and circumstances, and people seeking help increasingly present with overlapping needs that don't simply fit into a single diagnosis. And better understanding of that is important. As set out in the government press release following the independent review into the prevalence of this support, we're moving to a more needs led model, providing earlier access to information support and appropriate intervention based on individual needs and circumstances without and before the diagnosis, whilst also improving timely access to high quality diagnostic assessment when required.
Moving on. More now to the reform element which the honourable member touched on. We remain very committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life, with accessible and local support in their community, and ending that need more broadly for families needing to fight for help. Since consulting on our reforms, we have worked with partners across education, health and local government to build on the foundations for long term improvement. Funding, allocations and guidance have been previously announced. Include £4 billion of investment to enhance inclusive provision across early years, schools, colleges and local authorities.
Alongside this, there's another £3.7 billion in capital funding between 25 and 30, which will create 60,000 new specialist places. And through local reform plans, we are ensuring every area delivers targeted local support and will publish the consultation response in due course, and will be introducing legislation on that at the earliest. Opportunity. Announced that the King's Speech. We had the education for all bill. This will be introduced in this parliamentary session to make mainstream education more inclusive and ensure that all children are getting the right support early on. The bill will help children and young people, and it's backed by over £200 million for send and inclusion training.
There's new requirements in the Send code of practice and will also ensure that settings that train all staff in Send and inclusion more widely as well. Oh yes, dance.
Moving on. More now to the reform element which the honourable member touched on. We remain very committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life, with accessible and local support in their community, and ending that need more broadly for families needing to fight for help. Since consulting on our reforms, we have worked with partners across education, health and local government to build on the foundations for long term improvement. Funding, allocations and guidance have been previously announced. Include £4 billion of investment to enhance inclusive provision across early years, schools, colleges and local authorities.
Alongside this, there's another £3.7 billion in capital funding between 25 and 30, which will create 60,000 new specialist places. And through local reform plans, we are ensuring every area delivers targeted local support and will publish the consultation response in due course, and will be introducing legislation on that at the earliest. Opportunity. Announced that the King's Speech. We had the education for all bill. This will be introduced in this parliamentary session to make mainstream education more inclusive and ensure that all children are getting the right support early on. The bill will help children and young people, and it's backed by over £200 million for send and inclusion training.
There's new requirements in the Send code of practice and will also ensure that settings that train all staff in Send and inclusion more widely as well. Oh yes, dance.
12:13
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the Minister and that money is welcome. The 200 million. But if you add up how much that money would be per school, per teacher, it's very, very little. So it's a good start, but we need to go further with that. Also, while I'm on my feet, will the minister agree to arrange a meeting with me to discuss the neurodiversity minister in the Cabinet Office?
12:13
12:13
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank you for that contribution. I will ensure that someone does have a meeting with the honourable member. I'm not sure whether it's going to be directly with me. I would need to just clarify responsibility and portfolio on that, because it is technically the Prime Minister who appoints the minister for neurodiversity, but I will make sure that I come back to him on that and arrange an appropriate meeting. Announced in the King's Speech. The. Sorry, I've lost her. Employment and neurodiversity is another element that we've touched on a little bit, although I appreciate. Not wholly.
But I think this is incredibly important, particularly as we await the Milburn Review and things that we're going to be doing more broadly to support the population, good work in and good health and wellbeing for neurodivergent people is incredibly important. In 2025, the DWP launched an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity to advise us as a government on boosting awareness and inclusion in the workplace. The panel considered reasons why neurodivergent people often have poor experiences in the workplace and low overall employment rate. We welcomed the publication of the neurodiversity expert panel's report alongside the government response on the 2nd of October, and the report highlights the valuable contribution neurodivergent people make to our workforce and sets out recommendations to improve their recruitment, retention and progression in the workplace.
Because neurodivergent shouldn't hold anyone back from achieving their potential in their workplace and in their career more widely, as the honourable member has shown, and our response sets out how we're working across government with our stakeholders to increase work opportunities while continuing our work focusing on needless support and inclusive workplace design to help employers better attract and retain talent. We've also announced a new training package backed by £200 million of new funding to ensure that teachers, educators, teaching assistants and support staff and leaders across early years and school and post 16 settings, importantly, can be trained to support pupils with Send and neurodivergence to help with that employment readiness as well.
Conscious of time. So I'll now touch on the Inclusive Mainstream Fund, which forms part of the government's commitment to building a more inclusive mainstream education across the country. Over £500 million per financial year over the next three years will again equip schools and importantly, colleges and early years settings with upfront funding to help them have a more inclusive design. Building on the consultation that was done on reform, the fund addresses historical gaps in early support, helping ensure that every child and young person benefits from high quality adaptive teaching at settings can use the IMF alongside core funding allocations to strengthen inclusion for all pupils, again focusing on that needs led approach rather than a rigid set of box ticking that needs to be done.
This will allow teachers, colleges and employers really to focus on what the people they're working with need. I will now come to the independent review that was led by Peter Fonagy, and he is challenged us to think differently about supporting people with mental health and neurodivergent , neurodivergent needs. We want people of all ages to have the right support and the right time, without waiting for a diagnosis before they can access help. Through our forthcoming mental health strategy, we will set out how we will move towards earlier need led support, better integration between mental health and neurodevelopmental pathways, and we want to provide earlier access to information, support and appropriate interventions based on individual needs, whilst improving timely access to high quality diagnostic assessments when required.
Mr. chair, I would like to end my contribution to this debate by repeating the government's commitment to support people living with neurodiverse conditions, and I want to once again thank the honourable member for bringing this really important issue to this place. I know that he will continue to raise the issue, not just around having a minister for neurodiversity, but more more widely than that championing the needs of neurodiverse population have and what they need from the government to ensure that they can be successful and thrive, not just in early years in school, but in higher education and employment, and then later on in life, in social care.
And so I really want to thank him for bringing this today. I will ensure that everything he has raised in today's debate is landed with the relevant government departments, and I will take away his request for a meeting to discuss further what we can do around having better representation in government. We are committed to ensuring that the right services are available at the right time for the right people, and that our support in that will not waver.
But I think this is incredibly important, particularly as we await the Milburn Review and things that we're going to be doing more broadly to support the population, good work in and good health and wellbeing for neurodivergent people is incredibly important. In 2025, the DWP launched an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity to advise us as a government on boosting awareness and inclusion in the workplace. The panel considered reasons why neurodivergent people often have poor experiences in the workplace and low overall employment rate. We welcomed the publication of the neurodiversity expert panel's report alongside the government response on the 2nd of October, and the report highlights the valuable contribution neurodivergent people make to our workforce and sets out recommendations to improve their recruitment, retention and progression in the workplace.
Because neurodivergent shouldn't hold anyone back from achieving their potential in their workplace and in their career more widely, as the honourable member has shown, and our response sets out how we're working across government with our stakeholders to increase work opportunities while continuing our work focusing on needless support and inclusive workplace design to help employers better attract and retain talent. We've also announced a new training package backed by £200 million of new funding to ensure that teachers, educators, teaching assistants and support staff and leaders across early years and school and post 16 settings, importantly, can be trained to support pupils with Send and neurodivergence to help with that employment readiness as well.
Conscious of time. So I'll now touch on the Inclusive Mainstream Fund, which forms part of the government's commitment to building a more inclusive mainstream education across the country. Over £500 million per financial year over the next three years will again equip schools and importantly, colleges and early years settings with upfront funding to help them have a more inclusive design. Building on the consultation that was done on reform, the fund addresses historical gaps in early support, helping ensure that every child and young person benefits from high quality adaptive teaching at settings can use the IMF alongside core funding allocations to strengthen inclusion for all pupils, again focusing on that needs led approach rather than a rigid set of box ticking that needs to be done.
This will allow teachers, colleges and employers really to focus on what the people they're working with need. I will now come to the independent review that was led by Peter Fonagy, and he is challenged us to think differently about supporting people with mental health and neurodivergent , neurodivergent needs. We want people of all ages to have the right support and the right time, without waiting for a diagnosis before they can access help. Through our forthcoming mental health strategy, we will set out how we will move towards earlier need led support, better integration between mental health and neurodevelopmental pathways, and we want to provide earlier access to information, support and appropriate interventions based on individual needs, whilst improving timely access to high quality diagnostic assessments when required.
Mr. chair, I would like to end my contribution to this debate by repeating the government's commitment to support people living with neurodiverse conditions, and I want to once again thank the honourable member for bringing this really important issue to this place. I know that he will continue to raise the issue, not just around having a minister for neurodiversity, but more more widely than that championing the needs of neurodiverse population have and what they need from the government to ensure that they can be successful and thrive, not just in early years in school, but in higher education and employment, and then later on in life, in social care.
And so I really want to thank him for bringing this today. I will ensure that everything he has raised in today's debate is landed with the relevant government departments, and I will take away his request for a meeting to discuss further what we can do around having better representation in government. We are committed to ensuring that the right services are available at the right time for the right people, and that our support in that will not waver.