Hunting Trophy Imports

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can observe the silence. I call Clive Efford.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. For anyone watching this debate who is unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals, usually big game, that are murdered by huntsmen in what is the most despicable form of hunting that remains today. In the words of Sir David Attenborough, trophy hunting is

“what people did in the 19th century. One would have thought people would have got over that.”

To bring their hunting trophies—bits of mutilated animals—back to the UK, the hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still license the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies, because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto at the last election. The purpose of this debate is not to convince the Government that the importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays.

We know that those in the pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well-connected. They deploy arguments to confound Governments and defuse arguments against hunting. They claim that it is essential for conservation and for reducing human-wildlife conflict, and that it brings economic benefit to rural communities—but none of that is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest “Living Planet” report, and its shocking conclusion was that wildlife numbers in Africa have fallen by 80% since 1970.

The global conservation body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that many species are affected by hunting. CITES, the international wildlife trade body for the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, tells us that some of the world’s most endangered animals are being shot by trophy hunters, including British trophy hunters.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. The late, great Dr Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as

“unconscionable…utterly cruel…and…disastrous from a conservation perspective.”

Since 2015 we have seen 1,764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party support for a ban, and that the need for the Government to bring forward the legislation is urgent?

[Clive Efford]

Yes, I agree, and I welcome the support of the Green party in urging action on this matter.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have looked into the question: since the July 2024 general election, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamuses, 21 African elephants, a scimitar-horned oryx, Marco Polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by that, and does it not show that the Government need to crack on and implement the promises of their manifesto and ban trophy hunting?

[Clive Efford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to crack on. The examples that he has read out are shocking. We should not countenance that by importing the parts of the animals that have been slaughtered.

LionAid says that hunting endangered and vulnerable species contributes directly to the dramatic decline in their populations by adding an extra mortality factor to the threats already facing them. Stopping hunting will reduce death rates, stabilise animal populations and promote biodiversity. The main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation, nor does it address wild animal-human conflict. I have seen testimony from local community members of the Maasai, who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where it is taking place, increasing the likelihood of attacks on humans. There is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal-human conflict, it makes attacks more likely.

Neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the testimonies that I have seen, members of the Maasai communities talk of families being forced from ancestral lands and, if people resist, beatings and kidnappings—not my claim, but the claim of people from communities being forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting.

Amnesty International conducted research into forced evictions of the Maasai indigenous people in Loliondo between June 2022 and May 2024. It reported on suppression of protests by Maasai people:

“On 10 June 2022, Tanzanian security forces resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protests by Maasai residents of Ololosokwan village in Loliondo. The demonstrators had gathered to resist a demarcation exercise by the security forces, who were trying to displace them from their ancestral lands in the name of so-called ‘conservation’. More than 40 people were wounded, others were left homeless, and many were forced to flee the country.”

Tigere Chagutah, regional director of Amnesty International for east and southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian Government:

“It is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under the pretext of ‘conservation’, while in reality, they have allowed Otterlo Business Corporation to do improper or illegal trophy hunting activities, in clear violation of Tanzania’s Wildlife Conservation laws”.

Otterlo Business Corporation is a trophy hunting company. Far from being of benefit to these people, hunting is taking away their human rights.

I urge the Government not to turn their back on these atrocities. We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country from being used to encourage human rights abuses by ending forthwith the import of hunting trophies, listening to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting industry and introducing an immediate ban on hunting trophies, with a view to introducing legislation at a later date. That has been done in other countries, and we should not delay.

I have been on safari. I have visited Botswana and Zambia, where I saw wonderful animals in their own habitats. The experience was nothing like seeing captive animals. I was armed—with my camera—and captured moments that will live in my memory for the rest of my life, and I was not alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing similar experiences. Of course, we left the animals behind for others to see at a later date, rather than killing them and stealing them away for our own gratification. That is the sustainable way for communities to benefit from wildlife and invest in conservation. Trophy hunting is doing the exact opposite.

This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neo-colonialists. It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. More than 90% of the British public approve of a ban on animal body parts being imported as trophies. A ban imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on this vile trade. Research by anti-hunt campaigners confirms that some of the world’s leading trophy hunters are British. British trophy hunters have shot the critically endangered black rhinoceros, shot monkeys out of trees and shot African elephants, which are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since the 2024 general election were for those magnificent creatures.

That is despite African elephants recently being upgraded by IUCN’s red list. Savannah elephants are listed as endangered and forest elephants are now critically endangered. Yet British trophy hunters are still shooting them for their ears, feet, tails and tusks.

British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and canned lions. Canned lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. The semi-tame animals are fenced in fields from which there is no escape before they are slaughtered. British hunters have shot polar bears, which face extinction thanks to climate change, and Africa’s most endangered big cat, the cheetah, of which 7,000 remain. We know all that because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It is time to bring this to an end once and for all.

Even Donald Trump’s America will not allow imports of the last three cases I quoted—canned lions, cheetahs and polar bears. That should tell us something. Of all those, the canned lions tell us most about the mentality of the people who hunt. How does someone get a thrill from slaughtering an animal that cannot escape? The word “sport” is often associated with hunting, but how can it be a sport when one side of the game cannot choose to play and does not know it is fighting for its life until it is shot?

Trophy hunting is not about conservation, it does not resolve issues of wildlife-human conflict, and it does not bring economic benefits to rural areas—certainly not in the way that tourism can. Local people have been attacked, their land stolen and their human rights abused. Private companies are stealing their homelands. Britain should not be accommodating this industry.

Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports exists and that officials at DEFRA have drafted it? If Government time does not exist for that Bill, will the Minister pass it to me, so that I can put it forward as a ten-minute rule Bill? The overwhelming support across the House would get it through quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on such imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do that, will the Minister explain why? Above all, will the Minister accept that there can be no further delay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her speech earlier. I reiterate that we will bring forward the legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows. I am sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course.

[Clive Efford]

With all due respect, “when parliamentary time allows” is not good enough. We have had too many delays on this issue. Other countries have introduced a moratorium, with the intention to legislate later. Will the Minister explain why we cannot do that, so that we can move urgently and quickly, here in the UK?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. A moratorium was the theme of many hon. Members’ contributions today, and I understand the strength of feeling behind that. We do not have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we are focused on doing this properly, so that the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response but, quite frankly, it really is not good enough. Who are the Government afraid of? Such a tiny minority of people would be affected by a ban on hunting trophy imports. The Government have overwhelming power behind them; they could defend their position.

On the idea of “robust” legislation, what is so sensitive about this piece of legislation compared with any other? Are we to expect that the Government will introduce a perfect Bill that will not be amended in any way? Over my years in this House, I have seen Bills that have had hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments made to them after they have been brought before the House. What is the debate that is taking place within DEFRA that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? That concerns me greatly. This issue has been debated widely, over a great many years; there is not much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. This is the time that the Government have to act and move forwards.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this morning—we have to keep the pressure on—and to all the campaigning groups. I have mentioned some of them, but I thank in particular the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which supported me in preparing for the debate. The Government have to listen. This is not just about the animals themselves; it is becoming more and more apparent that it is a human rights issue as well. The time has come for the Government to stand by those people, stand up for the animals that are being slaughtered and take forward this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.