Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Asian Elephant Protection (Prohibition) Bill - Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

03 February 2023 · 9 other contributors

Opened by Angela Richardson Con Guildford

Agriculture & Rural Affairs

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Angela Richardson raised concerns about asian elephant protection (prohibition) bill - clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Ms Richardson moved the Second Reading of the Asian Elephant Protection (Prohibition) Bill aiming to ban advertising and offering for sale of practices involving cruel treatment of Asian elephants.
  • The bill seeks to prevent businesses from benefiting financially from attractions involving the cruel treatment of animals and introduces penalties for non-compliance.
  • The bill has strong public support, with over 80% of Ms Richardson's constituents backing it.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Angela Richardson Con Guildford

Ms. Richardson moved the Second Reading of the Asian Elephant Protection (Prohibition) Bill. She explained that the bill aims to ban the advertising and offering for sale of specific practices involving the unacceptable treatment of animals, such as cruel training methods used on Asian elephants in tourist attractions abroad. The principles behind the bill have strong public support, with over 80% of her constituents supporting it. The bill builds on the government’s track record on animal welfare but emphasises that more work needs to be done both domestically and internationally. It includes measures to prevent businesses from benefiting financially from selling attractions involving cruel treatment of animals and introduces penalties for non-compliance.

Other contributors (9)
  • Angela Richardson Con Guildford

    Ms. Richardson presented a detailed case supporting the bill, citing research from the University of Surrey which found that five major UK travel companies continue to promote exploitative wildlife experiences like elephant rides and dolphin swims despite growing awareness of animal welfare issues. She highlighted cruel training methods used on elephants and dolphins and emphasised the ethical responsibility of tourists and social media influencers in promoting responsible tourism.

  • Luke Pollard Lab Co-op Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

    Supports the Bill, citing his experience in the travel industry. Emphasises the need for stricter regulation of animal tourism products due to ongoing unethical practices despite voluntary measures by the industry. Highlights issues with 'dolphin selfies' and encourages further work with holiday providers under UK-regulated package arrangements.

  • Scott Benton

    Supports the Bill, highlighting progress in animal welfare legislation since 2010. Acknowledges the unintended harm caused by tourist activities involving exotic animals and hopes the Bill will encourage higher standards abroad.

  • Christopher Chope Con Christchurch

    Concerned about lack of specificity in the Bill, questioning what practices it aims to ban. Suggests potential unintended consequences such as extraterritorial application of UK hunting legislation.

  • Roger Gale Con Herne Bay and Sandwich

    Instructed Mr Chope to focus on what is in the Bill rather than what is not, without taking a clear stance on the amendment/clause.

  • Holly Lynch Lab Wansbeck

    Supports measures to protect animals from abuse in wildlife tourism. Argues that irresponsible breeding and poor conditions for wild animals used in tourist activities are common, citing examples such as the Tiger temple incident where 40 tiger cubs were found dead in a freezer. Mentions that more than 1 million people signed a petition urging protection of Asian elephants from cruelty caused by tourism.

  • Trudy Harrison Con North East Milton Keynes

    The Minister supports the Bill, emphasising its importance in raising animal welfare standards both at home and abroad. She mentions that without current legislation, unacceptably low-welfare activities can be advertised to tourists by travel agents, making it difficult for consumers to know about high or low welfare practices.

  • Luke Pollard Lab Co-op Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

    The hon. Member highlights the need to ensure that digital click-throughs are covered under the advertising restriction, so that tourists cannot purchase low-welfare animal products while buying their holiday online.

  • Christopher Chope Con Christchurch

    The MP raised a question about whether whale watching in South Africa could be covered under the Bill, seeking clarification on its scope and application to various activities involving animals.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy