(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a debate on fur today. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead a debate on a topic as important as the UK’s continuing trade in animal fur, and in relation to my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill.
To explain the problem with fur, I will start with a true story about a man, a dog and a fox. The man was a prominent leader in the international fur industry and had spent 10 years of his professional career defending the fur trade against accusations of cruelty and working to try to get designers to use fur in their collections. He had increasingly found that to be an uphill struggle. One of his roles in the fur industry was to promote welfare standards on fur farms, and that saw him travel to fur farms around the world.
One day the man found himself on a fur farm in Poland. On that farm, about 1,000 foxes spent every day of their lives in wire cages only a little bigger than they were, about 1 metre square. It was the rough equivalent of a person living their whole life in a phone box. The rows of cages stretched as far as the man could see. Some animals were spinning in desperate circles—a sign of mental collapse. Others were just slumped in hopeless heaps on the wire-mesh floors. All were waiting for the day when they would be electrocuted to be turned into a coat trim or perhaps a bobble hat.
As the man toured the farm with the Polish industry bosses, he locked eyes unexpectedly with a fox. She had beautiful silvery-grey fur, a white stripe down the middle of her nose and shiny hazel eyes. Quite without meaning to, he connected with her, and her eyes told him something. Returning home to the UK the next day, the man was greeted by his adoring Labrador, Barney. After the enthusiastic tail wagging had subsided, the man looked at Barney, and Barney looked back, eyes full of love, optimism and energy. In that moment, the man saw what he had been missing for years—the connection between these two sentient beings. He realised that if anyone tried to do to his Barney what the fur industry was doing to millions of foxes, he would do everything in his power to stop it and help him. In that moment, he decided that he could no longer defend the indefensible and he resigned from working for the fur trade. But he did not just slip off into obscurity. Mike Moser, because that is who it was, approached anti-fur campaigner Claire Bass at Humane World for Animals, explained his change of heart and mind, and offered his insights and services in its campaign for a fur-free Britain.
I have much respect for Mike, who joins us here today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that his powerful testimony against the fur trade is worth bringing to the attention of the House. Mike says:
“Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”
I am grateful for the strong support from so many hon. Members for my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. It is simple in principle and modest in scope, but overwhelming in its justification. It would end the import of animal fur into Great Britain and prohibit the sale of new fur products in England, while allowing appropriate exemptions and of course respecting devolved competence. In doing so, it would finally bring our law into line with our values, because the truth is this. The United Kingdom banned fur farming more than 20 years ago because we recognised it as inherently inhumane, yet by allowing tens of millions of pounds-worth of fur to be imported here, we continue to be complicit in exactly the same cruelty overseas. My Bill seeks to end that double standard.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I know that the hon. Member will agree that fur is not just a by-product, but a product that relies on animals being caged, confined and killed solely for their pelts, and that a ban on the import and sale of fur would be a proportionate measure, consistent with our ethics, and would end our complicity in the wholly unnecessary suffering of animals.
Ruth Jones
I could not have put it better myself. Let us be clear about what the fur trade involves. Each year, tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink and raccoons, are still trapped solely for fashion. On farms, they are confined for their entire lives in barren wire cages, unable to run, dig, swim or express the most basic natural behaviours.
Investigations on fur farms by organisations including Humane World for Animals repeatedly show animals suffering extreme physical and psychological distress, self-mutilation, cannibalism and untreated injuries, before being killed at around eight months of age, commonly by gassing or anal electrocution. Importantly, that suffering is well documented on farms that operate under the industry’s “welfare assurance” scheme.
Animals trapped for their fur can be caught in maiming metal-jawed traps and left trapped for days with no food or water, exposed to the elements, before a trapper finally returns to kill them. Extremely disturbing footage from undercover investigations into trapping in the US by Born Free USA, Respect for Animals and Humane World for Animals shows trappers laughing as they bludgeon trapped animals to death and drown a terrified raccoon in a river.
There is no such thing as humanely produced or responsibly sourced fur. The European Food Safety Authority recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, which clearly showed that the needs of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs and chinchillas cannot be met on fur farms. The report also concludes that suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in current fur farming systems, which include so-called “high welfare” farms in Europe. Underscoring that, Mike Moser has publicly stated:
“Having spent so many years working to defend the fur industry, it is now my strongly held view that while animals continue to be caged, no improvement to nor strengthening of fur farming regulations will ever prevent the welfare problems and cruelty that are systemic to the fur industry.”
There is no meaningful dispute that the fur trade has suffering written through its DNA. Under a Labour Government, the UK recognised that when it became the first country in the world to ban fur farming on animal welfare grounds. Since then, 23 countries have followed our lead. The question before us today is not whether fur farming is cruel—Parliament has already answered that. The question is if it is too cruel to produce here, why are we allowing it to be sold here?
Despite our domestic ban, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records show that the UK imports between £30 million and £40 million-worth of fur every year—equivalent to as many as 1 million animals killed annually to be traded here. Although fur is extremely unpopular in Britain’s shops and wardrobes, and only 3% of people say that they would wear fur, by the fur trade’s own admission, the UK is a trading hub for the global industry. Banning fur imports would remove that vital piece of the industry’s trading landscape, and so hasten its demise.
The case for a ban on fur imports and sales does not rest on animal welfare alone. Leading virologists around the world, including from Imperial College London, have warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, describing them as an
“important transmission hub for viral zoonoses”
equivalent to other high-risk practices like the bush meat trade and live animal markets. They are a ticking time bomb for the next pandemic to occur.
Hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza have been recorded on fur farms in recent years. Viruses have mutated, spread rapidly between animals, and been passed back to humans. During the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farms shut down in several countries on public health grounds. Yet the industry continues. At a time when Parliament speaks about resilience, prevention and learning the lessons of covid, continuing to be complicit in the public health risk of the global fur trade is indefensible.
In its death throes, the fur industry has attempted to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly, but those claims do not withstand scrutiny. Fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting and carbon heavy. For example, 1 kg of mink fur generates around seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 kg of beef, and requires over half a tonne of meat feed. Fur processing also relies on toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent decomposition and to dye the fur. Meanwhile, faux fur technology has advanced rapidly, with British designers using recycled and plant-based materials, many of them biodegradable. Ending the UK fur trade will support innovation, not greenwashing.
The public are far ahead of the law on this issue. More than three quarters of voters believe that when a farming practice is banned in the UK for cruelty, imports produced in the same way should also be banned. More than 1.5 million people have signed petitions calling for a ban and over 200 MPs and peers support the campaign for a fur-free Britain led by Humane World for Animals, FOUR PAWS, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Labour Animal Welfare Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Aid and others. The vast majority of British retailers and designers have also moved on from fur. Major brands and British department stores do not sell fur. In 2023, the British Fashion Council banned real fur from London Fashion Week. It is time that our laws caught up with society on the issue of fur.
Some hon. Members may wonder about the economic impact of a ban. I can provide assurance that the fur trade is already in steep decline globally. Fur production has fallen by over 85% in the last decade. In the UK, the sector is tiny, employing only a few dozen people, many of whom already trade in alternative materials or services. There is also a clear consumer protection benefit to a ban. A few years ago, there was high-profile coverage by the BBC, Sky News and others exposing the scandal of fake faux fur—real fur being sold as fake fur. That problem has improved thanks to the efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and Humane World for Animals, but it is still today possible to buy a bobble hat on a popular online retailer that is described as fake fur but is, in fact, made of fox. That leaves would-be ethical consumers unable to buy with confidence in accordance with their values.
A ban on all animal fur would simplify and strengthen enforcement and restore confidence. The evidence for this ban has been gathered, tested and confirmed for years. Parliamentary inquiries have been held and a Government call for evidence attracted tens of thousands of responses, with over 96% agreeing it is wrong to kill animals for fur. Public opinion, scientific evidence and the economic case are clear.
I was proud when, in opposition, Labour’s shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister stated support for a fur-free Britain. We now have an opportunity to make that a reality. I press the Minister today for any details that she may be able to provide on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government’s 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade, as well as the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. I also place on record my hope that processed animal fur will be left squarely outside the scope of the UK’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. As an important agreement to smooth trade in agrifood, it should not concern itself with trying to reach a common position on the trade in furry bobble hats any more than it should worry about trade in leather shoes.
I am grateful to the Minister for the formation of a working group to address the UK fur trade, and I hope that it can conduct its business in the coming months with haste, followed by the political will to act in accordance with public opinion and end the UK’s cruel, outdated and unnecessary fur trade.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.
I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds.
Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes.
These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Last year, I was pleased to promote a private Member’s Bill—now the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025—to stop puppy smuggling, specifically given the issue of ear cropping. It has been illegal to crop a dog’s ears in the UK since 2006, but it was legal to import dogs with cropped ears. We thought that it was unacceptable to do that in the UK on welfare grounds, but people were getting around the loophole by acquiring dogs from abroad. This seems to be exactly the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be offshoring our ethical animal welfare issues by banning something in the UK but allowing people to get those products from abroad? If we think something is unacceptable here, it should be unacceptable anywhere.
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world.
The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.
The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available.
Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.
Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework.
The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for all the work that she does championing animal rights in this space. Whereas she spoke about the fur in a bobble hat, I am going to talk about King’s Guard caps and the use of black bear pelts, which the Government have committed to ending. This has been a commitment for decades, and yet we are still seeing the import of black bear fur.
In the past, the Ministry of Defence believed that the black bear fur came from licensed culls; the Canadian authorities have denied that, both at federal and provincial government levels, saying that there is no such thing as licensed culls. We therefore know that trophy hunters are the source—something that this House has campaigned on time and again. We must ensure that, under this Labour Government, we see an end to trophy hunting.
Coming back to the issue of the King’s Guard caps, we know that trade through the work of trophy hunters leads to bears—killed in a random way—often dying slowly and in much distress through blood loss, infection and starvation. The future is perilous for those cubs that lose their mums. We need to ensure that those pelts do not move on to the auction houses from which the MOD purchases them.
Only part of the pelt is actually used—the bit with longer fur. The rest of the pelt is simply thrown away. It is costing us as taxpayers—this is what I find so repugnant: it has cost us £1 million over the past decade. One thousand bears have been killed to put on the heads of soldiers. What on earth is that all about? When there are faux fur alternatives available, which have been developed with great skill, we need to ensure that we use them.
Faux fur mimics, and even outperforms, real fur with regard to waterproofing; it is lighter, it dries more quickly and it springs back into shape. The chemicals and water used in the making of faux fur are recycled, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly as well as ethical. Faux fur has uniformity of colour and fur length, and it can be developed from a bio-based fabric. The MOD must stop placing these pelts on the heads of soldiers. More than 75% of the public support that, so it is an obvious move.
I call on all hon. Members present to sign early-day motion 2907 in my name to ensure that we end the use of this cruel method of both ceremonially parading these dead animals through our streets and having them standing outside Buckingham Palace. I find it shameful; it must end. What steps is the Minister taking to end the use of bearskins, and what discussions has she had with the MOD concerning that? Will the Minister halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and will she ensure that we use faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts? I am sure that nobody would disagree with such a move, and it would be such an improvement. Doing so would have no bearing on the safety of soldiers, but would restore safety to bears, so that we can take pride in knowing that animals are not being paraded on the heads of our soldiers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for highlighting this topic, which is important to many of my constituents. I get regular comments and queries about it.
I put it on the record that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. That is the point I start on, as did the hon. Lady; other speakers have said, and will say, the same. Fur farming was first banned in England and Wales. That was closely followed by the introduction of similar legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in 2002. I well remember voting for the legislative change for which the hon. Lady advocates, in my former role as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and I support her quest.
As a country sports enthusiast, I firmly believe that any animal killed should be used in its entirety, and that animals should not be bred for this purpose. On the rare occasion that I get to shoot—usually twice a year, on Boxing day and new year’s day—all my neighbours look forward to seeing game hanging from their doors, where I usually leave the pheasants, ducks and pigeons as we acquire them, as the meals made from that can be enjoyed by the whole family. When we were in the Assembly, Baroness Foster, the former First Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were probably in receipt of pheasants and ducks at least once a month, which they too enjoyed. My point is that there is a role in harvesting the birds that we rear and that nature produces, so that we can then enjoy them, but in those cases every possible effort was made to ensure that the birds were used in their entirety, as is right and proper.
I supported the ban more than 20 years ago, and I continue to support it now. It seems incongruous that we have for so long allowed the back door entrance of fur that could not be processed here, yet had been processed elsewhere and shipped in. The hon. Lady’s principle is clear: if there is a loophole, let us close it up to make sure that that cannot happen. While I am not an advocate for the wilful destruction of any antique pieces—in other words, furs that have been passed down generationally—supporting the trade simply to take place elsewhere defeats the efforts that we in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have made.
For that reason, I believe that it is past time that we close that loophole and gap by disallowing the importation of this fur for sale. In that, I believe that I speak for the large majority of my constituents, who regularly make their views known to me on this subject. I again thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, who has been a doughty campaigner—the word “doughty” is used often, but it describes the hon. Lady well. We thank her for her diligence in raising this matter.
I hope that the Minister will support the Bill and its intentions, as highlighted by the hon. Lady and others in this debate, and will enable its smooth and effective passage through Parliament. We all know that time in the Chamber for the passage of private Members’ Bills is precious, but I think we can all agree that this Bill deserves time and attention to get it right, to ensure that the entire United Kingdom has the same rules—including Northern Ireland, where the intentions and requests are similar—and to answer the questions around its use in military uniforms, on which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put forward a clear case. I have seen her EDM and have added my name to it.
Work needs to be done to get it right, but I believe the desire is here, in this Chamber and in Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s helping to progress the Bill to prevent the import and sale of fur and other products. Again, well done to the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. The objectives that we are all trying to achieve are worthy; constituents want them, and this House will hopefully endorse them in their entirety.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing the debate and for all her dedicated work to bring us closer to achieving a truly fur-free Britain.
The UK was the first country in the world to ban fur farming. That is a stance of which we should rightly be proud. It has set an example for others to follow: since our decision, 21 other countries have taken the same step to end fur production. However, we still permit the import and sale of fur and fur products, effectively outsourcing the cruelty. Our position should be consistent. If fur is too cruel to farm here, it is too cruel, full stop. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s fur Bill, which would prohibit the importation and sale of fur in the UK.
The case for ending the UK’s role in supporting the fur industry, whether directly or indirectly, rests on three central arguments: cruelty, environmental harm and the risks to human health. First, there is the cruelty. There is no such thing as humane fur farming. It is estimated that each year more than 100 million animals are killed worldwide, solely for their fur. Some 95% of fur on the global market comes from fur farms, where animals spend their entire lives in cages that are typically only slightly larger than the animals themselves. Such conditions subject them to enormous mental and physical suffering. Many animals exhibit signs of severe distress, including self-mutilation and cannibalism, because the environment is so unnatural and restrictive.
Secondly, fur farming is exceptionally damaging to the environment. The carbon footprint associated with producing animal fur is shockingly high. For example, producing 1 kg of mink fur creates seven times more emissions than producing 1 kg of beef. On top of that, the tanning and dyeing processes rely on a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent the pelts from decomposing.
Finally, the industry poses risks to human health. In recent years, there have been hundreds of outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and highly pathogenic avian influenza on fur farms, clearly illustrating the threat that the industry presents to public health. Let us not forget that during the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farming was halted in several countries, yet now the practice continues.
A ban on the import and sale of fur would strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader on animal welfare and would let us take a firm stance on the environmental and health concerns associated with the trade. It would set an important precedent for other countries, just as our original ban on fur farming did. We have a clear opportunity to end the double standard. I urge the Government to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. Diolch yn fawr.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for the excellent work that she has done and continues to do on this important campaign. I fully support her Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. I am pleased to say that my constituents have highlighted this debate and asked me to attend. I would have attended anyway, as she knows.
I shall keep this brief, as many points have already been raised. I will focus on fashion. More than 1,600 companies are registered as fur-free on Fur Free Retailer, including leading British designers such as Stella McCartney who pioneer innovative faux fur alternatives. We have already heard how easily faux fur can be produced and used. In 2023, the British Fashion Council introduced a ban on real fur at London Fashion Week, which has continued. Those moves are very welcome.
Farming for fur is inhumane. The fur trade is intense, and the animals are kept in barren wire cages with no ability to act out their natural behaviours. Most cages are only 1 square metre larger than the animals themselves. An investigation by animal welfare charities found that animals experience horrific physical and mental suffering, including self-mutilation and cannibalism.
A Labour Government introduced legislation in 2000 and implemented a fur farming ban here in 2002, making the UK the first country in the world to take that step. Some 21 other countries have now ended fur production, and I hope more will follow. Fortunately, the fur industry is declining and far fewer people are wearing real fur. Years ago, people would even wear dead foxes around their shoulders, although I have no idea why anyone wanted to.
A fur ban is a necessary step towards ending this cruel and unnecessary practice. A UK ban on fur import and sales would send a hugely important global message to those countries that are still engaged in cruel and dangerous fur farming, thereby protecting public health and animal welfare, which should surely be more important than fur for fashion, as we have many alternatives. I very much welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate and for all her work to bring her private Member’s Bill to the House. It stands in the tradition of the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) in 1999, which paved the way for the banning of fur farming in the UK just one year later.
I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the Government’s commitment to looking at the fur issue through the working group, but we in this place should be clear that there is no such thing as cruelty-free fur. The domestic farming of fur has been banned since the year 2000, which raises an obvious question: why should we be content for fur to be imported from overseas, when we believe that it should not be produced on our own shores? It is the inherently cruel fruit of an immoral trade.
The European Food Safety Authority published an exhaustive scientific study last year, which found serious harm to species such as fox and mink across a range of issues, including severe stress and self-harm. The EFSA was clear that most of the welfare consequences cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current cage system.
It is important to address the claims made by the proponents of fur and the industry interests who defend fur farming. A ban on imports would not be without precedent. In fact, in the year 2009, the European Union put in place a ban on seal product imports, primarily from Canada. At the time, I had the privilege of working with Humane Society International, which is now called Humane World for Animals, to challenge the legal attempts to overturn that ban. I am very glad to say that it remains in place. Article XX of the World Trade Organisation’s general agreement on tariffs and trade clearly allows bans on the imports of products if they are
“necessary to protect public morals”
or
“necessary to protect…animal…health”.
As others have said, fur is not a natural product. In fact, so-called real fur is so heavily treated by carcinogenic chemicals that it produces seven times as much carbon as faux fur. The other claim made by organisations such as the International Fur Federation, which is headquartered in the UK—a short walk from Parliament—and the British Fur Trade Association is that indigenous communities depend for their economic livelihoods on these exports. This is a complete canard. The overwhelming majority of fur imports are from European factory-farmed locations. Imports from the Canadian hunt, which is not today dominated by indigenous communities, represent a minuscule fraction of UK fur imports.
It is also necessary to address the so-called certification schemes promoted by organisations such as WelFur and Furmark. The fur industry knows that the UK public is repelled by fur farming, so it tries to hide the cruel reality behind sanitising but meaningless labels. The labels do not challenge the cage system, which the EFSA found was incompatible with animal welfare standards. They create the appearance of oversight while leaving the practices unabated. It is a very 21st-century form of greenwashing of archaic butchery.
When the Minister responds, I hope that she can give the House an update on the timelines in which the working group will conduct its business. I also ask the Government not to accept the validity of these self-interested, industry-promoted certification schemes. I place on the record my appreciation for one of the organisations that has led the campaign against the fur trade in the UK over many years: Respect for Animals, originally founded as Lynx. It was founded by Mark Glover, who was joined by Nicki Brooks and Richard Bissett. They do outstanding work.
Three years after the election of the last Labour Government, the law was passed to ban the domestic farming of fur. I hope that we can work to a similar timetable to end the import of fur products under this Labour Government, consistent with their commitment to animal welfare.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I had not planned to speak; I only came to show my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), but as there is time I will make a brief contribution, with your indulgence, Ms Jardine. It is excellent to see you up there presiding over us; this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate with you in the Chair.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her consistency and tenacity on these issues, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. It has not been political, which speaks to the importance of the issue. I note that we have not heard from the two Opposition Front Benchers, but I feel sure that they will approach this debate as all others have done.
I feel as if I am living in a parallel universe and in a previous life, sitting in a room talking about DEFRA, particularly animal welfare, with my hon. Friend, with various stakeholders and campaigners, and with the now shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who was then a DEFRA Minister. Talk about going back to the future!
I am here to support my hon. Friend, and I support her Bill too. I am from a community in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where—judging from my inbox every week—the vast majority of my constituents could best be described as animal lovers. We have a real opportunity to make a meaningful difference to millions of animals and stop them being forced to endure mental and physical anguish that none of us would wish on our worst enemies.
The good people of our United Kingdom do not support the fur trade. We know that many designers and retailers have got the picture, too. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the significance of her sitting in this debate, because it was her twin, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Right honourable.
Adam Jogee
Forgive me, I should have known—two successful twins. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston brought back the fur ban while I was in primary school, so it now falls to another Eagle to get the job done and deliver the fur-free Britain that we all want to see.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not right honourable; my twin is, but I am not, just to put that on the record. I thank my hon. Friend for remembering the history, but I wonder whether he can imagine the kind of pressure that I might be under on this issue, subsequently.
Adam Jogee
I think this is the first time a Minister has intervened on me. There is a first time for everything, and it is a moment we will not forget, Ms Jardine.
I am the oldest of three children, so I understand the pressures that siblings apply, and my younger siblings both have particular views about the state of the world today and how I might approach some of those issues. However, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn will continue to hold the Minister to account and will help her to get to exactly the right place to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.
I thank all those who work, day in and day out, on animal welfare issues. Many of them are in the Public Gallery. I see Danielle, Sonul and others, many of whom I spoke to more than my siblings when I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn in years gone by.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. I am glad that the speeches I wrote all those years ago were put to good use. And I am pleased, on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to be here today to show my support for this debate, for her Bill and for the campaign to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning on animal rights.
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. We have a track record of animal rights advocacy, and we are clear that the fur trade should have no place in this country, which has some of the highest animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. Yet today’s debate has outlined a glaring contradiction. We have banned the cruelty at home, but by continuing to source fur from overseas, we remain wholly complicit in this unnecessary suffering.
It is understandable that over three quarters of the British public want to see this double standard ended for good. I commend the work of the Fur Free Britain coalition in mobilising such strong public opinion on the topic of fur. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. The previous Conservative Government wrongly pivoted on their decision to scrap the planned ban on the import of fur, and we now call on this Government to enact a comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, once and for all, to help to maintain the UK as a global leader in the promotion of animal welfare.
The moral arguments have been well rehearsed by many hon. and right hon. Members today, and those arguments are full of merit. However, I will also evaluate some of the arguments put forward by the fur industry against a ban. The British Fur Trade Association has stated that a ban would not improve animal welfare standards, would result in illegal fur imports, would be unenforceable and would lead to job losses. In addition, it argues that a ban would raise concerns that the World Trade Organisation rules might be broken.
The BFTA has proposed a five-point plan for the Government, including improved labelling of fur products. However, let me be clear that keeping animals in cages for their whole lives inevitably leads to a variety of physical and psychological health problems, so the fur industry’s certification schemes clearly incorporate a high tolerance for poor welfare. Under the “WelFur” approach used within Furmark, farms can retain accreditation even when significant levels of illness and injury persist. The scheme allows alarm thresholds, under which no serious action is triggered.
How we treat animals is a reflection of who we are as a society. The UK is a nation of animal lovers, and we should be proud of the action we have taken to lead the world in upholding some of the highest animal welfare standards. When we take a stand, others follow, such as with the ban on fur farming that was implemented in the early 2000s. Since then, over 20 countries have followed suit. That is something to be proud of, and there is now an opportunity for us to extend that legacy even further.
It is disappointing that there have been claims that a ban would result in job losses and economic damage. A recent report by WPI Economics on behalf of Humane World for Animals has revealed that that is simply not the case. The fur trade’s contribution to the UK economy is very limited and has declined significantly over recent years. In 2023, the value of international fur exports and imports into the UK had fallen by nearly 50% and 39% respectively since 2018, while data from the Business Register Employment Survey shows that the number of people employed in the sector is also declining sharply. Indeed, in 2022-23 only 35 people were employed in the sector in the UK.
There is also growing evidence that a ban is enforceable under WTO rules. The landmark 2014 WTO ruling on the EU’s ban on the import of seal skins shows that WTO rules permit restrictions on imports based on ethical concerns. In March 2021, the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission recommended that the UK should show world leadership in embedding animal welfare into international trade policy and in helping to raise standards worldwide, which is what the public want. Polling suggests that 77% of the public back a ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, while 96% of respondents to the call for evidence under the last Government strongly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for their fur.
In the build-up to this debate, many of my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton wrote to me to outline their support for a ban. All were united in their belief that it is time to end this cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade, and I agree with them.
I underscore that the global fur trade, of which the UK is still a part, is not just a problem for animals; it is a serious public health risk. The interface between humans and millions of intensively kept and traded animals is giving rise to an era of unprecedented zoonotic disease threats, and fur farming sits squarely in that danger zone. Professor Edward Holmes, an evolutionary biologist and virologist from the University of Sydney, said of the fur trade,
“I think that this trade is a roll of the dice. We’re exposing ourselves to viruses that come from wildlife,”
which is
“an obvious route for the next pandemic to occur… Fur farms present a clear epidemic or pandemic risk.”
Crucially, this is not a hypothetical risk. Reports and official responses in Europe have shown outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza affecting fur-bearing animals on farms, and public health and biosecurity measures are not consistently implemented in practice. We must heed virologists’ warnings and not sleepwalk into another global pandemic.
I take this opportunity to recognise some of the Government’s progress on the issue. I was pleased to see the Government publish the results of the previous Government’s call for evidence on the fur trade. I also welcome the recently launched animal welfare strategy for England, which promises the highest jump in welfare in a generation. It is clear, however, that trade policy must go hand in hand with domestic welfare action. If we do not do that, we risk offshoring animal cruelty. We must not import goods that are not allowed to be produced in this country, and we must extend that to food products produced abroad to standards that would be illegal for British farmers. The Liberal Democrats want to see minimum standards for all imported food, to meet UK animal welfare standards, and we must ensure that no animal product that would be illegal to produce in the UK can be sold in Britain, including foie gras.
The Liberal Democrats have also urged the Government to sign the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, and to ensure alignment on standards and quality. Part of those discussions will likely focus on the import of fur. Given that it is not an agrifood commodity, however, incorporating it into the SPS agreement would serve only to complicate the matter unnecessarily and delay the process.
The Minister has previously indicated her support for a ban, as have many Cabinet Ministers, many Labour Members and most of Parliament. There is cross-party consensus on the issue, and it is shameful that the previous Conservative Government reversed their commitment to action. This Government must now do the right thing and take this opportunity, once again, to make Britain a global trailblazer by banning the sale and import of fur and fur-related products as soon as possible. The fur trade has no place in a country with such high standards of animal welfare.
It is hypocritical to allow the import and sale of real fur from abroad. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. We call on the Government to enact the comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products once and for all, helping to maintain the UK as a global leader in the sale and promotion of animal welfare.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate.
As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored.
What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough.
Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label:
“Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”.
That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough.
Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route.
We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur.
A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward.
In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition.
The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further?
As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a great pleasure to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Ms Jardine. We have had a consensus-driven debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing it. I note that she is extremely busy today because she also has a ten-minute rule Bill; since that deals with pets, we know that she has her speeches in the right order. She demonstrates through her work—we also heard it in her speech today—how much she cares for animals in whatever context, whether they are wild, domesticated or livestock.
My hon. Friend represents a deep vein of concern that all of us have recognised that this country is well-known for: its concern for animals. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. The world’s first animal welfare law was passed here more than 200 years ago in 1822, so there is a long tradition that all of us draw on when thinking about these issues. The Government take that legacy seriously. Last December, we published our animal welfare strategy, which is the most ambitious programme in a generation. It is not just warm words; it is a real plan that is already in motion, with consultations launched on laying hens and lamb welfare.
The UK has been at the forefront of animal welfare for generations. As many hon. Members have mentioned today—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), who had both done a little work and discovered this—it was my sibling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who introduced the private Member’s Bill that led to the ban on fur farming in this country. Some of the speeches I heard this morning had a familiar ring to them from the epic battles that my sister had to try to get her private Member’s Bill on the statute book. It was talked out by Members of the then Conservative Opposition, and it was only after that failure that the then Labour Government decided that they would take forward the ban on fur farming, because it had been overwhelmingly demonstrated that that was what the public wanted.
That win was not easily gained. People who are thinking about how to change the law and the moral attitude on these things need to understand that private Member’s Bills, not least the ones brought to the House by hon. Members who care about these things, often have a very important legacy. They can persuade Governments that they ought to get on and do what is sometimes controversial, but more often than not right.
We were the first country to ban fur farming and we did that when a ban was not popular—those arguments had to be made from scratch. That meant other countries then recognised the reality of what was going on and moved to ban it too. We have to recognise, however, that the number of countries that have banned it is still quite small and it remains actively pursued in many other countries. I suspect that the way the ban was done left the loophole that many hon. Members have pointed out: while animals can no longer be farmed for their fur in the UK, the import and sale of fur and fur products from both farmed animals and those hunted or trapped in the wild remain legal.
We heard today that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals. People need to bear that in mind—this is not particularly an issue of trapping wild animals. If we read our history, we know that, particularly on the North American continent, a lot of wild animals were hunted nearly to extinction in earlier times.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Minister says that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals and 5% from trapped animals, but the estimate is 100 million animals in total, so that is still 5 million animals that are trapped. Those traps do not only capture the animals they target; there is collateral damage, with other animals being trapped and killed. Some animals are not killed immediately and are left to die a slow, agonising death. What is stopping this Labour Government taking the lead, as the Labour Government in the 2000s did, on banning the import of fur products?
Dame Angela Eagle
I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on.
I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality.
The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future.
In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from.
My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards.
In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us.
I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.
Ruth Jones
It is helpful to hear the Minister outline the progress so far. Given yesterday’s SPS statement, could she clarify that fur and fur products will not form part of the negotiations and are outside of scope?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not going to clarify or not clarify that now because we are still in the middle of negotiations. I do not want to change the way that negotiations are working by commenting on them before we have final agreements, but I am quite happy to talk to my hon. Friend when all of that becomes much clearer.
We will engage with the EU, which is a major source of fur imported into the UK, as it considers the findings of the European Food Safety Authority’s recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, and the results of the European Commission’s 2025 call for evidence on the “Fur Free Europe” European citizens’ initiative. Those issues make this a bit of a moving feast, and we want to make sure that we get it right. We are also reviewing the findings of that report and will seek views from our working group on the evidence provided by the European call for evidence and the review, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion.
The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We look forward to publishing and considering the findings of the Animal Welfare Committee, and to bringing together interested parties to explore concerns in this important area and the different ways in which those concerns can be addressed to ensure the welfare of animals.
Ruth Jones
Thank you again for your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It has been a pleasure to serve under you. This has been a very coherent and cohesive debate; I am not aware that there have been any dissenters. I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate and bringing their different perspectives to this subject. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Newcastle-under- Lyme (Adam Jogee).
I thank the people in the Public Gallery for their ongoing work and persistence in ensuring that the animal welfare message goes out loud and clear across the UK, and for educating us in this House so well. I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that the Government have made so far, and I appreciate that a lot of it is happening behind the scenes. I do not envy her the persuasive familial discussions, because I am sure they are going on at all times—I would encourage her sibling to carry on with them. Public opinion is clear, the scientific evidence is clear and the economic case is clear, so let us stop the delay, get on with the action that we need to ban fur and fur products from being imported into this country, and end our complicity in this barbaric trade.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.