Fur: Import and Sale

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Veterinary Medicines: Northern Ireland

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first of several interventions. At that meeting, we made it clear to the Minister that a solution must be in place by the end of this year. If it is not, the consequences for animal health, human health and our agrifood economy could be severe. Time is running out—we have only four weeks to go.

This issue has been known about for some time. In February of this year, I hosted an event with the British Veterinary Association in Parliament to highlight the concerns and to urge Government to act while there was still plenty of time. That was 10 months ago. Since then, the warnings have grown louder. Recently, more than 19,000 vets from across the United Kingdom signed a joint letter to Government stressing the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Given that the National Office of Animal Health has warned that, in a worst-case scenario, up to 50% of veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from Northern Ireland, with serious consequences for animal health and agrifood, should the UK Government commit to urgent, targeted support for farmers and vets, who are heavily reliant on those products?

Future of Farming

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Well done to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate.

I should be able to set out a vision of optimism and resilience for the future of farming in Northern Ireland today, but sadly that is not the case. It appears that, with the proposed inheritance tax, the Government know neither the price that farming families will have to pay nor the value of their industry. Our UK agricultural heritage is a cornerstone of our economy, culture and communities, and it is critical for our future. The 26,000 farmers and their families in Northern Ireland deserve better. When we take into account the food and drinks processing sector, the proposed measure will affect 70,000 jobs in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s fertile lands and valuable climate have long supported diverse farming activities, ranging from dairy and beef to crops such as our world-famous potatoes. As we look to the future, the potential for growth and innovation in our agricultural sector is immense. We should be looking at enhancing cutting-edge technologies, such as precision agriculture, drones and sensors, to increase productivity and ensure environmental sustainability. Our hard-working farming community wants to enhance efficiency in order to protect our natural resources for future generations. Our farmers are the true guardians of the countryside, and sustainability is central to their vision. They are dedicated stewards of the land, committed to adopting eco-friendly practices such as crop rotation and organic farming. They are also committed to sustainability.

Farmers’ efforts not only safeguard our environment but open new markets for our produce, meeting the growing global demand for environmentally responsible products. Farming is more than an economic activity: it is the backbone of our communities. The proposed tax will place an undue burden on families, making it difficult for them to pass down their farms to the next generations—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

Government Support for the RSPCA

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Yes, I am well aware of the volunteers and the fundraising. We attend many events in our constituencies for giving to the RSPCA. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that we are often called a nation of animal lovers, and of course we are. In all my life—and it is a pretty long one—I cannot remember not having a dog. I am from Ballywalter, and we had Pekinese, collies, terriers and latterly springer spaniels. It has almost been an evolution from house dogs to dogs that we use for hunting.

The RSPCA has the equivalent of 361 full-time frontline officers, 233 inspectors and 128 animal rescue officers. Many of us have been touched by the advertisements on TV about cruelty against animals; it really breaks our hearts. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn is right that the cruelty is inconceivable. We cannot understand why anyone would want to harm or carry out cruelty against animals.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Would the hon. Member agree that a huge animal cruelty issue in Northern Ireland is badger baiting? Far too often, sentencing for such crimes is too lenient. Does the hon. Member agree that the law and sentencing on animal cruelty needs to be looked at, as badger baiting is a big issue for me and my constituency?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that intervention: I am well aware of those issues. The lady in the Police Service of Northern Ireland who looks after animal crime and welfare is Emma Meredith and I have known her all her life. She was a flower girl at my wedding, which was 36 years ago. She is now the police officer assigned to this area, and she is very aware of badger baiting. There is a need to come down hard on those involved. I think there has been some action on badger baiting over the past few years, because it is very much on the radar.

The situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that of the RSPCA. We are managed and supported by the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the second oldest animal charity in the world. It was founded in 1836 by Commander Francis Anderson Calder, a retired navy officer. The charity’s first initiative gives an idea of its history and purpose. It erected water troughs across the city for the sustenance of the heavily burdened working horses in industrial Belfast. That was the purpose of the movement at that time.

The USPCA also supports Northern Ireland schools by bringing the importance of animal welfare to life and understanding the needs of animals within the classroom. It runs an educational programme, although I am not sure whether that is run on the mainland. Many schools in my constituency and others frequently host the USPCA, which comes to them to engage with children. The fact is that children love animals and it is good to engage them, to engender in them an early interest in animals and their welfare. Many young people have a goal to work with animals in future. It is fantastic to offer to teach them how to do so. It instils a love of animals and an interest in animals for years to come.

Ahead of this debate, I read in the Library briefing that there were concerns about kitten smuggling across the UK. The week before last I met with Alice from the Cats Protection Centre in Dundonald. Kitten smuggling was one of the main topics of discussion, and the statistics I was shown that day were incredible. The centre takes in and rehomes a number of cats. It is not just about lost kittens. The purpose of Cats Protection—and all cat charities—is to try to find them another home. They are neutered to ensure there will be no more kittens coming along when they are given out. Some of the cats and kittens there had been badly treated. Again, it is inconceivable to understand how anyone could do that.

There have been significant changes in the cat market in the past five years, as highlighted in the CATS Report 2023 published by Cats Protection. There has been a significant rise in purebred and pedigree cats. In addition, pet smuggling poses risks to both humans and animals. There are risks not just to the cats but to humans, as well, and we need to be aware of those issues. Cats Protection and other charities are very much to the fore on that. Smuggled cats may carry transmissible diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which can be dangerous.

When I got married 36 years ago, I was not that fond of cats, as I had always had dogs, but my wife was a cat lover. There was a very simple, “Love me, love my cats.” It brought about a complete change and now we have three cats in the house—it might be four cats. One of them stays outside all the time because we live on a farm and it hunts continuously. The other three like the warmth of the Aga cooker. I again make the point about how we have to look at things today.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments. Perhaps he can clarify whether he has any plans to engage with the devolved nations, including the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, as I know he does regularly, on what steps we can take to tackle cat smuggling.

There is a need for stronger legislation. We know that the back door to the Republic of Ireland is through Northern Ireland, and that the back door to the United Kingdom is through Northern Ireland. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), the last Conservative Government were very active in trying to change the legislation and get on top of this issue, so it would be reassuring to hear similarly from the Minister that legislation can be made tighter to ensure that dog and cat smuggling is not taking place.

The Minister will be aware that Northern Ireland still has to follow EU pet travel legislation, which complicates things a bit, and EU legislation regarding the transportation of animals, including pregnant animals. I look forward to hearing about plans that will ensure that Northern Ireland can align with the rest of the United Kingdom, and I hope that what we discuss will be something we can all grasp.

The RSPCA has proven itself in going above and beyond. Last year, it convicted 447 defendants, including two youth offenders, with a prosecution rate of 91.7%—wow. That tells us that when the RSPCA takes on a case, it wants to win it; if it can do it that well, it is worth doing. That rate is even higher than the rate in 2022, and higher again than 2021. The work it undertakes is incredible, and we are grateful for it. I look to the Minister to say how we can further support these societies and charities, because we are truly in debt to their fantastic efforts.