Fur: Import and Sale

Sarah Dyke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.