← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Fur: Import and Sale
10 March 2026
Lead MP
Ruth Jones
Newport West and Islwyn
Lab
Responding Minister
Angela Eagle
Tags
EconomyTaxationBusiness & TradeBenefits & WelfareAgriculture & Rural Affairs
Word Count: 10967
Other Contributors: 10
At a Glance
Ruth Jones raised concerns about fur: import and sale in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Jones asked the Minister to provide details on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government's 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade and the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. She also expressed hope that processed animal fur will not be included in the UK's ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. The hon. Member asks the Minister to halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and to ensure the use of faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts. She calls on the Minister to discuss these issues with the MOD and to take steps to end the use of bearskins. The hon. Member asked the Minister to clarify the Government's position following the Animal Welfare Committee's report and to provide clarity on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation. She also enquired about the inclusion of a ban on fur imports in the animal welfare strategy and the Government's position on the timing of further action.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Ruth Jones highlighted the cruelty and inhumane treatment of animals in the fur trade, citing a story about a man who left the fur industry after witnessing the suffering of animals in a Polish fur farm. She mentioned that tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink, and raccoons, are trapped for fashion and suffer extreme physical and psychological distress. Jones also noted that the European Food Safety Authority's report concluded that current fur farming systems cannot prevent suffering and cruelty. She warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, having recorded hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza, and stressed that the industry is resource-intensive, highly polluting, and carbon-heavy. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is concerned about the import of black bear fur for King's Guard caps, which the Government has committed to ending. Trophy hunters are the source of the fur, and the use of such fur is detrimental to bears, often leading to their slow and painful deaths. The MOD has spent £1 million on bear pelts over the past decade, and the practice is unethical and environmentally unfriendly. Faux fur alternatives outperform real fur in terms of waterproofing and are more sustainable. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) highlighted that fur farming has been banned in England and Wales since 2000, yet imports that do not meet the UK's standards are still allowed. She noted that while fur imports are decreasing and there are established controls on fur from endangered species and non-compliant methods, these measures do not go far enough. The call for evidence on the fur market received over 30,000 responses, and a petition received over 1.5 million signatures, demonstrating strong public support for a fur import ban. She also pointed out that fur imports from trapped animals cause significant collateral damage to other animals.
Adam Jogee
Lab
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Adam Jogee supported the Bill and highlighted the significant support among his constituents for animal welfare, noting that many designers and retailers have already recognised the importance of the issue. He emphasised the need for the government to take action to deliver a fur-free Britain.
Alex Easton
Ind
North Down
Fur is not just a by-product but a product that relies on animals being caged, confined, and killed solely for their pelts, and a ban on the import and sale of fur would be a proportionate measure consistent with our ethics.
Danny Chambers
Lib Dem
Winchester
The hon. Member questions the ethics of offshoring animal welfare issues by allowing the import of fur products that are banned domestically, arguing that if something is unacceptable in the UK, it should not be permissible abroad.
Iqbal Mohamed
Ind
Dewsbury and Batley
The hon. Member supports the call for a ban on the import and sale of fur products in the UK, citing ethical, economic, and environmental reasons. He highlights the cruelty of fur farming and the declining demand for fur in the market, urging the government to align with public opinion and implement a ban. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) questioned why the Government is not taking the lead on banning the import of fur products, given the significant number of animals trapped and the collateral damage caused to other animals.
Irene Campbell
Lab
North Ayrshire and Arran
The speaker supports the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill, highlighting the ethical issues of fur farming and the environmental and health risks associated with the fur trade. She mentions that over 1,600 companies are registered as fur-free and that British designers are pioneering faux fur alternatives. The fur industry, which keeps animals in small, barren cages, is declining, and a UK ban on fur import and sales would send a strong message to countries still engaged in cruel fur farming.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) supports the ban on fur farming and the import of fur for sale. He believes that it is past time to close the loophole that allows the importation of fur from other countries. He highlights that while he supports the use of game birds, every effort should be made to ensure that animals are used in their entirety. He calls on the Minister to support the Bill and its intentions to prevent the import and sale of fur and other products.
Laurence Turner
Lab
Birmingham Northfield
Laurence Turner welcomed the Government's animal welfare strategy but stressed that there is no such thing as cruelty-free fur. He mentioned a European Food Safety Authority study that found serious harm to foxes and minks in fur farming. Turner argued that a ban on fur imports would be justified under WTO rules and challenged the economic dependency claim of indigenous communities on fur exports. He criticised certification schemes like WelFur and Furmark for being meaningless and not addressing the cage system issues. Turner requested an update on the timelines for the working group and asked the Government to reject the validity of industry-promoted certification schemes.
Robbie Moore
Con
Keighley and Ilkley
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) expressed concern about the fairness of allowing fur imports despite the ban on fur farming in the UK. He noted the decrease in fur imports under the previous administration and the strong public support for a fur import ban, as evidenced by a petition with over 1.5 million signatures. He urged the Government to explore a ban on imports.
Sarah Dyke
Lib Dem
Glastonbury and Somerton
Sarah Dyke from Glastonbury and Somerton called for a comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products. She highlighted that over three-quarters of the British public want this double standard ended, and noted that the fur trade's contribution to the UK economy has declined significantly. She also stressed the public health risk posed by the global fur trade, citing warnings from virologists. Dyke praised the Government's progress on the issue but urged them to ban the sale and import of fur to maintain the UK's global leadership in animal welfare.
Steve Witherden
Lab
Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr
The UK should prohibit the importation and sale of fur due to the cruelty, environmental harm, and health risks associated with the fur industry. Each year, over 100 million animals are killed for fur globally, and 95% of the fur market comes from fur farms that cause immense suffering to animals. Fur farming also has a high carbon footprint and uses toxic chemicals, posing health risks to humans. The speaker supports the Fur Bill to strengthen the UK's reputation as a leader in animal welfare.
Government Response
Angela Eagle
Government Response
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.