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.