Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned says Welsh MP
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has said.While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold.Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products.The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US.
Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane."If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense."The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry."Faux fur could do the job just as well."Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. "There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said. "Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely."The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said.
Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur". "It's just not desirable."But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing."We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said. "Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. "I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity."Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries. The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK market.The new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage items.Ms Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added. Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural."I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn."In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs."Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said."Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions."MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police."The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July. Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the Letby case: justice cannot be immune from scrutiny or doubt
When Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies, and attempting to murder seven more, the judge sentenced her to multiple whole-life terms for what he said had been 'a cruel, calculated and cynical campaign'. The convictions shook public trust in the NHS and demanded a reckoning with a system and culture that had failed to prevent such horrors. In August 2023, this newspaper urged readers to look beyond individual guilt to the institutional failures that allowed such crimes to go undetected for so long. It remains the case that serious questions must be asked of NHS management and clinical staff in relation to the tragic events at the Countess of Chester hospital. However, justice, like science, should not be afraid to re-examine its conclusions when reasonable doubt or fresh evidence emerge. Since Letby's conviction, many have questioned the basis of the prosecution case. Leading experts have raised challenges about the reliability of key medical assumptions and the quality of statistical interpretations that led to Letby being jailed. Her guilt or innocence is not for the media to decide. But journalism plays a vital role in scrutinising government, parliament and the courts. When a serious body of concern arises around a conviction, particularly one so grave and emotionally charged, the state has a duty to respond not with defensiveness, but with clear candour. The official inquiry into the Letby case, headed by Lady Justice Thirlwall, is set to report in 2026. The judge said she could not examine the safety of the conviction. The decision to continue with the inquiry on those terms, for which the health secretary, Wes Streeting, was also responsible, is regrettable. While the grief and anger of the families who lost their children must remain central, their pain is not diminished by the state subjecting itself to scrutiny. On the contrary, trust in public institutions depends on a willingness to confront hard questions – especially the most uncomfortable ones. A miscarriage of justice may have occurred in this case. It may not. But accepting the possibility that it could have – and allowing a mechanism to guard against error is essential. The criminal justice system, like all human institutions, makes mistakes. Its integrity depends not on infallibility but on the ability to admit errors and correct them. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is weighing the merits of an appeal. The commission has faced justified criticism over its failings in the wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson. As the review of that case warned, justice demands we keep the risk of mistakes firmly in mind. It is in that spirit that the CCRC's new chair, Vera Baird KC, should approach this matter. The commission must demonstrate the independence, transparency and diligence required for justice to be served – even in cases where grief and outrage weigh heavily. No case, however disturbing, should be exempt from reassessment if evidence demands it. The commission can only refer cases back to the court of appeal on the narrow ground that there is a realistic possibility that the judges there may overturn a conviction. The bench has twice declined – in May 2024 and March this year – to re-examine or admit challenges to Letby's conviction. Persisting with such a course risks hardening public doubt, not resolving it. In moments like this, it is wise to remember that justice must be done and be seen to be done.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Britain warns against all travel to Israel as fighting with Iran intensifies
Britain has issued a warning against all travel to Israel as tensions with Iran escalated and the two countries stepped up their attacks with a fresh wave of missile strikes from both sides. As Donald Trump called for the two countries to make a deal to end the fighting, the UK Foreign Office updated its travel advice to say it now advised against travel to any parts of Israel. The US president had earlier threatened to respond with 'the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces' after Iran threatened to attack American, UK and French bases if they defended Israel. And a defiant Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran would pay a "very heavy price" for the deaths of Israeli civilians, as he visited Bat Yam, a city just south of Tel Aviv hit by deadly strikes. 'Iran will pay a very heavy price for the premeditated murder of civilians, women and children,' Mr Netanyahu said. Meanwhile, Rachel Reeves was forced to state that Britain is not at war, despite the UK sending more RAF jets to the Middle East. But, with at least 10 dead in Israel and millions hiding from the onslaught in bomb shelters across the country, the chancellor said Britain could offer military support for its ally as it fends off Iran's attacks. Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Ms Reeves said: 'We have, in the past, supported Israel when there have been missiles coming in. 'So far, we haven't been involved, and we're sending in assets to both protect ourselves and also potentially to support our allies.' She added: 'It's very early days, and things are moving quickly, but when we urge for de-escalation in the region, that is in part because of the lives at risk… but also because what happens in the Middle East affects us here at home.' With Israel saying it plans to escalate its campaign, Ms Reeves warned that the impact of the conflict would be felt by families in the UK as it pushed up oil prices and threatened to block key trade routes. The UK's travel ban puts Israel in the same category as Iran, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy telling Britons, 'your safety remains our top priority'. Updating its travel advice, the Foreign Office said: 'Iran has launched multiple rounds of missile and drone attacks against Israel. On 13 June, a nationwide state of emergency was declared in Israel. This followed Israeli strikes against nuclear and military facilities in Iran. Israeli airspace remains closed. 'We recognise this is a fast-moving situation that poses significant risks. The situation has the potential to deteriorate further, quickly and without warning. The current situation has disrupted air links out of the country and may disrupt road links.' Pressed on whether the UK would repatriate citizens stuck in Israel following the closure of Tel Aviv's airport and the mass diversion and cancellation of flights, the prime minister's official spokesman said there were no plans to do so, but it was being kept under review. The conflict was sparked as Iran launched missile and drone strikes on Israel overnight on Friday in response to a series of Israeli attacks on the heart of Tehran's nuclear programme and armed forces. That followed weeks of escalating tensions between the countries over Iran's nuclear programme. In the dramatic scenes which have since unfolded, smoke has been seen rising above Tehran and Tel Aviv, with air sirens sounding across central Israel and the Jerusalem area on Sunday. In a sign that a deal to end the conflict is some way off, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on Sunday said that Israel 'will strike the sites and continue to peel the skin off the Iranian snake in Tehran and everywhere, stripping it of nuclear capabilities and weapons systems'. An official said Israel still had a long list of targets in Iran and would not say how long the attacks would go on for. Meanwhile, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian said its responses will grow "more decisive and severe" if Israel's attacks continue. In a call for de-escalation, President Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal… we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran!' That followed a post late on Saturday night in which Mr Trump warned: 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before. However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!' It comes as world leaders, including Mr Trump, Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, are gathered in Canada for a crunch G7 summit, which now looks set to be dominated by the conflict in the Middle East.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
HS2 contractors referred to taxman over supply of workers
The company building the HS2 rail line between London and Birmingham has reported one of its subcontractors to the tax authorities over possible fraud. Whistleblowers made allegations over the way pay was handled for some construction staff on the high-speed Ltd said last month it was conducting its own investigation, looking into two firms who supplied it with workers. The company has now also referred the matter to firms in question were providing workers to Balfour Beatty Vinci (BBV), a contractor for HS2. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander is expected to raise the issue in Parliament this week. It is the latest difficulty to beset the troubled giant rail infrastructure has faced myriad challenges and spiralling costs since it was first announced in 2009. It was originally designed to boost capacity on the railways between the north and south of England but the last, Conservative, government decided to scrap the second phase of the project, which included building lines to Manchester and this year whistleblowers flagged concerns over the way some subcontracted staff were being paid. They said self-employed workers had been falsely declared as salaried staff, with "fake" payslips submitted at a higher payrate. The allegations were first published in the i newspaper in of the labour suppliers is understood to remain suspended from new contracts while inquiries HS2 spokesperson said: "We treat all whistleblower allegations seriously and are continuing to conduct our own investigation."The firm said it encouraged anyone with relevant information to report it via confidential internal Department for Transport said last month it had "a zero-tolerance attitude towards fraud, bribery, and corruption" and would ensure any claims of wrongdoing were thoroughly investigated.
