Home News

The first legal action against Priti Patel’s plans to force migrant boats back to France has been launched. Campaigners said they wanted judges to declare the operations unlawful and “force the government to recognise the sanctity of life”.A claim lodged at the Administrative Court by the Freedom from Torture group says there is “no legal basis” for the policy and that it would increase the risk of drownings in the English Channel.Documents seen by The Independent argue for a full judicial review of the plans, after the Home Office allegedly “refused to provide a substantive response to the grounds of the legal challenge”.The Home Office has previously refused to say whether any pushbacks have taken place, or to make public the details of the assessments behind ministers’ repeated assertions that the procedure is “safe and legal”.Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This cruel pushback policy is Boris Johnson’s latest attempt to rip up the rule book that keeps all of us safe. We should not need to launch a legal challenge to force this government to recognise the sanctity of life.“We know from our work with torture survivors that people seeking safety usually have no choice but to travel without obtaining prior permission, whether it’s because they come from a country where they cannot apply for a passport or because the UK will not grant visas for people claiming asylum.”Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, said there was “no basis in domestic law” for pushbacks.“The policy places the UK in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention and Human Rights Act,” she added. “In light of the risk to life arising from any use of the policy – and given that more than 25,000 people crossed the Channel to the UK so far this year – we have filed judicial review proceedings against the home secretary, which ask the court to declare the pushback policy unlawful.”Freedom from Torture alleges that pushbacks amount to the government authorising unlawful conduct by Border Force officers and contravene the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.Tragedy emphasises dangers of Channel crossings, says immigration ministerThe group says that existing enforcement powers, under the 1971 Immigration Act, do not allow boats to be forced out of British waters, and that there is no basis for pushbacks in domestic law.The legal challenge is one of several being mounted by charities and campaign groups.Care4Calais, Channel Rescue, and the PCS Union, which represents Border Force staff, have also announced action but not yet lodged claims in court.PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said the policy was “unlawful, unworkable and above all morally reprehensible”.“Our Border Force members are aghast at the thought they will be forced to implement such a cruel and inhumane policy,” he added. “If the government does not abandon this appalling approach, we will pursue all legal avenues including a judicial review.”The legal challenge comes after a House of Lords committee wrote to the home secretary saying it was “not convinced” that the plans were safe or lawful.“We are not aware that the government have published any arguments to substantiate the claim that a legal basis currently exists,” said a letter published on Wednesday.The previous day, MPs voted against an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill that would have prevented the powers from being “used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea”.The proposal, brought by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) chair Harriet Harman, was defeated by 313 votes to 235, while a series of other amendments to strengthen protections around pushbacks did not go to a vote.In a report on the borders bill, the JCHR found that planning to push migrant boats back to France was unlawful and would put lives at risk.It said that the new laws, which would grant Border Force staff partial immunity from prosecution if migrants drowned during pushbacks, contained several unlawful clauses. It also raised questions over how effective the laws were likely to be.The committee said the proposals must be scrapped or changed, but the bill passed through the House of Commons with the most controversial provisions unchanged on Wednesday.The Independent understands that complex rules imposed by the Home Office to prevent the operations violating international law mean that pushbacks can only happen in a certain area of the Channel, and if numerous conditions are met.A Home Office spokesperson said: “As part of our ongoing operational response and to prevent further loss of life at sea, we continue to evaluate and test a range of safe and legal options to find ways of stopping small boats making this dangerous and unnecessary journey. These all comply and are delivered in accordance with both domestic and international law.” More

MPs and conservationists are pressuring the government to fast-track a ban on imports from trophy-hunting of endangered species, fearing a backlog of legislation caused by Covid-19 could delay the move for years.Backing a private member’s bill introducing the ban would save hundreds of animals from being shot by UK hunters, the campaigners say.They worry that although the government has drafted a new law on imports, which they welcome, it could end up like the “world-leading” 2018 Ivory Act, which still has not been implemented nearly four years on, despite passing through parliament.The hold-up allows elephant parts to still be bought and sold in the UK, “fuelling” the trade.The government is proposing to outlaw trophy-hunt imports, but no time has been allocated for legislation to go to MPs, saying only that it will happen “as soon as parliamentary time allows”.Boris Johnson told MPs at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago that the government would introduce legislation to ban trophies.MPs from both main parties who are co-sponsoring a bill by John Spellar have written to the prime minister asking the government to adopt it, sparing the government from having to find time in a crowded parliamentary schedule.The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting says that despite the Covid pandemic, British trophy-hunters last year killed some of the world’s most threatened animals, including lions, elephants, hippos, giraffes, leopards, bears and zebras.They have also shot polar bears, rhinos, wolves and wild cats.Many travel with British trophy-hunting companies that promote “holidays” taking travellers abroad to shoot lions bred in captivity, elephants, cheetahs and monkeys.Data from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species shows that British hunters shoot on average 200 endangered animals a year.Conservationists say the practice has contributed to a drop in species numbers of 68 per cent in the past 50 years.Eduardo Goncalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “It has been two years since the ban was promised in the 2019 Queen’s Speech. Another 300 animals at risk of extinction have been killed by British trophy-hunters since then.“The government should be moving as swiftly as possible to stop this terrible trade.“The government recently adopted Liam Fox MP’s bill on providing lifelong care for people with Down’s syndrome, to bring the law into effect. It should do the same with John Spellar’s bill.”In a 2019 government consultation on a ban, 86 per cent of the 44,000 responses backed a crackdown on trophy-hunting.Sir Roger Gale MP, chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting and patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, said: “The promise to ban trophies was in our election manifesto and in those of all the main parties. The ban has been promised by the prime minister himself at the despatch box.“Every week that goes by without this ban means more animals are needlessly and often cruelly killed just for entertainment.”A campaign billboard will tour the UK drawing attention to the delay.Labour backbencher John Spellar said: “Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the house, has told MPs that legislation is likely to come forward ‘in the fullness of time’. The ‘fullness of time’ is government-speak for ‘This year, next year, sometime, never’. The public will be rightly outraged by dither and delay.”The letter to Mr Johnson said: “The government would rightly be given the credit for not only having shown leadership in putting this issue on the political map, but also ensuring that the ban became a reality and potentially saving the lives of a great many animals.“We invite the government to seize this historic opportunity and show its leadership in helping to bring this barbaric trade to a long-overdue end.”The government says progress on implementation of the Ivory Act was delayed because of a prolonged but ultimately unsuccessful legal challenge but that the ban should come into force in spring. Have you got a story you would like us to report on? Contact us by clicking here. More

David Cameron should appear before the Grenfell Tower inquiry after making comments that were “ridiculing” health and safety in the years before the fire, a lawyer has said.The former Prime Minister made speeches regarding red tape and regulation that had effectively relegated citizens to “a bonfire”, said a barrister representing some of the bereaved and survivors.Michael Mansfield QC told the public inquiry into the 2017 blaze, which claimed 72 lives, that Mr Cameron should appear at a hearing to explain what he meant by his words.In 2010, Mr Cameron had said he wanted to “scrap health and safety rules that put people off”, Mr Mansfield said, and followed this the year after by saying “the shadow” of health and safety was holding people back, adding that this was not “how a great nation was built” and that “Britannia didn’t rule the waves with arm bands on”.Mr Mansfield said such speeches were “ridiculing, humiliating health and safety, and relegating citizens, as it were, to effectively a bonfire”.

He needs to be here to answer what he meantMichael Mansfield QCHe quoted Mr Cameron as having referred to the “health and safety monster” in 2012.Mr Mansfield said: “We say he needs to be here to answer what he meant. Because if it’s going to be sent through his proteges, through his ministers, whatever, that he didn’t mean what he said, well let him come and say that.“But this is what he did say, ‘to kill off the health and safety culture for good’.”Mr Mansfield, still quoting Mr Cameron, added: “I want 2012 to go down in history not as just the Olympics year or Diamond Jubilee year, but the year we banished a lot of pointless time-wasting from the economy and British life once and for all.“It has become an albatross around the neck of businesses, costing them billions of pounds a year, a feared health and safety monster to be slain, so that businesses feel they can get on, they can plan, they can invest, they can grow, without feeling they’re going to be strangled by red tape and health and safety regulation.”Mr Mansfield told the inquiry it was important to “recall” and “relive” the atmosphere of that time “because it could happen again unless it is banished as an approach”.Module six of the inquiry’s second phase is taking a close look at building regulations and the published guidance on fire safety, including detailed consideration of Government policy on relevant aspects.As Monday’s hearing opened, inquiry counsel Richard Millett QC urged organisations involved in the inquiry and witnesses to it to “fully embrace their obligations of candour and openness and face up to the stark realities that they reveal”.He said: “Their written submissions tend to suggest that they have been drafted with fingers crossed. We would urge the witnesses to come in this module to approach their evidence in the full spirit of cooperation and make concessions unhesitatingly where justified on the material.”In a statement to the PA news agency, a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: “As prime minister, David Cameron advocated a sensible new approach to health and safety regulations to ensure that they protected people and were applied where needed rather than unnecessarily overwhelm businesses with red tape.” More

Ministers risk a “dereliction of duty” unless they move to make working from home the default position for civil servants where they can in a bid to combat the spread of the omicron Covid variant, Whitehall’s biggest union has warned.In a shift in its stance on the issue, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) is today calling on Downing Street to change course – warning a failure to implement the measure would “endanger” the health and safety of public servants who have fought to deliver vital services during the pandemic.Boris Johnson’s government has been increasing the number of civil servants in workplaces since the summer – when work-from-home guidance was axed as restrictions were lifted – but the intervention by PCS represents a blow to those efforts.The union, senior representatives of which are expected to press Cabinet Office officials on the issue at a meeting on Thursday, is also calling for additional protections. It wants to ensure there is social distancing and mask-wearing when people move around the workplace, for those civil servants who still need to go in.It comes amid growing concern about the emergence of omicron – which scientists believe could be more transmissible than the dominant delta variant, and evade the vaccines more – with 22 cases identified in the UK as of Tuesday.PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka told The Independent: “With the presence of [the] omicron variant now confirmed, it is vital that the government takes measures to protect civil servants.”The default position should be that civil servants work from home where they can and that social distancing and mask wearing should be re-introduced when people move around the workplace.”Leading scientists have repeatedly said home working dramatically reduces the transmission rate for the virus. It is therefore incumbent on ministers to heed the warning signs and re-introduce home working for all civil service staff who can do so. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty and endangering the health and safety of public servants who have worked hard during the pandemic to deliver vital services.”Downing Street has so far resisted pressure to alter working from home guidance, with the prime minister’s spokesman saying it is up to employers to decide on “the right balance”. However, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has encouraged people to work from home where possible in response to the new variant. In Wales, employers are also being encouraged to let people work from home. And even before the emergence of omicron, Northern Ireland’s health minister said those working from home during the first Covid wave “should be working from home” again.Until now, PCS – which has more than 180,000 members and is the largest trade union representing civil servants in the UK – has not opposed the re-introduction of some office working for civil servants since July’s easing of restrictions.“We’ve said that we are in favour of what’s called ‘hybrid working’ in a general sense but we’ve made it clear, from our point of view, that there should be a question of maximum choice for individuals and for them to work out their regime with their manager locally,” a PCS spokesman said, explaining the union’s position to date. “What we have got a difficulty with is the view of some government departments, but not all of them, that they’ve got to have a rigid regime that they’ve got to control from the top.”The government’s drive to get civil servants back into the office last year – when Whitehall bosses were ordered to get 80 per cent of staff to go in at least once a week – was scuppered by the second Covid wave. Since 19 July, when the nationwide work-from-home guidance was dropped, the government has sought to strike a more nuanced approach to the issue. Government departments have been able to dictate their own individual parameters, with hybrid home and office working commonplace across Whitehall – although attendance rates are understood to vary. In an apparent effort to get more civil servants back to their desks, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary Alex Chisholm wrote to chief operating officers in departments and agencies earlier this month inviting them to take steps to increase workers attending the office.It comes after Mr Chisholm, who also serves as chief operating officer for the civil service, told MPs on the Public Accounts Committee in September that assumptions about attendance were “not fixed”. He added that allowing home working longer term was likely to save the civil service money and improve their working across regions of the UK.Mandarins have sought to balance the needs of team building with the flexibility that civil servants could now expect to enjoy in the private sector. “I want to serve the government of the day to the best of my ability. That’s helped by keeping talented staff happy, as well as understanding why ministers want to be able to have face-to-face discussions with policy experts,” one senior civil servant said.“Some staff members are jittery about how the new variant could impact their plans to see family after they’ve spent a lot of time apart,” they added. “It’s hard for me to argue against working from home for them if they are performing well.”The picture of home working in Whitehall and around the UK varies between departments. The Cabinet Office has a relatively high level of workers attending the office each day, according to people familiar with its operations. At the Treasury, insiders say it varies from team to team, but that large numbers of staff are required to work in the office, rather than remotely, given their access to economic data that could prove market sensitive.According to people with knowledge of the different departments’ offices, attendance rates are far lower for the Department of International Trade and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.The location and role of individual civil servants also appears to have a major influence. Outside of London, in Liverpool and Newcastle, civil servants told The Independent that their managers had been flexible about home working. This contrasts with staffers in ministers’ private offices who it is understood are expected to attend the office whenever ‘the principal’ – Whitehall jargon for the minister or secretary of state – is in the building.Meanwhile civil servants in Northern Ireland and Scotland are following advice to work from home where possible, following the guidance of their devolved administrations.“Encouragement from ministers to return to the office has been rising – and lots of civil servants have wanted to get back to face-to-face work too,” said Alex Thomas, a programme director at think tank, the Institute for Government, reflecting the situation since ‘Freedom Day’ in July. “Those officials working most closely with ministers have felt more pressure to be physically present, but how acute that is still depends a lot on the department and individual ministers,” he added.The government has been contacted for comment. More

Sir Lindsay Hoyle has ordered a review into whether MPs can bring their babies into the chamber, after Labour’s Stella Creasy was told by Commons authorities it was against the rules to bring her three-month-old son to a debate.After the correspondence provoked outrage, the Commons speaker told MPs he was initially unaware of the exchange, but stressed it was “extremely important” that parents of young children could fully participate in parliamentary work.Updating MPs, Sir Lindsay said he had requested that the procedure committee, chaired by former Tory minister Karen Bradley, review the matter and bring forward recommendations for the Commons to vote on.Ms Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, who has previously taken her infant child into the Commons without complaint, was reprimanded after leading a debate on “buy now, pay later” consumer credit schemes on Tuesday with her three-month-old son in a sling.“We’ve been made aware that you were accompanied by your baby in Westminster Hall earlier today,” the email from the private secretary to the chair of the Ways and Means Committee read.The correspondence – posted by Ms Creasy on social media – said that bringing her baby into parliament was not in line with recently published rules on “behaviour and courtesies” contained in the handbook for MPs. “I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this also applies to debates in Westminster Hall,” it added.Ms Creasy, who has campaigned for mothers to enter politics, posted alongside the email last night: “Mothers in the mother of all parliament[s] are not to be seen or heard it seems…. #21stCenturyCalling”.The rule book, issued by the speaker and deputy speakers in relation to the House of Commons and Westminster Hall, was updated in September.It says: “You should not take your seat in the chamber when accompanied by your child, nor stand at either end of the chamber, between divisions.” The same wording was used in the previous version of the rule book.Labour MP Alex Davies-Jones tweeted that the rule seemed “a complete contradiction” given that, when she was breastfeeding her child, the commons speaker had assured her that she could feed her child in the chamber or Westminster Hall if she needed to.In an update to MPs on Wednesday, Sir Lindsay said: “This advice given yesterday to the honourable member from Walthamstow on the authority of the chairman of ways and means, which I was not aware of until last night, correctly reflects the current rules. However, rules have to be seen in context and they change with the times.“This house has to be able to function professionally and without disturbances, however, sometimes there may be occasions when the chair can exercise discretion assuming the business is not to be disturbed. I accept there are differing views on this matter.”He added: “There are also likely to be some consequential matters, therefore I have asked the chair of the Procedure Committee if she and her committee would look into this matter and bring forward recommendations which would ultimately be for the house to take a view on.”Ms Creasy, who also has a young daughter, has battled for MPs to have adequate maternity cover through her campaign This Mum Votes. In September, Ms Creasy questioned commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg on whether he would consider reviewing rules which meant that MPs on parental leave must give up the proxy vote they are permitted if they want to speak occasionally in the chamber.Mr Rees-Mogg said in response that he thought the rules were “perfectly reasonable and entirely in line with the law”.MPs are entitled to paid maternity leave for six months, along with a proxy vote, but they must be physically present at Westminster in order to represent their constituents’ views during Commons debates.Former Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson was thought to be the first MP to cradle her baby during a debate in the Commons in 2018. In the same year, New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern became the first world leader to take her baby to the floor of the UN general assembly in New York. More

The government has been warned that Afghan refugees who are eligible for a UK resettlement scheme could “die before it becomes operational” after a three-month delay.Ministers pledged to relocate up to 20,000 people after the Taliban takeover of the country in August, but the scheme has not yet started and is still in the design stage.Campaigners accused the government of “dawdling” after failing to prepare for the consequences of military withdrawal from Afghanistan, while an MP said one of her constituents had already seen two relatives murdered by the Taliban.The delay comes as the government moves to criminalise all asylum seekers arriving in Britain on small boats or by other irregular routes. At least 10 migrants are thought to have drowned in the English Channel in recent weeks.Victoria Atkins, the minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, told the House of Commons: “We are working urgently across government and with partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to design the scheme. “We continue to support the thousands of people successfully evacuated from Afghanistan under Operation Pitting, and we will continue to support those who come under the scheme when it opens.”Labour MP Helen Hayes said one of her constituents had a brother living in hiding in Afghanistan with his wife and children. She added: “Since the evacuation ended, they have lost an uncle and a cousin, both murdered by the Taliban, and they have received numerous threatening messages. They live in daily fear for their lives, yet the government will not issue papers to give them the best chance of safe passage to the UK via a third country.”Ms Atkins said the security situation in Afghanistan meant that the UK had no consular presence in the country, but was “working at pace” to set up the resettlement process.“We want to set the scheme up as an example of a safe and legal route under the government’s new plan for immigration,” she added.Labour MP Bambos Charalambous said: “There is a real risk that the people whom the scheme is intended to help will die before it becomes operational.”Ms Atkins said 15,000 people were evacuated under the Operation Pitting emergency operation, and that there were agreements to remove more from Afghanistan with third countries.People crossing Channel are ‘not genuine asylum seekers’ and just want to stay in hotels, Priti Patel saysShe insisted the UK was “meeting its commitment” for translators and other Afghans who were made Taliban targets by their work with the British military. Louise Calvey, the head of services at charity Refugee Action, said: “It’s indefensible that ministers are still dawdling over the details of its Afghan resettlement scheme, three months after the fall of Kabul.“These delays have been caused in part by the government’s previous refusal to commit to a long-term resettlement programme, which left it totally unprepared when it was needed.“But this is no excuse to not help now. Ministers must urgently use the already operational UK resettlement scheme to identify and relocate vulnerable Afghan refugees so they can start to rebuild their lives here in safety.”Lisa Doyle, director of advocacy at the Refugee Council, said she was “dismayed” by the delay, adding: “The situation in Afghanistan remains extremely dangerous with many people at risk of persecution. The government needs to provide urgent clarification on when we can expect the scheme to open.”During the same parliamentary debate, Priti Patel defended a suite of new laws that would criminalise any refugee – including Afghans – who cross the English Channel on small boats or by any other means without “entry clearance”.“The new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill are pivotal to the comprehensive reform of the entire system,” the home secretary told parliament. “There is no single solution.” More

Priti Patel is to proscribe the political wing of Hamas as a terrorist organisation after denouncing it as “fundamentally and rabidly antisemitic”.Hamas’ military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001, but in an announcement on Friday the home secretary will say the entirety of the Palestinian group should now be banned. It means supporters of the group will face up to 10 years in prison under the Terrorism Act.Setting out details in a speech on security at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, a conservative think tank which was previously aligned with Donald Trump on a number of his presidential policies, Ms Patel will say the current listing of Hamas as distinct political and militant wings “creates an artificial distinction between various parts of the organisation”.She will say: “Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry, as well as terrorist training facilities, and it has long been involved in significant terrorist violence. But the current listing of Hamas creates an artificial distinction between various parts of the organisation – it is right that the listing is updated to reflect this.“This is an important step, especially for the Jewish community. Hamas is fundamentally and rabidly antisemitic. “Antisemitism is an enduring evil which I will never tolerate. Jewish people routinely feel unsafe – at school, in the streets, when they worship, in their homes, and online. “This step will strengthen the case against anyone who waves a Hamas flag in the United Kingdom, an act that is bound to make Jewish people feel unsafe. “Anyone who supports or invites support for a proscribed organisation is breaking the law. That now includes Hamas in whatever form it takes.”However the move will put further strain on efforts to build the conditions for a permanent agreement between the Israeli government and the Hamas-run government in Gaza towards a two-state solution, which the British government has said it is committed to.Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which were opposed by Hamas, broke down in 2014. Hamas does not recognise Israel’s right to exist and has fought three wars with it since taking control of Gaza. Rare Palestinian parliamentary elections scheduled for May 2021 were postponed and the last poll, held in 2006, saw Hamas win a landslide victory.Proscription makes it a criminal offence to belong to an organisation in the UK or overseas, or even to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of a such a group.Wearing clothing that suggests an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or publishing an image of an item of clothing, flag or logo that would lead to the same conclusion, is also a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. More

The government spent more than £1m of taxpayer money in seven years on bear fur hats for the military, official figures show.From 2014 to 2019, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) bought a total of 891 caps for the Queen’s Guard, according to data given to animal-rights organisation Peta, which said up to 1,000 bear could have died in the process of making the hats.Ceremonial bearskin hats are made from the skins of Canadian black bears, which are often suffer slow deaths after being shot, Peta says. It claims at least one bear is killed for each hat made – or more if a mother with cubs is targeted. The MoD purchases cost £1,076,149 in total over the seven years. The department told Peta that last year it bought 110 bearskin caps at a cost of £145,000. Previous purchases, according to Freedom of Information Act replies, were:2019: 92 caps, costing £127,4402018: 61 caps, costing £76,2062017: 172 caps, costing £201,0712016: 207 caps, costing £240,3822015: 122 caps, costing £149,3792014: 127 caps, costing £136,671A faux-fur company based in France, Ecopel, has offered to provide the MoD with artificial bear fur free of charge until 2030.As mayor of London six years ago, Boris Johnson said he would be open to using fake fur hats if it might “help save a few bears”, according to The Telegraph.During black bear hunts, up to one in seven escapes wounded and dies slowly from blood loss or starvation, Peta says.And if a nursing mother bear is killed, entire families die because the cubs cannot fend for themselves.Designer Stella McCartney has previously offered to create new faux fur hats for the MoD, but it’s believed her offer was declined.Peta senior campaigns manager Kate Werner said: “There is no excuse for the Ministry of Defence to continue funding the slaughter of black bears – and the prime minister must put a stop to it.“The humane, high-performing faux fur created by Ecopel gives a nod to tradition while preventing sensitive bears from being viciously slaughtered for their fur.”The organisation sent a person in dressed as a bear in the faux skin to Downing Street to call on the prime minister to make the switch.The Independent has asked the MoD whether it will take up the offer from Ecopel and to comment on the more than £1m spending.The department has said in the past: “Over the last 20 years there have been a number of trials of synthetic alternatives to bear pelts which have, to date, proved unsuccessful as nothing has matched the properties of the natural product. The Ministry of Defence does not buy bear pelts – only ceremonial caps.”Ecopel says its fabric looks and functions exactly like real bearskin.Buying real animal fur is still legal in the UK, even though the government has come under intense pressure to outlaw imports as fur farms are banned in Britain.Earlier this year ministers launched a call for evidence on the implications of a block on importing and selling real fur. More