Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Flick Drummond Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for introducing the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill as her private Member’s Bill, and congratulate her on her very good speech.

I have had an incredible number of emails regarding the Bill, which shows the strength of feeling on the topic. The deep levels of concern around the welfare of pet animals brought into the UK was shown in a YouGov poll from 2023, which revealed that 83% of the public think that the Government should crack down on puppy smuggling. As Conservatives, we care deeply for our environment and for animal welfare. We are a nation of pet lovers. Our pets are part of our families, stopping loneliness and getting people out of the house, in the case of dog owners. In the spirit of the day, may I mention some of my pets? My dogs are Marcus, an English bull terrier, and Toby, an English pointer; my cats are Sulekha, a Siamese, and Cassio and Othello, who are very nice English moggies. My cats and dogs came from homes that could no longer keep them, so I have been lucky enough to know where they came from. However, not every animal has had the same background, which is why I am so pleased that this Bill has been presented.

Ending the smuggling of dogs, puppies, cats and ferrets was an important part of the 2019 Conservative manifesto on animal welfare commitments, and the Bill will fill the gaps in current legislation that pet smugglers are abusing. We know that for smugglers, this illegal business model is highly lucrative. It was estimated to be worth around £150 million in 2021, with the prices of dogs ranging from £500 to £7,000. In 2021, 843 cats and dogs were seized at the port of Dover, with 500 seized in 2023, and found to be non-compliant with import requirements. Puppy farms in places such as Romania, Hungary and Poland breed dogs and separate them from their mothers while too young to travel, meaning their immune system cannot withstand infections.

Smugglers are disguising the commercial movements of pets as non-commercial to avoid the more stringent requirements with a pet passport. The pet travel scheme is being abused. Pets that are smuggled are unlikely to have had any veterinarian input, including rabies vaccinations and parasite treatments necessary for legal entry to the UK, making these poor animals a health risk for humans and other pets. The criminals then deceive unsuspecting buyers, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), and lead them to believe they are acquiring a pet from a professional breeder by presenting the mother together with their offspring. The mother may have been brought in heavily pregnant.

I am pleased that the Bill will establish regulations raising the minimum age of imported dogs and cats—presumably ferrets, too, although I am not quite sure about that one—to six months, and ban the import of dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant or mutilated. The Bill will amend for England, Scotland and Wales EU rules assimilated into UK law to limit the number of cats and dogs imported to five per vehicle, or three per foot passenger.

Pets are regarded as family members, and it is time to protect them as such. The steps proposed in the animal welfare Bill on the movement of pets across borders into Britain are desperately needed. The Bill provides a clear pathway to end the suffering of these innocent animals. The cruel business of pet smuggling cannot be allowed to continue any longer. The Bill is our chance to fulfil our 2019 commitment, implementing a future where pets are safely and ethically brought into the UK. As an animal lover, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon for raising this issue of great importance. I know that her persistence will ensure that the Bill goes into law very shortly. I am fully supportive of the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it proceed through this House.

Water Companies: Executive Bonuses

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that when Labour was last in power, it produced a draft Flood and Water Management Bill in 2009 that aimed to reduce red tape and other burdens on water and sewerage companies. The uproar at the time forced the Labour Government to change their mind. This Government have tightened regulations and made water companies start paying for the pollution.

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Member can be as much as of an apologist as she likes for the filthy, toxic sewage swilling through our rivers, but her constituents will hear what she says, contrast it with what they see and draw their own conclusions when the election comes, I am sure.

Whistleblowers and leaked documents give us a very clear explanation of why the water companies are behaving in the way they are. If they downgrade and cover up sewage spills, they are rewarded with permission to increase their customers’ bills, which boosts their profits. Fewer reported spills—not actual, but reported—and more profits mean bigger bonuses for the water bosses. Profiteering from covering up lawbreaking is corruption—corruption to which this Conservative Government have turned a blind eye.

Labour will crack down on rogue water companies and strengthen regulation to clean up our waterways. We will place the water companies under special measures. As a first step, Labour will ban self-monitoring by water companies. Instead, we will require water companies to install remote monitors on every outlet, with the result overseen by regulators. That way, we will know exactly what is being discharged into our waterways. Any illegal spill will be met with an immediate and severe fine—no more delays, no more appeals, and no more lenient fines that are cheaper than investing to upgrade crumbling infrastructure. Rogue water bosses who oversee repeated, severe and illegal sewage discharges will face personal criminal liability. And we will stop the Conservatives’ disgraceful collusion in this national scandal by reinstating the principle that the polluter pays.

Animal (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to you, and to everyone who has joined the Committee to consider this important Bill once again.

I thank officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have supported me throughout this process, and the Ministers at DEFRA, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who is answering today, for speaking up for the Bill along its journey so far.

I welcome the Government’s support for this legislation. Currently, there is no statutory provision in England or Northern Ireland to regulate the advertising or sale of animal activities abroad. This Government are well intentioned on the subject of animal welfare, and I know that this legislation has been a long time coming. The Government’s ambitious “Action Plan for Animal Welfare” states:

“we also want to make sure that businesses do not benefit from selling attractions, activities or experiences to tourists involving the unacceptable treatment of animals”,

and the Bill will deliver just that.

I will not repeat everything I said in the Chamber on Second Reading a few weeks ago, but it is important to break down the clauses and their effect. Clauses 1 and 2 establish the framework of offences that would involve the sale and advertising of animal experiences abroad that are considered to be low welfare. One section of particular note is subsection (3) of clause 1, which sets out the test for assessing whether an activity would be considered low welfare under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in England, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in Northern Ireland.

Clause 3 is about penalties, prosecution and liabilities under the legislation. The clause also disapplies section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 and article 19 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. That will ensure that the more complex cases that arise as a result of this legislation can be dealt with in a longer period than six months, which is the regular limit for a summary offence.

Clause 4 establishes the authority of the relevant departments in England and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to investigate any allegations resulting from the offences created under the legislation. Clause 5 outlines the procedures for making regulations under the new legislation, both in this Parliament and in the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. Clause 6 defines the terms commonly used throughout the Bill, including “activity regulations”, “animal”, “appropriate national authority”, “appropriate national legislation”, “offering” and “vertebrate”.

Finally, clause 7 details the territorial extent of the Bill—it applies to England and Northern Ireland—the commencement of the Act, which is due to take effect two months following Royal Assent from His Majesty the King, and the short title of the Act.

Animals cannot speak up for themselves, but we can speak for them. Charities including Save The Asian Elephants and World Animal Protection have highlighted the plight of many animals, including elephants and dolphins, which suffer in appalling conditions behind the scenes before being paraded around for visiting tourists. World Animal Protection estimates that up to 550,000 wild animals are suffering in poor conditions for the entertainment of tourists worldwide.

While we cannot outlaw those practices overseas, the Bill goes a long way to ensuring that we do our bit. Once enacted, it will prohibit the advertisement in England and Northern Ireland of tourist activities abroad that infringe on animal welfare standards. By reducing the visibility and prevalence of advertisements for such activities on high streets across England and Northern Ireland, the Bill will lead to more welfare-conscious offers being made to tourists who wish to go abroad.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for promoting this incredibly important Bill. Do those advertisements include those for swimming with dolphins?

[Angela Richardson]

It does. I will come on to talk about dolphins and other animals later in my speech.

A briefing note circulated by a number of animal welfare charities to members of the Committee highlighted 12 recurring themes in the keeping of animals in low-welfare attractions and facilities. It is prudent to bring them to the attention of the Committee to show the difference that the legislation could make. Animals are taken from the wild, which harms the animal, local wildlife populations and people. Mothers are killed, injured or harmed simply so that their infants can be captured. Breeding mothers are kept and forced to raise their young in low-welfare facilities, as opposed to in the wild. Infants are taken from their mothers far too young. There is a high mortality rate among animals that are in transit or traded.

Animals are kept in situations that are unnatural to them, including close captivity, which can be particularly harmful to long-lived species and to those accustomed to a large range in the wild. Animals are forced to perform unnatural behaviours. The use, or threat, of fear, pain, or drugs is used to control or train animals, and methods of domination are used to traumatise or subdue them. Animals are closely handled by several untrained people, and are often given no option to retreat. There is a risk of zoonotic disease transmission from animals, particularly when they are used as photo props and handled by large volumes of people. Finally, animals who are no longer used for exhibition are kept in cruel surroundings or killed before they have reach the natural end of their life. Those 12 themes paint a picture of a experiences that none of us would wish on an animal in the wild. This legislation will result in fewer animals being treated in that way by bringing about less consumer demand for experiences based on low-welfare treatment.

Let me mention some of the experiences that feature poor conditions for animals, as well as the species that the Bill could have an impact on. I will start with the Asian elephant, used as a tourist attraction for rides, particularly in south-east Asia. Animals from that precious species are brutally taken in the wild at a young age—sometimes their mothers are killed right in front of them—and then subjected to a breaking of their spirits by isolation, starvation, stabbings and beatings to make them submissive when engaged in activities with tourists.

Another experience used in tourist activities around the world is the use of animals as photo props. That can include primates, reptiles and avian life being used for selfies; and big cats, such as tigers, lions and leopards, being used in public interaction.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful for that intervention. I paid tribute to the hon. Lady last night in a different animal welfare debate in the main Chamber, and I am happy to repeat my appreciation for all the work she does to highlight animal welfare issues in Parliament. She has a strong record on that. I was not aware of the very sorry example that she mentions. The Bill is about preventing the import of trophies hunted from endangered species, but I very much support her wider point. Personally, I find it abhorrent that people should be flying into this country to shoot stags, but that is beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

This point is in a very similar vein to that made by the hon. Member for Bristol East. The explanatory notes state:

“Trophies from captive-bred animals are currently subject to less strict controls than wild animals. An Import permit is not required for trophies from captive-bred animals of Annex A and six Annex B species.”

That is what we are looking at. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley confirm that the trade in trophies from captive-bred animals will also be covered by the Bill?

[Henry Smith]

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important clarification. She is referring to so-called canned hunting experiences, whereby, appallingly, endangered species are bred purely to be in an enclosure to be shot for some sort of entertainment by trophy hunters. The Bill covers that—it covers all endangered species listed in CITES annexes A and B. The sorry and sad circumstances in which an animal is killed for a trophy—whether they are out in the bush or the tundra, in the case of polar bears, or in an enclosure—do not matter.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on promoting the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support.

I am fortunate to be the Member of Parliament for Marwell Zoo, which is a leader not only in caring for animals in the UK, but in conservation work around the world. Marwell is emerging from the challenges of the pandemic after being closed and restricted for so long, like so many centres of its kind. It is a wonderful place, both as a tourist attraction and as a centre of excellence in wildlife conservation, and I have sought the expert views of its chief executive James Cretney in preparing my speech.

Many issues that we debate in this House, and on which we legislate, capture huge attention from the public, but that is especially true of animal welfare. We are a nation of animal lovers. Issues relating to animal welfare make up a huge proportion of the correspondence that I receive as an MP, and I am sure that other Members have similar experiences. Over the years, I have received many hundreds of emails from constituents about trophy hunting. They have often been sent in response to lobby group campaigns focusing on specific incidents such as the shooting of Cecil the lion in 2015 or occasional cases in which a hunter kills a large number of animals in one go.

We have to look beyond emotions, however, and consider how a ban on trophy hunting imports would engage with nature, society and economics in some very poor areas of the world. This is not about any debates in the UK or about how we manage stocks or overpopulations of particular species in our own country. We must also be clear that there are occasions on which it is necessary to control an animal population where natural predation has broken down, in most cases because a predator has been hunted or driven from the environment by man. However, it is clear that when it comes to trophy hunting, there are problems that we must address.

I have a personal interest, through the work of my father in Yemen and Oman in the 1960s. While he was based in the region with the Trucial Oman Scouts, he became involved in the effort to record and save the Arabian oryx. This beautiful animal was once common across the middle east from Sinai to Iraq and on the Arabian peninsula. It is thought that there was likely an encounter with an Arabian oryx some time in the past by a European traveller which gave rise to the legend of the unicorn, although the oryx actually has two straight horns, not one. Gradually, the oryx was hunted to extinction across the wider middle east. Until the early 1960s, it remained only in the Rub’ al Khali—the empty quarter—across the boundaries of Yemen, Oman and Saudi Arabia. Even then, it was not certain that any living animals remained. However, a programme was put together to rescue remaining animals and establish a breeding programme at Phoenix zoo in the USA.

The Arabian oryx was prized as a trophy for its fine horns and, even as the programme was beginning its work in 1961, the herd of the oryx in the empty quarter was subject to a major hunting expedition. Hunters from Qatar and the Emirates killed off many of them for trophies. Had the programme not been successful in locating and taking some oryx to safety, it would have been extinct immediately. This was the modern effort to save a species from extinction and I am pleased that my father, with his colleagues, had a role in getting it under way.

In the laxer circumstances of the mid-1970s, the Arabian oryx was eventually trophy-hunted to extinction in the wild. Were it not for the success of the breeding programme in zoos, it would have gone the same way as the dodo. I am pleased that it has been possible, since the 1980s, to reintroduce the oryx to a number of locations in the middle east. There are now populations in Oman, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Israel, but it is still classed as vulnerable. The Arabian oryx would fall under the scope of the Bill, being an annex A species within CITES. It is just one example covering one of the many species that are in danger. We tend to think of elephants and lions as being most at risk, but there is a huge range of animals hunted for trophies around the world that deserve protection.

Opponents of the kind of Bill we are looking at today make a case that trophy hunting benefits states that are less wealthy than the UK and warn of unintended consequences, as we have just heard from the previous speaker. This is something I have been looking at in the lead-up to Second Reading. I wanted to be sure, in looking at the Bill, that the end of trophy hunting, which, sadly, the Bill alone cannot lead to, would not destabilise fragile economies and ecosystems in the developing world. The evidence is convincing that it will not have those negative effects.

Trophy hunting can lead to destabilised social organisation in species such as lions, where males are killed preferentially by trophy hunters. This disorganisation has led to increased female and cub mortality, and an accelerated population decline. If an excessive number of male lions are killed, their families are killed indirectly too. The entire reproductive capacity of the species is harmed. Zimbabwe, whose lion population is being destabilised in the way I have just described, has been a source of more than a quarter of trophy-hunted imports to the UK over the last 20 years.

Trophy hunting as a benefit to the local economy is only of doubtful value. The function of trophy-hunting estates is similar to other high-end tourist resorts with a range of facilities and leisure for tourists. The profits from those resorts do not stay with the local population, who are mostly a source of cheap labour. They end up in the bank accounts of tour and resort operators who are mostly not based in the target country. The description of cheap labour can nearly always be applied to the specialist trackers or traditional hunters who are recruited to do the hard work of trophy hunting, which is to locate the prey. The hunter then just has to point and shoot, and pose for their pictures. The description of this kind of hunting as some kind of sport involving big game is greatly exaggerated.

Even in the top hunting destinations for tourists, the trade makes a tiny contribution to GDP. Nowhere does it account for more than half of 1% of GDP. In Zimbabwe, where we have seen the traders doing major damage, it accounts for 0.3% of GDP. The argument that it would be economically damaging to have to replace hunting tourism with conventional wildlife tourism hardly seems viable. In some cases, trophy hunting areas are, in fact, just large fenced enclosures, and it is on these that the argument for a managed, captive-bred population can best be made. However, these enclosures sit within the wider landscape, and their fencing and infrastructure negatively affect wildlife around the boundaries, disturbing the natural habitat for the wild population and leading to its decline.

Another feature of fenced enclosure hunting is the introduction of species attractive to trophy hunters that are not native to the area. Inevitably, some of those animals escape into the wild where they begin to destabilise the wider ecosystem. Their habitats in the resorts can damage the ecosystem and undermine the claim that the resorts are a managed but natural environment.

Poaching is legally separate, but it is undoubtedly given some cover by the activities of hunters and the market for trophy goods. Much poaching takes place using forged permits and an assumption that the possession of hunting equipment in an area is legal.

For a long time, the British Government’s view was that managed hunting of wild animals is acceptable, both in the canned format where animals are hunted within fenced enclosures and elsewhere where animals roam free but are supposedly under wider management by local agencies. I welcomed it when our Government looked again at the evidence in 2019 and began the consultation process that helped to lead to this Bill.

This Government are the greenest and most animal and environmentally friendly Government that the UK has ever had. The UK was always a leader in pressing for higher standards in the environment and animal welfare during our time in the EU, against concerted opposition from some other members. Now we have left the EU and introduced our landmark Environment Act 2021 and Agriculture Act 2020, we have a secure legislative base at home. Our leadership of international environment and ecological negotiations allows this Parliament and our Government to have great authority to others around the world. We must use that soft power.

I hope the Government will assist and support this Bill—I am pleased to hear that the Minister has already agreed to that—and will maintain their efforts around the world to help supress poaching. The reality for many species is that no level of commercial hunting by man is sustainable.

Support for Local Food Infrastructure

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). She is in fact a vegetarian, so I am pleased to hear her talking about the benefits of eating meat.

I am proud to represent a constituency that produces fantastic, high-quality food—a lot of which is already sold through local retailers. The subject certainly resonates with farmers and growers, as I know from my regular discussions with them. Whenever the media comes across some new way of making food more local and more sustainably produced, inevitably one finds that farmers and producers are ahead of them and already doing it. Many of those businesses provided vital support to their communities during the pandemic. I thank them for that, and I promise them my support in what might be challenging times ahead.

In my constituency we have businesses such as Meonstoke Village Store and Westlands Farm Shop, which sell a wide range of locally sourced produce. We have Middle Farm Produce, a fantastic dairy farm in Cheriton, which has a vending machine so that people can buy directly in the most convenient way. We also have Reeve Butchers and Delicatessen in Clanfield, which makes fantastic sausages; Meon Valley Butchers in Wickham; Buckingham’s Artisan Butchery in West Meon; and many others, selling excellent food.

That links with the real issue in local food—abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has already mentioned that. I realise that there are factors such as workforce availability, but the key challenge facing the sector is still regulation and Government support. If we want to reduce food miles and support local food, we must help abattoirs. They are facing increasing regulatory costs, which are disproportionately affecting smaller abattoirs. As the regulations increase, the margins reduce and prevent investment. If abattoirs cannot invest, modernise and update effectively, then the small, local abattoirs risk their entire existence. There has to be some recognition of their work and the role they play within local and small supply chains, because without them we will have no local supply chain. I shall be grateful if the Minister would look into that.

There is a frustrating stereotype that farming is somehow negligent or exploitative in how it produces food or manages the countryside. We should address that through education, as well as marketing in the food and farming sector. Getting the food from the farm to the fork with fewer stages and miles between the two points is not only environmentally beneficial, but an insurance against national or global supply chain disruptions. At present, I am hearing from everyone involved in food production, food service and retail about the increasing costs that they are facing. The global challenge resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has direct and local consequences for everyone, but I can assure everyone who is involved in food production in Meon Valley that they have my support and my thanks for everything that they have done to rise to the difficult challenges of recent years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a different question. We will come back to the hon. Lady.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

Anyone who has visited a sewage works such as Budds Farm in Havant or Bishop’s Waltham, as I have, can see the impact of wet wipes on the sewerage system. What more can we do now to raise awareness of the issues among the public so that only the three Ps are flushed down the loo?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am a mother who did not use wet wipes. It is all about comms and education. If one has to flush, one should look for the flushability logo. My hon. Friend is so right, because 93% of sewerage blockages are caused by wet wipes, which then get fat stuck around them, causing fatbergs. The more we talk about not using them, the better.

Back British Farming Day

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) on securing such an important debate on Back British Farming Day.

The Meon Valley constituency has a range of farms and agricultural businesses contributing to a thriving economy, from traditional family farms to vineyards. I pay tribute to them and their employees, who work so hard to bring high-quality produce to the market in the UK and around the world. I also pay tribute to all our farm shops, such as Westlands Farm Shop in Wickham, for selling British food and, as mentioned before, getting local food into local shops, so that local people can buy it. That is very important.

I keep in contact with producers throughout my constituency and I recently visited Hambledon Vineyard, one of the oldest commercial vineyards in the UK and one that is winning international awards for the quality of its English sparkling wine. The climate in the south downs is perfect for wine growing and, as climate change hits us, I am sure that English wines will dominate around the world, and certainly should dominate shops in the UK. If we are going to be self-sufficient in fruit, we should also be self-sufficient in wine.

I hope that, in time, my colleagues at the Treasury can be convinced to review the taxation of English sparkling wine, which attracts a higher duty rate than non-sparkling wine. We have a growing export trade, but it would help our vineyards to thrive if we allowed wine drinkers in the UK to enjoy it more with lower duty rates.

When I think of what our farming does for the environment, I am reminded of my visit to Manor Farm, when I walked the farm with Jamie Balfour and a number of other farmers from the area. We saw that it makes sense to incorporate rewilding alongside the management of woodland. Jamie manages extensive areas of woodland on his farm, and although we want to promote tree planting through schemes like the National Forest, we must also remember how important farmers are for managing woods and the wildlife they are home to.

A few months ago I visited the Horam family on their farm near Droxford, where we discussed just how high-tech and forward-looking agriculture is now, aiming to save water, to recycle, including the plastics used on the farm, and to use satellites and drones to monitor the health and growth of crops. The investment that farmers make in machinery and technology is enormous.

We have so many farmers who take great pride in the stewardship of the environment, promoting natural and organic methods. I am pleased that our support, post-Brexit, focuses on environmental goals through the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Environment Bill. The future is looking bright, and I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union for all the work it is doing to keep us on the right track to make sure that happens.

Environment Bill

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The time limit is now reduced to three minutes. I call Flick Drummond.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)]

I know the Bill is welcomed by many people in Meon Valley. It will help to secure the health of our environment and biodiversity. I am in touch with local organisations such as Hampshire CPRE and Winchester Action on Climate Change, as well as our farmers, local councils and community groups, who have all sent in their views to me as the Bill has evolved. There is support for our work across society. It is an important part of levelling up that contributes to the future of us all. The action on peatlands taken under the Bill will protect about 10% of our land area and is very welcome, as is our commitment to tree planting.

In Meon Valley, the health of our chalk down land is of primary importance to agriculture and the environment. While we are encouraging farmers to plant more trees and hedges, it is important—especially for small farmers—that we support the productivity and health of pasture land through soil improvement and restoration. The Bill sets the framework for the development and introduction of targets, and I am pleased to see the environmental improvement plan mentions soil health and makes a commitment to achieve sustainable soil management by 2030. As I mentioned in a previous debate, 80% of our soil is dead, so I am particularly interested in how we can promote soil health, which is vital to farm productivity and nature recovery generally. We have cut right back on pollutants we put into the ground, but there remains more we can do to promote healthy soil.

We must ensure that there is a plan for all five of the identified soil types to promote better health and recovery. Pasture land is a key component of this and is vital to farmers across Meon Valley, with many finding that soil can be regenerated through improved carbon capture, water infiltration, soil fertility and nutrient cycling. They see an increase in biodiversity, and we need to support them. In addition, healthier pasture lands lead to lower fertiliser and pesticide use, which can in turn benefit the health of our rivers.

I welcome the clauses on water abstraction from rivers. I have two chalk stream rivers in my constituency: the River Meon and the start of the River Itchen. Chalk streams across the country are already in a shocking state of health. The WWF report says that only 12 out of England’s 224 chalk streams are protected, and of those, only 15% are classed as adequately protected and meeting conservation objectives. I am pleased that both rivers in my constituency are among the few protected, but better management of pasture land will reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers that run off to pollute rivers. Through working alongside farmers and ensuring pasture land and soil health are valued alongside woodland and peatland, we can improve the health of our rivers and our environment. There is a lot to welcome in this Bill, and I know that it is just the start to making our environment better for everyone.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

My constituency is home to beautiful countryside and woodlands, with picturesque walks that even Downing Street advisers and Select Committee witnesses have been known to enjoy. The bluebells in Houghall woods are particularly beautiful in April.

Whether it is water quality, habitat conservation or air quality, I receive hundreds of emails from constituents on environmental issues. In Durham, we are proud of the natural beauty of our county. We want to protect and cherish it. Out of all the emails I have received on the Environment Bill, every single one without fail argues that it simply does not go far enough. So far, this Bill is largely full of half-measures and token gestures. Like me, my constituents cannot understand why the Government opposed our amendments on improving air quality and limiting the use of bee-killing pesticides when the Bill was last debated. No doubt we will be similarly frustrated if the Government vote down our common-sense amendments today.

The Government need to face the reality of our current situation. We are in a climate and ecological emergency, the effects of which are already being seen in the UK and across the world. We need firm and decisive action. Whether it is the social and economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic or agricultural regulations, every decision the Government make should consider the environmental impact and how we can best restore this planet.

It is widely accepted that, when it comes to tackling the climate emergency, we cannot go far enough or fast enough, yet everything the Government do lacks the seriousness and urgency that the situation demands. The WWF has said that

“the Bill does not achieve what has been promised: gold standard legislation, showing global leadership”.

Of course, we need an environmental Bill, but we need one that has teeth.

There is nothing in the Bill to ban fracking. The world’s oceans are being disregarded while environmental protections under the European Union framework have been replaced with flexible targets that could weaken the environmental standards we have been so proud of for so long. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are avoiding committing to iron-clad environmental protections in case they need to sell out British standards in future trade deals.

To finish, I cannot help but agree with my constituents’ belief that the Bill remains a missed opportunity. As the newest supporter of the climate and ecological emergency Bill, I urge the Government to introduce legislation that treats the climate emergency with the gravity it requires and to launch a green industrial revolution that places the environment at the heart of our economy and society.

Agricultural Transition Plan

Flick Drummond Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

It is important to note that since the advent of area-based payments the subsidy payments have been totally decoupled from production. Indeed, had we had our time again a better way to have done it might have been to introduce conditionality to the old payments that were there before. It is already the case that there are people who own a plot of land and claim on it but who are not actually producing food. The logic of our policy today is to focus the payments towards what farmers do with the land, not just dole out money based on how much land they own.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]]

The chalky soils of the Meon Valley are very different from the peatlands of the Derbyshire dales, so how will my right hon. Friend ensure that farmers in all areas are incentivised to improve soil quality, for sustainability as well as for farming?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We made an explicit change to the Agriculture Bill in this latest incarnation to ensure that soil health was recognised as a public good. Different soil types need different approaches and different treatments to bring them back into health. We are working with a number of stakeholders and universities now to establish how best to manage and measure soil health on a range of different soils, and we will have incentives in place to support that endeavour.