Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 3 Jul 2026 · 15 speeches · Official Report
Second Reading
Moved by
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
My Lords, I begin by quoting the Government’s own words from a biodiversity strategy published jointly with the devolved Governments in February 2025: “Biodiversity is key to all the processes that support life on Earth. We rely on it for our essential needs, like food, shelter, energy and medicine, as well as for the ecosystem services it provides, such as climate regulation, flood management, water purification, disease and pest control, and pollination. Additionally, more than half of the world’s gross domestic product … is highly or moderately dependent on nature”. You would therefore think that the Government, and Governments around the world, would have established legal systems and forms to effectively protect and enhance nature, but that is not what is happening-particularly in the UK, one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth, as the State of Nature report of 2023 concluded. That report was arguably very soon after the 2021 Environment Act, which set the very modest target of halting the decline in species abundance by 2030. But half a decade after the Act, there are still scant signs of progress. For evidence, I go to a peer-reviewed study by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, out this year, which found little sign of an end to the spiralling decline. Its lead author pointed to the grave risk of loss of the merlin, the mountain ringlet, large heath butterflies and plants such as burnt orchid, grass-of-parnassus and alpine gentian, and many other...
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on introducing the Bill. It is a comprehensive Bill, given the number of clauses in it, and I completely understand the sentiment with which the noble Baroness is bringing it forward. She is right to point out that the Environment Act was important legislation but still only an element along the way to aspects being commenced and the like. I also understand the noble Baroness’s huge concern in recognising that this Government are rowing back on a lot of the measures that were put in that Act deliberately to try to improve the standing of nature. The Natural History Museum’s index states that the UK stands 189th out of 240 countries when it comes to considering the completeness of a country’s original nature, with the UK having only 53%. The phrase often used is that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted places in the world, but that does not recognise the amount of change that has happened, with the growth in population, industrialisation and the like. It is fair to say that it was recognised that we needed to get nature back into balance, which is what brought about the Environment Act. In 2024, in the Environmental Performance Index, run by Yale and Columbia Universities, the UK was the fifth-best in the world at trying to improve the environment. The only countries ahead of it were Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany and Finland. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is particularly interested in ecosystem...
My Lords, this Bill addresses one of the greatest crises of our times: the ravaging of nature and the destruction of the environment on which we depend and of which we are an inseparable part. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on her good fortune in coming second in the Private Members’ Bill ballot and using that opportunity to bring forward this Bill. I lend my voice in support of her. The noble Baroness has made the case for the Bill with admirable clarity and passion. She is right to remind us in this House of the scale and speed with which the natural world is being destroyed. With deforestation, loss of habitats, the hunting of endangered species for gain, unsustainable farming practices, the ruthless race for rare earths, the rapacious approach that so many nations take to mineral extraction, and the accumulation of plastics and other waste in our rivers and seas, mankind is, in so many ways, laying waste to the planet which is our only home and demonstrating a reckless disregard for its creations, of which we are only one part. This global phenomenon is sadly all too apparent in our poor stewardship and disdainful lack of care for nature in these islands. The UK is one of the most depleted nations in the world. Valuable habitats have been lost to unsustainable development. Our rivers continue to be polluted by poorly regulated water companies and inadequately supported farmers. The sanctity and preservation of nature is a deeply personal cause for me....
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this Bill. It is an extremely interesting Bill, well worthy of debate. It is good to have a Bill that raises properly philosophical issues; apart from the recent assisted dying Bill, we do not often get them. The question of what nature is has preoccupied philosophers and theologians since the ancient Greeks. They have asked whether the natural order is itself divine, merely God’s handiwork, something in between or, more recently, none of those things. In examining this question, one issue very relevant to this Bill recurs-whether, and if so why, it is reasonable to personalise the concept of nature for theological, philosophical or political purposes. This Bill seems to do just that. One is led to speculate whether we are seeing not just the embodiment of the modern Gaia concept but a return to the “Lady Nature” of the early medieval Chartres school of Bernard Silvestris and Alain de Lille. These are not irrelevant or purely intellectual questions. The Bill asks us to believe that nature exists as a specific, recognisable and even self-evident concept, and builds an entire political structure around that. Yet intellectual history tells us that things are a bit more complicated. Get the concept wrong and the politics and the legislation will be wrong too. I fear that that is what is happening. Despite what I have just said, I have more sympathy with the Bill’s proponent-the noble Baroness, Lady...
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this Bill and for her long-standing commitment to environmental protection and climate justice. I draw the House’s attention to an Early Day Motion tabled in the other place this May, entitled “National Emergency”, sponsored by Members from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and my own party, Plaid Cymru. It highlighted the escalating risks posed by climate change and nature loss. It noted that one in four properties could be at risk of flooding by 2050, that heatwaves and wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, and that “the UK ranks among the lowest globally for biodiversity”. It further recognised that “food security, public health, and national security are increasingly threatened by climate-related impacts”. The Motion called for “emergency legislation” to address the scale and urgency of these challenges. That is why I believe this Bill comes before us at a particularly important time and we must consider it seriously We often speak of a climate emergency and a nature emergency, yet emergencies require more than declaration. They demand that we seriously consider new approaches and, where necessary, new legal frameworks. Time is not on our side. The systems upon which our society depends are under growing pressure and the consequences of inaction are becoming increasingly clear. The central principle of this Bill is both simple and profound. Should nature itself be...
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward the Bill. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness’s speech. I agree with much of what she said. As someone who has recently re-tabled my own Private Member’s Bill to introduce a close season for hares in England and Wales, I appreciate how much determination and luck is required to bring issues such as these before Parliament. I welcome the spirit of the Bill. It invites us to reconsider our relationship with the natural world and to reflect on whether our laws adequately recognise our responsibilities towards the species, habitats and ecosystems on which we all depend. In particular, I welcome its emphasis on the duties of public bodies, businesses and individuals to act as responsible stewards of nature. The noble Baroness is right to argue that there remains a gap in our legal framework. Too often, nature is viewed primarily as something from which we derive benefit, rather than something to which we owe a duty of care. The result is that species and habitats that are widely admired and often deeply valued nevertheless remain inadequately protected. The case of the wild hare illustrates that point particularly well. At present, hares are the only game species in England and Wales without a statutory closed season. They may be shot throughout the year, including during the breeding months between February and September. Other game species, whether deer, pheasants or partridges,...
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this interesting debate. I hope the Bill goes to Committee where I am going to have some serious objections to it, but we will come to that in due course. We have to accept that, if nature has rights, it is difficult to see how they can be enforced. If nature has rights, how do those rights become protected? If there is a conflict, who resolves that conflict? Is it merely lawyers? Because there will be different issues. We have to understand that the definition in the Bill of nature and of those rights is extremely difficult. They would need a great deal of disentangling if we did that. This is the case even with medicine, and here I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Frost. One of the issues is that these things are so difficult to disentangle and very difficult to define. If we look at Aquinas on the history of the embryo, for example, even he had difficulty. He had to define the notion of life and whether in fact the embryo was alive. He decided that it might be once it had an anima, but maybe not while it merely had flesh. That was one of the issues with Chara. I would argue that, ultimately, if we are really going to look at this, we have to recognise that even the conflicts in medicine are massive. The biggest single cause of death in humans worldwide is bacterial organisms. At what stage do we deal with this and how can we possibly do it in terms...
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for providing the timely opportunity to examine this concept. As we have heard today, it involves practicality and philosophy. As she rightly said, nature is critical and we are on the brink of a mass extinction. I should declare an interest, as my daughter-in-law works as a scientist for Friends of the Dart, which I will mention later. I have been thinking particularly about the issues around the rights of nature since the conference I went to recently, which was organised by the Real Farming Conference and the New York University School of Laws More-Than-Human Life-MOTH-programme. That conference was really exciting because we heard from agro-ecological farmers, citizen activists, scientists and local authorities. They are all taking very effective action and learning from each other about how to put nature’s well-being at the heart of their work, and that is what this Bill is about too. It is about a new way of thinking and working. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it is about economy and society working in harmony with nature. Several noble Lords have mentioned Ecuador, and I will spend a little time on this because there are lessons to be learned. In 2008, Ecuador introduced the right of nature into its constitution; of course it has the Galápagos Islands, Amazon rainforests, volcanic landscapes, cloud forest and high elevation moorlands. In short, it has a diversity to protect that is...
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House. The Bill is clearly driven by good intentions, but it proposes a number of radical shifts, which the noble Lord, Lord Frost, referenced as problematic on several different levels and which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested he had very serious objections to. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition also have significant concerns about the Bill’s practicalities and the implications for individuals, businesses and policy-making. Our concerns centre around two main points. Primarily, we do not believe in creating all-powerful governance structures which potentially override democratic decision-making, nor do we believe in imposing new requirements for nature which override existing legitimate considerations and interests. I should clarify that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition stand tall on our principles when it comes to nature, and this is not a recent commitment. Lady Thatcher was crystal clear when she advised that: “No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy-with a full repairing lease”. We passed the Wildlife and Countryside Act in 1981 and established the modern framework for sites of special scientific interest and species protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted the Environment Act 2021; my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park supported its passage...
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The strength of feeling we have heard reflects a deep and widely shared concern for the state of our natural world. It also reflects the seriousness with which this House approaches questions of environmental protection, governance and accountability. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing forward the Bill and for her long-standing commitment to the protection and restoration of nature. Whatever our differences on the legislative route, there is no doubt about the sincerity, intellectual rigour and energy that she and those supporting the drafting of the Bill have brought to this issue and these proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned, we have heard some very thoughtful contributions on the philosophical and ethical foundations of recognising nature’s intrinsic worth. We have heard reflections on international examples, on local initiatives and on the growing public desire for stronger action to protect the environment. These are important perspectives, and the Government recognise the legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, recognised the Government’s commitment to this when she referenced our manifesto and our environmental commitments specifically. However, as many noble Lords have also made clear, the question before us is not whether we value nature, nor whether we must act urgently to protect...
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
My Lords, I echo that. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been a fine debate, and I thank everyone who has contributed. Picking up the Minister’s comments to start with, I am taking encouragement from a part near the end where she said that the Government might be open in principle to considering the rights of nature in an international context. I will have to study the fine detail of her comments, but I am taking that as a positive step forward. I also acknowledge that she recognises the legitimacy of concerns about the state of nature, which are widespread. Picking up what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said about this being a transformative, even revolutionary Bill-step forward, rights of nature-I agree. The Minister talked about changing the UK’s constitutional and legal framework. Of course, that is a broader question we have before us today. We are going to have to see major changes to them to create a modern, functional, democratic constitution, and the rights of nature could be part of that transformation. The Minister also talked about a fundamental reworking of principles. As some of the early proponents of the rights of nature said, that is also what happened when we created rights for enslaved people and women. We have seen significant changes in the past. I thank, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her strong support for the Bill. She summed up in one question why we need this Bill: is the status...
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.