Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]

Baroness Helic Excerpts

Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

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, receive seasonal protection during these sensitive periods. Hares alone remain exempt. The consequences are significant. Pregnant hares and nursing mothers may legally be killed, leaving dependent leverets orphaned. A 2017 peer-reviewed study published by the UK Health Security Agency found that between February and August, the majority of female hares are either pregnant, suckling young or both, and that, if a nursing female is killed, her leverets are unlikely to survive. This creates both an animal welfare problem and a conservation challenge, and is inconsistent with Natural England’s own guidance that the control of species during peak breeding seasons should be avoided. There is also a broader ecological concern. Evidence suggests that large, organised hare shoots can remove a substantial proportion of local populations, while the peak period for shooting coincides with the start of breeding season. This undermines population recovery and increases the risk of localised decline.

The wider picture is equally concerning. In 1880 there were an estimated 4 million brown hares in England and Wales but today there are fewer than 600,000 remaining. Agricultural change has undoubtedly been the principal driver of this decline, but unsustainable exploitation through shooting, poaching and coursing has also played a part. The United Kingdom has often been a leader in advancing animal welfare standards, yet in this instance we have fallen behind. Scotland introduced a statutory closed season more than a decade ago, and comparable protections already exist across much of Europe. England and Wales remain an exception. For many years, campaigners have sought to address that anomaly but they have failed.

I therefore welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy, published last December, which committed to introducing a closed season between 1 February and 30 September. I was also grateful to hear the Minister reaffirm her commitment to animal welfare reform when we discussed this issue in the House last week. I have no doubt about either her personal commitment or her determination to secure legislative time. It was therefore deeply disappointing that, despite reports earlier this year suggesting that a closed season would be included in His Majesty’s gracious Speech, the proposal did not ultimately appear. That experience reflects one of the central themes of this Bill: responsibilities towards nature cannot always be postponed until a more convenient political moment. If we recognise that we have duties towards the natural world, then even relatively modest reforms should not repeatedly fall victim to competing legislative priorities.

A closed season for hares is one such reform. It would be modest in legislative terms but significant in its practical effect. It would prevent the unnecessary killing of pregnant and nursing hares, reduce the number of orphaned leverets, bring England and Wales into line with protections already established elsewhere, and contribute to the Government’s wider commitment under the Environment Act 2021 to halt species decline by 2030. It would also command considerable public support. Polling by More in Common found that 66% of the public support a closed season while only 6% oppose it. Whether noble Lords agree with every mechanism proposed in the Bill, it raises an important question: are we content with a legal framework that too often recognises the value of nature only after damage has occurred, or should our laws better reflect our responsibility to prevent that damage in the first place?

The story of the brown hare demonstrates how easily necessary and widely supported protections can be delayed. I hope the Bill will encourage us to translate our responsibilities into practical action, not only for hares but for the wider natural environment upon which future generations will depend.