Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]

Earl of Effingham Excerpts

Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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 through your Lordships’ House. We also championed the blue belt programme. In recent months, noble Lords on our Benches have consistently advocated for a brownfield-first approach to development to protect our land. We have advocated for reforms of arm’s-length bodies such as Natural England and to better enable private investment in nature restoration.

However, I am afraid to say that we are now seeing the consequences of a flawed approach to the environment for our industry and our cost of living. Instead of drilling our own oil and gas in the North Sea, we are importing it from Norway. Instead of growing more of our own food, we are covering productive farmland with solar panels, an estimated 68% of which come from China. We are weakening our energy security and increasing our reliance on imports. The Aberdeen South by-election was a referendum on homegrown oil and gas, and the result was overwhelming. The country wants a common-sense approach. Our major concern is that the Bill as currently drafted risks pitching economic growth against nature and giving the rights of nature precedence in all instances.

As I flagged earlier, we do not fault the intentions behind the Bill, but we have serious questions about how it will play out in practice. Nature will inevitably be impacted, perhaps on a site allocated for development, but biodiversity net gain requirements will compensate for this impact elsewhere. Yet, if our interpretation of Clause 3 is correct, the Bill would give nature the right to restoration and regeneration where the impact has occurred, potentially hindering development in that very location. We have to ask ourselves: do we want to risk slowing or even blocking housing needs, which are significant? Do we want to risk hampering infrastructure or energy investment at a time when delivery is absolutely critical for the country?

I turn now to the new governance structures proposed in the Bill, which would be tasked with implementing, monitoring and enforcing the Bill’s provisions. The membership, appointment, governance, procedure and accountability of the proposed nature guardianship council and the bioregional councils are left to the Secretary of State to determine via regulations. The appointment, qualifications and independence of members of a new nature’s rights tribunal are also left to the Secretary of State to decide. Yet these would be immensely powerful bodies.

The nature guardianship council would be tasked with interpreting the integrated rights framework, which would apply to all ministerial decisions, whether they were legislative, policy, fiscal, planning, procurement or investment decisions. The council would issue guidance on new rights impact assessments, which public authorities and UK entities would be required to carry out when any decision, policy, plan, programme, project, activity, financial decision or regulatory measure “may materially affect Nature”.

Furthermore, the Bill is explicit that there would be no exemptions for any entity, even on the grounds of national security, which, we would suggest, is the first duty of any Government. Much would depend on what is interpreted as lawful, what constitutes a significant effect on nature and how risk or harm is measured. Nor would the Bill’s rights and duties be applicable just to national and local government. It would establish a legal duty of care towards nature on all individuals, private businesses and public bodies. Trade, supply chains and overseas activities would have to comply with the Bill’s provisions.

This would be a huge, radical and all-encompassing change. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that we should never, on any account, risk sidelining the everyday economic realities of UK citizens, or indeed our national security. A cross-departmental approach to nature, driven by both evidence and data with advice from experts in their respective fields, is the way forward. Undoubtedly, there are significant improvements to be made to the status quo, but, in our opinion, this Bill is not the way to do so.