Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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 vitality, and on that the UK was the 11th-best in the world. That is because there has been a real focus on trying to restore habitats, and it is why I am worried about other aspects of the consultations that are already under way and changes that were made to the Planning and Infrastructure Act that seem to put habitat aside if a building could be placed there instead.

I am conscious that there has to be an ongoing balance between nature and the development of humanity and the development of housing, but I understand the noble Baroness’s sentiments as to why she thinks the Bill may be necessary. But I feel that the existing legislation already has a lot of what the noble Baroness wants, and that some of the extra points may well be superfluous.

This is an ambitious Bill. It is UK-wide, with only a duty to consult the devolved Administrations. The Government already have statutory advisers: Natural England is the principal statutory adviser on nature, and there is the OEP for aspects of legislation. In the Bill, “nature” is not defined. Will it cover all flora and fauna? Is it about landscapes? Is it about ecosystems? Is it about cryosystems? That is not defined in the Bill. If it is to include fauna, will the definition exclude kept and farmed animals? Is it supposed to be only what is in the natural environment? We will need to probe this further in Committee.

On trust, as I have already started to set out, I agree somewhat with the noble Baroness’s concerns. This is why I will continue to press on other aspects of legislation that are already coming through. I encourage the Defra family to think a bit more carefully about the development of trust. We have seen it elsewhere, with the climate, where people think that the world is going to end tomorrow and ask why we are to be the ones who save it. People start to become rather sceptical. When they hear about the actions we are undertaking but then hear that nothing is happening in other parts of the world, things becomes difficult. Let me give a recent example. In March, there was huge publicity around the coastal path being fully open around the country, but the Parliamentary Answer given by the Minister showed that that was not the case. This sort of deception, in the sense of publicity, is not helpful.

I do not know the 2024 Motion to which the noble Baroness referred—I was not in office then. However, I was proud to be leading the delegation to the second meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Montreal. We listened to the EU’s concerns about our ambitions but put them aside, reopened negotiations and made it completely comprehensive. Of course we need to keep going to ensure that it is a reality, but that reflects the ambition of the Conservative Government. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Gove was the leading force in driving the Environment Act.

I turn to the scrutiny of the legislation. Clause 45 largely sets these out to be negative resolutions—which surprised me—apart from the establishing of the bodies in Clauses 15, 17 and 28. For criminal offences, that makes sense, but I am nervous about the huge Henry VIII powers that are set out in Clause 46 and Clause 45(f). I gently say that Clause 45(3) is one of the few places where affirmative resolutions are referred to, but it refers to “section 43(6)”, which is not actually in the Bill. Maybe something got deleted by accident. It would be interesting to hear what further parts of the Bill that was intended to apply to.

How do the noble Baroness and the Minister think this will work with the EU reset? An important part of this will be recognising that, if we are in an EU reset, very soon this Parliament will have no say. It will have no vote on any regulation that will then be applied in this country when it comes to a lot of the factors affecting this area, about which the noble Baroness is rightly concerned. I am interested to see what the new Prime Minister will have to say on some of the powers that have already been put in place which are depleting nature, some of which started yesterday. We will see if we have a Manchester reset on that aspect.

I am minded to table an amendment relating to Section 23 of the Environment Act. This concerns when a Minister makes a declaration in each House at Second Reading only. I asked the Procedures and Privileges Committee how the accuracy of those comments could be challenged. The answer was that we can ask a Parliamentary Question or ask the Minister. The Minister kindly said that Ministers were bound by the Ministerial Code. However, due to a legal action undertaken by Wild Justice, it was determined that these are parliamentary proceedings. It has got nothing to do with the Ministerial Code or any other aspect of law, but so far the Government will not release the legal opinion presented by First Treasury Counsel or Speaker’s Counsel provisions. It may be that I table some amendments on that point.

With that, while I wish the Baroness well generally, I am afraid that I will not be supporting her Bill through its full passage.