Climate and Nature Bill falls as MPs vote to end debate

A proposed law aimed at setting new legally binding targets for climate change and nature protection in the UK has hit a snag in the House of Commons.

The government won a vote, 120 to seven, to stop the debate on the bill, which means it won't be back in the House of Commons until July and probably won't become law.

The Climate and Nature Bill was introduced by Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage. She decided not to push for a vote on it, choosing instead to collaborate with ministers to find a solution.

Green Party leader Carla Denyer expressed her "disappointment" with this decision and urged the government to "make real commitments."

Denyer told MPs that Savage agreed not to push for a vote "apparently, just for a meeting with the secretary of state for energy and net zero... with an agreement to work together but without any specific commitments."

In response, Savage, who has been an environmental campaigner for 20 years, said she had "tried placard waving" but now wants to "take a policy approach."

"As the third party, the only way we can do that is by working with the government." Before the debate, a group of environmental campaigners, including TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, gathered outside Parliament.

Fearnley-Whittingstall shared with the BBC his concerns about "really worrying noises" suggesting the government might be stepping back from supporting the bill. He also mentioned that some Labour MPs were under pressure to oppose the proposal.

A Downing Street spokesperson responded by saying, "The UK already has a strong legislative framework with legally binding targets, including the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Carbon Budgets."

During the debate, environment minister Mary Creagh emphasized that the government takes its targets "very, very seriously."

The bill aimed to require the environment secretary to develop and implement a strategy with yearly goals to cut carbon dioxide emissions and restore nature.

This strategy would be created with input from a citizens' assembly, which includes members of the public.

The bill also sought a more coordinated approach to addressing both climate change and nature loss.

Savage pointed out that while the UK has committed to "various international commitments," her bill was designed to bridge the "ambition gap between what is needed and what is promised, and the delivery gap between what is promised and what is actually happening."

Before becoming an MP, Savage rowed across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans to raise awareness about marine pollution.

She shared that during her journey, she discovered the incredible power of nature, saying, "There are human laws and there are nature's laws. Whether or not the bill becomes human law, nature's laws will ultimately win."

Labour MP Clive Lewis voiced his support for the bill and seemed to critique Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who recently indicated her support for expanding Heathrow and Gatwick airports.

Lewis stated that expanding airports would be "the wrong direction" and argued that we can't put economic growth ahead of protecting the environment.

"You can't have growth on a dead planet... you can't have a healthy economy unless the climate and nature of your country are working together."

The bill also received backing from two Conservative backbenchers, Sir Roger Gale and Simon Hoare.

However, the party's frontbench spokesman, Andrew Bowie, opposed it, particularly criticizing the role of the citizens' assembly.

He mentioned that a government minister would be "legally bound" to follow the proposals of the assembly's "unelected and unaccountable" members.

"That's not how we make decisions in this country, and it shouldn't be."

Bowie expressed that his party aims to "reduce our carbon footprint" and "lead the way for other nations," but it needs to be a path "they would actually want to follow."

"If the bill leads to green levies, skyrocketing bills, the highest electricity prices globally, boiler taxes, job losses, and limits our ability to produce fuel domestically while increasing imports and lowering tax revenues, then nobody will want to follow this path."