CAN Bill: What happened, what’s next, and why it matters

CAN Bill: What happened, what’s next, and why it matters

As the dust settles after 24 January, and Parliament reconvenes for another week, there’s much to reflect on—along with many questions about what happened last Friday at the CAN Bill’s Second Reading.

We are immensely proud of the national effort that brought us to Friday’s historic moment in Parliament—we’re deeply grateful to the thousands of campaigners, scientists, NGOs, unions, businesses, community groups, Zero Hour ambassadors, and politicians who have championed the science—and championed the Climate and Nature Bill. It’s through your emails, phone calls, meetings, banner drops, leafleting and stunts that made this possible. Thank you.

What happened on Friday 24 January?

Friday may have seemed like a confusing culmination of all the hard work everyone has put in over the last few months and years—but the truth is, Parliament often feels this way. With its strange customs and traditions, complex procedures, and ‘standing orders’, it can sometimes be difficult to decipher. So, the most obvious question is: was it a success?

Populist politicians would like us to believe that the answer is always simple, but it would be hard to put the success of Friday in such black and white terms. For us—and, we hope, for you—the speeches from Roz Savage, Clive Lewis, Roger Gale, Simon Hoare, Carla Denyer and Nadia Whittome were inspiring. They powerfully conveyed the significance of the CAN Bill and the urgent need for action on both climate and nature. The importance of this debate cannot be overstated. Having the UK Parliament and UK Government acknowledge and discuss the intertwined crises is a critical step forward—though far from the final one.

Government whips failed to offer a free vote

We cannot hide our deep disappointment that the Government whips failed to grant a free vote for MPs on Friday. A free vote would have allowed MPs to have their say and vote with their own conscience on whether the Bill should continue to Committee Stage—where it would have been scrutinised line by line. 

Instead, the threat of a ‘three line whip’—which would have punished any Labour MP who defied it—hamstrung many CAN Bill supporters in the Labour Party. Meanwhile the Government continued negotiations with the Bill’s sponsor Roz Savage up to the eleventh hour. Roz secured a cast-iron commitment from Ed Miliband to take us, and the CAN Bill, seriously, promising to “set to work” with us on the Bill’s objectives—“including for legislation”—so that we can “make a meaningful difference for climate and nature”.

As Carla Denyer said on Friday, the CAN Bill absolutely deserved to progress to Committee stage as, ahead of Friday’s debate, the Government did not present any new regulation, legislation, or targets. But due to the Government whips’ threats and delayed negotiations, instead, the Government called for the Bill’s Second Reading debate to be adjourned until 11 July. Let’s be clear about this, though we’re very pleased with Ed Miliband’s promise to “set to work”, the CAN Bill deserved to ‘be given’ a Second Reading; to be voted on by MPs; and to be progressed on its journey into law.

The CAN Bill’s Second Reading was a critical moment for MPs to have their say and to thoroughly debate, as described in the Labour manifesto, “the greatest, long-term, global challenge that we face.” It was also the opportunity for the Government to prove that it understands the fundamental need to restore nature and urgently get to grips with reducing emissions in the all important short-term. Instead, obfuscations continued on into the debate itself—much to the confusion of us, and many campaigners. Just as the speeches were building, there was an interruption with a statement to the House at 11:00 by the Minister for Defence Procurement, Marie Eagle. While not explicitly clear, you might assume that this was a deliberate attempt by the Government to ‘filibuster’ the debate. Sitting Fridays are meant to be focussed on private members’ bills. Not Government business.

Any decision to allow a ‘closure motion’—a mechanism by which an MP can call for a vote (a division) to end a debate, and allow a Bill to progress—rests with the (Deputy) Speaker. However, a closure motion can only be tabled once there has been sufficient debate time and a range of viewpoints have been heard. By using valuable debate time for a Government statement by the Minister for Defence Procurement, the likelihood of the (Deputy) Speaker permitting a closure motion earlier in the session, was significantly reduced. 

So, was there a vote on the CAN Bill or not?  

In the lead up to Friday, our call to action was clear: ask your MP to attend and vote in favour of the CAN Bill at its Second Reading. Although there was ‘a’ vote on Friday, it was not a vote to allow the Bill to progress on its journey to becoming an Act. Instead of a vote to close the debate (and prevent it being talked out by infamous ‘bill blocker’, Christopher Chope) and progress the Bill, there was a vote to adjourn the debate—in short, kicking the CAN Bill into the ’long grass’.

Co-leader of the Green Party, Carla Denyer, mentioned a closure motion vote during her speech. This stood out—not because of her mention of a vote—but because she was the only one to do so. For Carla Denyer, the best way to advance the CAN Bill was to call for a ‘closure motion’ to allow the Bill to move to the next legislative stage: Committee. Why delay joined-up action on climate and nature? Why not allow MPs to vote on whether the CAN Bill should be refined in Committee?

Rescheduling the debate until 11 July is not good enough because—as things currently stand—it will be too far down the list of parliamentary business to be heard. However, this is one of the mechanisms we now have to hold the Government to account; and we will need your help to try to push the CAN Bill up the agenda on 11 July to let it progress.

What happens next?

Since 2019, we have been a private member’s bill campaign, advocating not for what is politically convenient, but for what is scientifically necessary—to cut emissions, restore the natural environment, and safeguard a liveable planet. As Clive Lewis said, “we cannot have growth on a dead planet”. This moment, in this session, in this Parliament, demands urgency and bold action from Ministers, and we will continue to hold them to account on this.

Thanks to the behind-the-scenes efforts of Roz Savage, at the end of Friday’s debate, the Minister for Nature, Mary Creagh, did assure MPs that next steps would include “binding commitments” to advance the CAN Bill’s objectives. And as DESNZ Secretary of State, Ed Miliband, set out via video message, his Department is committed to “set to work” on the Bill’s objectives, “including for legislation”. This is hard-won progress, and we have already written to Ed Miliband, Mary Creagh and Kerry McCarthy (Climate Minister) to ask them to meet with us.

It’s been a long journey to get us to this point. But we fight on. And with your help, and support, we’re determined to hold Ministers to account, lock the science into law, and align the UK’s climate and nature laws with what scientists are telling us is needed to secure a liveable future.

Join us on social

URGENT
APPEAL
The Climate and Nature Bill needs your help! If you can, please, help us deliver a CAN Act, chip in today
£8,775 Raised from 439 supporters