Member

I am not suggesting that we should reverse the burden of proof and I do not disapply the precautionary principle. What the amendment does is define scientific evidence and require that scientific justification is based on evidence of real rather than hypothetical risk, stating that de minimis effects cannot constitute an adverse effect. This would stop SNCBs arguing that the risk of even one fish or bird death is unacceptable. Surely it cannot be right that major projects are blocked or hugely scaled back to avoid such things—but they are.