The Earl of Caithness (Con)

My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental regression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns. Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why. Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently. The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned. So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues. That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu. NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer. It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs? I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter. I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month. Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.