My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I thank him for his amendments and for his support of mine. In fact, he very ably summarised my amendments. It is clearly important and good that we are getting back to what the Bill is all about: the growth agenda. As the Explanatory Memorandum and policy background state, we have a huge problem in building the infrastructure that we need to get this country going again and growing again. The Bill is obviously designed to help us do that, particularly through the planning reforms, EDPs and so on. The big question is whether the Bill is sufficiently focused to give us confidence that our regulatory system is not going to prevent the kind of rapid growth that we need. This is where there is some concern.

We will come to the nuclear industry in a moment. It seems that there is a fundamental question that we have to ask: why is the UK the most expensive place to build nuclear power stations? It is because we collectively have produced legislation that makes it almost impossible for developers to come forward with viable propositions. The question is whether the Bill goes far enough to make sure that we see growth. I have listened to the debates about nature and there are, of course, some tensions. We cannot have it all ways and pretend that we can go fast on the growth agenda without some impact on the environment. It is just not possible. We have no chance of getting to net zero unless we can decarbonise our energy infrastructure as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge the assistance I have received from planning lawyers HSF Kramer LLP—specifically Catherine Howard—and senior ecologist Andrew Baker in the drafting of my Amendment 349. I mentioned environmental delivery plans; they are being developed as a way of preventing environmental Laws blocking developments. Of course I welcome that, but there are some real issues about how the habitats regulations are interpreted in this country. Why do other countries with the same broad regulations seem to allow major infrastructure projects through without the nonsenses that we see coming from agencies such as Natural England?

Catherine Howard wrote an article entitled The Secret Ecologists Speak. This set out the views of a number of ecologists who regularly engage with Natural England, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, NatureScot and the joint nature conservation councils, otherwise known as SNCBs. They work on behalf of developers seeking planning consent, but also on behalf of local planning authorities, the Wildlife Trust and other interested parties. They have experience of the system from both sides.

Currently, the law requires developers to prove a negative: that there is no risk of an adverse effect from a proposed project. However, proving a negative is almost impossible: a scientist will tell you that that is the case. Furthermore, the case law requires that a precautionary approach be taken to the consideration of risk where important information is imperfect, as it often is. Case law also holds that great weight must be given to the views of the SNCBs in any decision-making process.

These combined factors make it very easy for the SNCBs to block development with little or no credible evidence of an adverse impact. The ecologists interviewed by Catherine Howard provide multiple examples of where this has happened. The SNCBs can speculate about hypothetical risk and their view is treated as unassailable in the decision-making process. This is compounded by the fact that, as I understand, in many cases the SNCBs refuse to appear to have their written objections tested at hearings. I wonder why that is.

The view of most ecologists interviewed is that, 15 years or so ago, when the SNCBs employed top ecological experts, the system operated reasonably well, despite the legal framework. A pragmatic approach was taken to proving that there was a risk of an adverse effect. In recent years, the hollowing out of scientific expertise from the SNCBs, thanks to the policy of the coalition Government and then the Conservative Government, has given rise to unnecessary blocking or scaling back of development, as well as a failure to achieve best value for nature through compensation.

The system is now run on mythologies rather than evidence, according to those involved. That is when you get some of these high-profile cases, such as demands for acres of land to be flooded to create salt marshes at Hinkley Point C in lieu of an acoustic fish deterrent. The many challenges we are seeing across the offshore wind sector and other nationally significant projects would not arise if the SNCBs were science led.

The feeling among those ecologists interviewed is that, in Europe, a greater adherence to scientific evidence and common sense among regulators has largely avoided the problems the UK is grappling with. I refer back to what I call the common-sense amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Banner—in other words, a sense of proportion among the regulators is required. My amendment tackles some of the challenges. It actually suggests very small changes to the habitats regulations that would have a significant impact on the consent for infrastructure projects and could sit alongside the EDP regime.

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.

The amendment states that there is no need to redo a habitats assessment for the approval of conditions under a consent that was originally subject to habitats assessment. It states that mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding whether a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect. This will reverse the unhelpful European case of People Over Wind, which artificially requires this test to be applied, assuming no mitigation measures are put in place—something our own UK judges previously considered preposterous when it was tested in our courts. Finally, it states that compensation measures need not address the same type or scale of impact as a harm caused, nor be in place before impact occurs.

In conclusion, I hope the Government are listening. There clearly are cross-departmental discussions about these matters at the moment. It seems to me that the behaviour and performance of the regulators is crucial to this and the way in which they operate the habitats regulations is going to define whether we can really get these major infrastructure projects off the ground as soon as possible. I very much look forward to a constructive debate.