Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I adopt my traditional role of being a friendly, disputatious neighbour of Simon Thomas in this particular instance—not that I'm opposed, obviously, to having a high level of environmental protection. Anybody in his right mind wants that; we all live in this world, and we all want to be protected against the ills that come from pollution. But I am a bit worried about the nature of the precautionary principle when it's inserted into law. This is something that was inserted into European law as a result of the Maastricht treaty in 1992, and what I think it seeks to do, actually, is to remove the balancing process that should be at the heart of what we do in deciding on environmental policy. There are a number of problems that this can create because, in the first instance, of course, it can block innovation if it's applied too strictly. If we had applied this rule back in the nineteenth century, we may never have seen steam engines appear, or railways. And, indeed, we would never have removed the man with the red flag who used to precede motor cars until 1896, as a result of which legislation to remove we have the London to Brighton car run every year. A fear of the unknown, of course, is a problem—or can be. And, yes, we should always, of course, want to have a high level of environmental protection, but we should weigh that up against the cost of doing nothing, and the cost of alternatives that are available. So, if we apply this principle without regard to that, then we are actually, perhaps, making things worse rather than better.

Just take an example: if we, as they have done in Germany now, decided to bring an end to nuclear power generation—that has led to greater reliance upon fossil fuels. And if you accept the man-made global warming theories, that could, of course, produce a worse outcome in environmental terms, not a better one. Indeed, Germany is building a large number of new coal-fired power stations whilst it's closing its nuclear generation, and also becoming more dependent—and this is another geopolitical issue of great topical interest—upon Russia for gas supplies. So, there are all sorts of reasons why we might not wish to apply the precautionary principle with too great a rigour. Why is it safer or more precautionary to focus on the potential harms of new activities or technologies, without reference to the activities or technologies that they might displace? There is no a priori reason to assume that newer technologies or less-known risks are more dangerous than older technologies or familiar threats.

This principle, applied in the United States, has led to some very curious cases indeed. In the face of scientific uncertainty, some formulations don't specify any minimum threshold of plausibility or risk that acts as a triggering condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle. There was one interesting case called Sancho v. the US Department of Energy, where a litigant began a lawsuit, which included the popular worry that the large hadron collider in Switzerland would cause destruction of the earth by a black hole. I mean, this was seriously litigated. It was, fortunately, thrown out by the judge eventually. But when we introduce broad principles of this kind that are capable of giving rise to sometimes complex litigation, we set a hare running and we don't know where it's going to end. So, whilst I believe that proper regard for the environment must be upheld, it's got to be done, always, on the basis of science and a balance of risk.

So, whilst I'm not opposed to the principles that Simon Thomas's amendment seeks to cause us to focus upon, I do think that if we were to accept it, it would impose upon the Government too onerous a responsibility and would actually, in a sense, deprive us as legislators of one of our primary functions, which is to be the balancing and judgmental grouping that, ultimately, in the name of the people, decides what's best for our country.