When UK prime minister Keir Starmer announced last week that he was \u201cimplementing the Fingleton review\u201d, you can forgive the pulse of most Britons for failing to quicken.<\/p>\n
But behind the uninspiring statement lies potentially the biggest deregulation for decades, posing peril for endangered species, if wildlife experts are to be believed, and a likely huge row with the EU.<\/p>\n
More, after this week\u2019s most important reads.<\/p>\n
Essential readsIn focusOther major infrastructure works such as HS2 have destroyed swathes of Britain\u2019s wildlife. Photograph: Maureen McLean\/REX\/Shutterstock<\/p>\n
Earlier this year, John Fingleton, a lively, intelligent Irish economist, was commissioned by the government to lead a \u201ctaskforce\u201d with a mission to come up with a way to build nuclear power faster and cheaper. It\u2019s accepted by experts that we need more nuclear if we are to meet net zero, and that Britain is the most expensive place<\/a> in the world to build it. In the end, Fingleton turned in a review with 47 recommendations aimed at speeding up the process. So far, so snoozeworthy.<\/p>\n However, his recommendations, if adopted, could well lead to the biggest divergence from retained EU habitat and environment law since Brexit. Changes could be made to the habitats directive, which Britain helped write when we were in the EU, and which protect rare species and the places they live. The government could also make it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n Fingleton thinks his review should also be applied to railways, reservoirs and other infrastructure to make it easier to build \u2013 which means there would be intense, widespread deregulation. So does Starmer, who said in his speech<\/a> about the document that there are \u201cwell-intentioned, but fundamentally misguided, environmental regulations\u201d and the review should be implemented \u201cright across our economy\u201d.<\/p>\n Legal advice is that removing these rules for nuclear power will inevitably lead for other infrastructure projects to be subject to the same, weaker regulatory system. Expert planning lawyer Alexa Culver said: \u201cIt\u2019s a clever move to sneak broadbrush environmental deregulation, as the government can point to \u2018net zero\u2019 as being the ultimate driver. In reality, though, if you don\u2019t protect ecosystems while reducing emissions, you\u2019ve lost the battle. We\u2019re gone anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not surprising Starmer is clinging to anything which might increase economic growth \u2013 he and the Labour party were elected on a promise to make Britain\u2019s economy boom so taxes don\u2019t have to rise and public services can be properly funded. Instead, taxes are being ratcheted to the highest post-war level and the OBR has predicted an anticipated average GDP growth of 1.5% over the next five years. This is despite the controversial Planning and Infrastructure Bill which Starmer introduced in order<\/a> to \u201cget Britain building\u201d and experts say it will weaken environmental protections<\/a>.<\/p>\n The lapwing has been added to the ‘red list’ of the UK’s most threatened birds and their habitat would be more at risk if this plan goes through. Photograph: Jodie Randall\/RSPB\/PA<\/p>\n Nature also continues to decline. The recently released biodiversity indicators show species numbers continue to decrease<\/a> in the UK, which is extremely concerning when you consider just how much wildlife has dropped off since the 1970s. Some species, including one-fifth of mammals, are facing extinction, and recent figures show wild bird numbers are in freefall.<\/p>\n Of the review, Georgia Dent, CEO of Somerset Wildlife<\/a> Trust said: \u201cThe government seems to have adopted a simple, reductive narrative that nature regulations are blocking development, and this is simply wrong. Nature in the UK is now in steep decline and the government has legally binding targets for nature\u2019s recovery, and is failing massively in this at the moment. To reduce the hard-won protections that are allowing small, vulnerable populations of species to cling on for dear life is absolutely the wrong direction to take.\u201d<\/p>\n