Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the adoption of the high seas treaty in 2023 marked one of the most significant achievements in international environmental governance in decades. The treaty fills a crucial gap in ocean regulation by establishing a comprehensive framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. That area makes up nearly two-thirds of the world’s ocean. I am proud that the United Kingdom played a decisive role in securing this agreement, with the UK Government helping to push the negotiations towards a successful conclusion. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me and my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon some credit. I think it is also worth crediting my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon on their role in the negotiations, even if I did modestly play a part in it myself. Also, Boris Johnson drove a lot of this environmental work in the previous Government.

I regret the five-minute advisory speaking time; it seems to be a habit of the Government to try and curtail speeches, though so few people have put in to speak on this very important Bill. Nevertheless, what I do not regret is seeing the new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, in his place. He was a Member of Parliament for over 25 years and a shadow Energy Minister for over nine years. It is great to see him finally—it is not the first time he is a Minister—be an Energy Minister in this Administration. I know from the work I enjoyed with him when I was in the Commons how thoughtful, considerate and competent this new Minister truly is. I look forward to working with him on many other issues affecting our planet.

While I am conscious the Minister mentioned a timely passage being important, I will not be churlish by saying that it has taken over a year to get the Bill to this stage. However, I want to ask the Minister why in this Bill we need further regulations to bring this into effect. While I had hoped that we would not need any amendments, I suppose I am giving due warning that I will be tabling an amendment to try and remove that. From my perspective, it seems entirely redundant, especially when we know that the treaty in effect will come into force not just next year but next month, as more than 60 countries have already ratified it. It is important that, having been at the leading edge of making sure that we have got this treaty with many negotiations that were, frankly, pretty tough at times, we continue to make sure we have a seat at the table when the COP first resumes.

One of the things that has been important in getting to this point has been demonstrating by our domestic leadership what we were able to do without threatening our economy, being fully mindful that, while the ocean has given so much to us, we have not recognised that until recently. It is absolutely vital to recognise that we have taken advantage of the ocean more or less for free. We now need to repay that and actually give the ocean a rest. The importance of biodiversity is critical in our oceans. That is going to be taking quite a lot of the relationships that we have developed over many years.

I also want to ask the Minister—my noble friend Lord Courtown referred to this—about the Blue Belt, which has been one of the most important elements of UK government policy in working with overseas territories in trying to enhance the biodiversity in our oceans. But I have noticed in this Bill no specific overseas territory is currently included. While an Order in Council can make that happen, in the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was published within the last week, only one overseas territory made any reference to the BBNJ, and that was Bermuda, in thinking about and particularly referencing the Sargasso Sea. I am very keen to understand what discussions the Minister has had with overseas territories regarding this because, candidly, we need to get the overseas territories fully engaged. By the way, that may mean us coughing up some cash. We certainly did plenty of that, never mind through the Blue Belt fund but also through a variety of other mechanisms, as my noble friend also referred to earlier regarding the Commonwealth charter. It is vital that we have them fully engaged in something which is so precious to our planet going forward.

Thinking through some of the other aspects of the Bill, I will not digress into other issues that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to, such as a deep-sea mining. I appreciate that this is not the role of this specific treaty, and certainly in this Bill we are referring to elements of the legislation that need to be adapted. But I wanted to clarify, in Clause 8, why this does not apply to the Antarctic. I am conscious that there is already an Antarctic Act and a treaty, but I appreciate that CCAMLR is precarious—no, that is not the right word, but I am conscious that it can be quite challenging considering the role of the Antarctic. However, I would have thought that this area of the world would lend itself massively to having a BBNJ MPA designation.

On other aspects of BBNJ—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

I note the noble Baroness’s comment about the advisory speaking time, but I would be grateful if she could bring things to a close.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am grateful for the advice, but I will carry on with a few things. We get criticised in Committee for doing Second Reading speeches when we are trying to understand the passage of the Bill at this key point.

Another aspect that has been mentioned is: where could it be? It had widely been expected that the first BBNJ MPA would be waters between the Galápagos Islands and Ecuador, but there is a golden opportunity to consider those between Tristan da Cunha and a Commonwealth country: Namibia.

I am conscious of what the Whip has just said, but we need to explore why some of the other clauses are in here. Looking at other parts of Clause 25, can the Minister explain subsection (3)? Clause 25(5) seems to be the classic, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll shove this in here” part of the Bill. I would not like to think that that is what we need to do with this treaty, but I am sure that we will explore that in Committee, sadly —because I had hoped we would not need amendments. I want the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, but we need to remove some of the barriers currently in the way, making sure that we can be part of the first COP in 2026.

Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

As I have said, as a country we have been neglectful of nuclear for far too long. We had a leading position in the world, which we lost through inaction, and that has been the case for a very long time. I think now is the moment to make sure that we redress that. The small modular reactors and the Rolls Royce involvement present a domestic position to be able to have facilities not only in the UK but also for export. There has been a long period of neglect, and I think it is very important that we—and we will—treat this with great urgency now, because it is going to be a very important part of the energy mix going forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is sad that the Minister is trying to bring party politics into this. I live near nuclear power stations. From 1997 to 2010, Labour did not do a single thing about nuclear. From 2010, our coalition partners were not enthusiastic, but we got it going and we did things about the financing. It is really important that we try to think strategically. However, my question to the Minister is because I am concerned by one of the recommendations that, all of a sudden, it will be the Chancellor who will in effect try to encourage the regulators to consider what might be proportional. I am really worried about this, because the ONR was under the steerage of the Department for Work and Pensions, and not energy, deliberately to make sure that safety not only for workers but for local residents was paramount. Can the Minister give me an assurance that that safety focus will continue for local residents?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s first point, I have been clear that there has been a long-standing neglect of nuclear. That has been across multiple Governments, and we should recognise that. The strategic steer to regulators was issued by the Prime Minister yesterday, so that is clear. It is important that regulators understand the desire of government to see this moving.

National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour for me to follow my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. As noble Lords have already heard, my noble friend is quite happy to spice things up a bit, but her principles are based on a genuine belief in family, faith and freedom. I am sure that we will hear those principles come through in many ways, as she contributes to the work of the House.

Family is certainly very important to my noble friend, and I am pleased to share that she recently became a grandmother for the third time. I know that your Lordships will say that she does not look old enough, but what a welcome blessing that is. I know how important her four children and her husband are to her. I was not going to include her two rescue dogs, but perhaps I should, as they are part of the wider family too. She will continue to be interested in a variety of those elements.

Something that also came out in my noble friend’s contribution is what we can do. Her family went with her when she and her husband set up a business together, a business that is still going strong. In publishing, it is now the largest company in the UK for technical and IT content. I hope we can share the experience that she will bring in our consideration of a number of pieces of legislation.

Family is important to my noble friend in a different way. It was her daughter who encouraged her to run for election because there were not enough women MPs. She did that, and she delivered. She delivered for the people of Redditch in a variety of ways, including the extensive efforts that she went to in keeping services in the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch so that people would not have to travel to Worcester.

It may not be known that my noble friend served in three different ministerial roles, although one of them was a joint role between the Home Office and MoJ. Tackling knife crime and violence against women and children was something about which she was particularly passionate. From speaking to people who have worked with my noble friend, I know that she goes deep into the detail and is not superficial. Candidly, that is something to be welcomed in people who are dedicated to being government Ministers.

One final point that might be worth sharing is that I am slightly surprised that my noble friend is dressed in just blue today because in the other place she was well known for being absolutely fabulous in the colours of her clothes. She normally has wonderful glasses, with bright, radiant elements in them. She was particularly known for her tights. I learned only today why they particularly stood out: they came from a factory in her constituency, so she was wearing Redditch at all times in the Chamber. I think she will continue to champion family, freedom and business, while she is also driven by her faith.

I still live in Suffolk, very near an operating nuclear power station, Sizewell B, and Sizewell C is being built as we speak. I have to say that it has been quite a long journey, but one that has needed to take time for reasons that I will explain. In thinking about what happened with EN-6—not for long, because I know that we are here to debate EN-7—we need to go back a bit and think about some of the context. Not only was Sizewell C cancelled, in effect, in the mid-1990s, but, to fast forward to going into a coalition Government in 2010, we were in a situation where the policy of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners was to oppose nuclear power. To try to make all this come together in order to get on with nuclear power, the coalition agreement was clear that the Liberal Democrats would not oppose the construction of nuclear power, but they certainly did not want to see any public subsidy. Candidly, this was one of the things that led to the creation of contracts for difference and to how expensive Hinkley has turned out to be. Fortunately, in the previous Parliament, the RAB model was extended to nuclear power, which is very sensible. I am sure it will be applied in many more nuclear or other energy generation sites going forward.

When I was considering this in the other place, I recall from the debate that several sites felt that they had lost out. I am thinking in particular of Dungeness, which was devastated; obviously, there was a site there. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked about some of the other sites. Sizewell A is certainly still there. It has had all the nuclear fuel removed, but I am afraid it cannot be touched for quite some time, as we see aspects of the process continuing its natural way of, in effect, decomposing.

There are some risks. One reason I strongly supported Sizewell C was that we had already had nuclear power in that area. However, I should warn noble Lords that they should not be surprised if other sorts of electricity generation suddenly come along where they live. You start to feel almost dumped on, which is how many people in east Suffolk feel with the need for substations, more cabling and so on. This brings me to siting.

Something I want to explore is water, which I cannot quite work out, although I am sure it is here somewhere. One reason why it has taken so long for Sizewell C to get to the stage it is at today is that the water supplier suddenly said that it could not confidently guarantee that it could supply the water needed for the nuclear power station. Some quite complicated things were evolving. Some of this was the result of legal cases lost that started to impact how much water could be extracted from parts of East Anglia. That had knock-on consequences in other ways to the point that, not having had to think too much about the supply of the fresh water that is critical to nuclear technology as it is now, Sizewell C had to start thinking and to include desalination and building a reservoir, which bring their own challenges, so factors along the way have led to some of the hold-ups.

I am aware of the difficult construction process in terms of what is happening in Somerset. Nevertheless, in considering the important environmental factors to be taken into account, it is important for Ministers to be clear on how some of these places that have been chosen for siting are confident. I know that it is up to the developer to put this forward and to show that, but it showed that a critical issue that was not in the control of the promoter of Sizewell C caused it to reconsider its proposal. That is worth thinking about during further or final consideration by Ministers.

When I looked at the factors influencing the site selection, I saw that the Government have decided to retain the semi-urban population density criterion. I get that. When it all started, nuclear was probably a bit scary, even though we were leading the way, but it has meant that nuclear power stations are quite a long way from anywhere.

I know that the ONR, which split out from the HSE, has its critics. I should register, but not declare as an interest, that as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I was, surprisingly, in charge of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I felt I had to intervene at times to defend its integrity and independence because it is vital that we have good, effective nuclear regulation.

As an aside to noble Lords, when Fukushima happened in Japan, that was because there had been a breakdown. In effect, people were not prepared to reveal problems, perhaps from embarrassment, but the site had gone on for too long. Our chief nuclear inspector went out to Japan to address some of those issues on behalf of the wider, global nuclear approach. We should be confident that, while it may seem laborious and there are definitely improvements that could be made on how some of these situations are sped up or considered, it is important to recognise that we have very good nuclear regulation, and that is why we do not have issues.

Let us not pretend we are perfect in this country; we are not. There are parts of Cumbria now where, basically, people cannot go. Only robots can go into some of those sites. That is the reality of some ineffective nuclear regulation. It was early days, and we now know what we know. Given the long-term nature of these proposals, I caution that we make sure that, as and when ONR perhaps makes improvements in some of its processes, we do not forget what has happened in the past or around the world.

Having said all that, I am surprised that we are not thinking further about connectivity to the national grid. There is no doubt that this is causing a lot of grief around communities. If electricity is generated far from where it is used, transmission means that you end up losing electricity along the way unless you have a direct current cable, and I do not believe we have anywhere at the moment that has that. I believe we should be starting to consider whether it would be safer to move some of these future technologies. I appreciate that somewhere such as Sizewell C or Hinkley C is simply so big that it would be difficult to host it closer to the population, especially with the demand for water, but it is important that we start to consider the technology that we are seeing for the future. Some of the SMRs are still pretty big, but as this evolves we should be revisiting that, or at least starting to commission some research. I know about the issue of people getting away. I know that people in many towns and villages have iodine tablets. I know there are precautions to be taken, but I think it could be worth considering to make sure that we have energy generation close to where energy is likely to be used.

Overall, I think there is an effective interaction with EN-1, which went through in the previous Parliament. As has already been mentioned, there are some interesting elements coming up in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Trying to see quite how it works is proving quite interesting, not only the issues about biodiversity. I will be paying a lot of attention to Part 1 of the Bill when it comes to this place, as it includes, I think in Clause 2, parliamentary assessment of NPSs. This is not a criticism of the Minister—far from it—but it is not entirely satisfactory as it is, so we need to continue to look at it very carefully.

As a consequence, I support EN-7. It may seem a bit bland, but it is giving developers what they need, and that is to be welcomed. The quicker we can get on with additional nuclear generation, the better for the prosperity of this country, so I welcome this today.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Green energy over time will lower costs. There is an initial hump to get over with investment, but the trouble that we need to address is our increasing and continued dependence on the vast fluctuations in foreign gas markets. We saw what happened with the war in Ukraine, and we saw that the noble Lord’s Government had to invest £40 billion towards subsidising bill payers—money that was invested for no long-term benefit. We must get away from those things and we must have energy security. These are investments in Britain and in reducing our bills, and they are worthwhile doing. It is really important that GB Energy invests in these emerging technologies. That is why I have raised my amendment on GB Energy’s ability to borrow; if GB Energy cannot borrow it will not be able to make these key investments.

Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, is about the annual report and financial assistance provided to GB Energy. We expect this to happen, so do not feel that the amendment is necessary.

We support the spirit of Amendment 37, but expect the Treasury to require all these areas to be reported on. Having reflected on what was said in Committee and the Minister’s response, we expect GB Energy’s reporting requirements to be similar to those of the Crown Estate. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.

Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is one of the strongest Conservative amendments to be tabled on Report. We have some sympathy with proposed new subsection (1), which is similar to an amendment I moved in Committee. At that stage, it did not win the Minister’s favour—I suspect that that might be the case again today. Where I slightly part company with noble Lord, Lord Frost, is in relation to the annual review for the chair of GB Energy. My view is that an important and good annual review would not be one that was fully made public. To me, that seems a slightly strange request, and may be counterintuitive to the object which he seeks.

I am going to stop there as I have run out of time and there are a lot of amendments in this group.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I should declare at this point that I live about five miles away from Sizewell B nuclear power station and one that is about to be built, Sizewell C, and less than a mile away from other energy infrastructure that is still going through the planning process.

A lot of my time at the other end was taken up with considering the importance of energy, not only for a long-term sustainable future but the security issues rightly referred to in these objectives. The reason these objectives matter is that this is an unprecedented situation, where we are handing, in effect, a blank cheque to an arm’s-length body. Admittedly, it will have strategies set by the Secretary of State, but, as has been pointed out, there will be absolutely no reference to Parliament in its consideration. That is why the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost has attraction, in proposing at least having a direct connection with two Select Committees of the other place and a relationship with the chair of GB Energy. As my noble friend pointed out, these are the reasons that the Government gave us for having this new entity. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to accept this amendment directly.

On Amendment 17, where I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I do not believe we should get into legislation that dictates the amount of taxpayers’ money that will be spent. I have seen that happen before in legislation, and then all of a sudden money starts getting wasted. The whole purpose of this financial vehicle is to de-risk and bring in external private investment. That is a sensible approach, especially given the amount of uncertainty, which I appreciate the Government are trying to address in other ways. Nevertheless, for something such as energy security, a significant amount of investment is going to be required right across not just Great Britain but the United Kingdom, and this is a critical moment for our nation. That is why, while I think there will be money well spent, we should not be dictating a minimum.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is really sensible. This company will be in an unusual situation—not unique, but unusual—and the extra information required, particularly in proposed new paragraph (d), is the core essence of why this company is being set up: it is stepping forward to try to get others to do so.

If anything, what has evolved over many years is the need for transparency and understanding. The amount of trust that people have in how their taxpayers’ money gets spent really matters in the contract that Parliament and government have with the electorate—the taxpayer. So, elements such as this will enforce the rationale rather than just necessarily seeing energy bills tick upwards, unfortunately.

So if Amendments 1 and 37 are pressed, I will certainly support them—although, regrettably, not Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39 in my name. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for putting his name to it, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his warm comments on at least aspects of this amendment.

The broad aim of Amendment 39 is to do what a lot of other amendments have sought to do, both in Committee and no doubt today, which is to ensure that GBE gets the kind of scrutiny that a major public company would get: that is, its internal procedures, processes and purposes get a degree of public attention and comment. I worry that we are setting up a company over which there will be relatively little oversight and perhaps rather idiosyncratic governance compared with a normal public company. So it is with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 39.

There are two aspects to the amendment. One is about pre-appointment scrutiny and the other is about what happens once the chair has his feet under the desk, as it were. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the first part of this is the most important part of the Bill.

Before getting into the substance I should declare an interest, which is that I am an unpaid director of the group Net Zero Watch—I am sorry for not mentioning that at the very start.

On the first aspect of this amendment, its purpose is to make sure that the appointment at least attracts a degree of scrutiny and comment from relevant Select Committees. When I put this amendment down in Committee, I had in mind only the Treasury Select Committee in the Commons, but I have picked up the suggestions made by others that the Environment and Climate Change Committee also ought to have a role in this. I emphasise that this amendment would not give those committees a block. The right to make the appointment does not go to those committees; it is the right to comment on a decision that the Secretary of State proposes to make and which he or she will still be able to make after the Select Committees have looked at it. That degree of public scrutiny is important. The chair is a public figure in many ways, and in fact we have seen, from some of the statements he has made already, that he intends to use that public platform to make comments. It seems right in these circumstances that there should be a degree of political scrutiny of this.

The Minister said in Committee that this was not in line with the guidance of the Cabinet Office for such appointments. But I suggest that, even under the hard rein of the internal regimen of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, guidance written by a department cannot constrain the Government, or indeed the legislature. Indeed, we see that in real life, because the appointments of the chairs of Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and so on, are all made in accordance with such a procedure. So there is really nothing novel here: it is the right thing to do for a major company of this nature and I hope the Minister will think hard about the defensibility of the position as it currently stands.

I will speak briefly to the second part of my amendment, which is really probing. The current arrangements for the accountability of the chair seem rather unclear. I guess formally he is accountable to shareholders, but the shareholder is obviously the Secretary of State and a chat with the Secretary of State is perhaps not enough for accountability for a company such as this. It may be that the auditors are not best placed to do that and it may be that there should be a degree of confidentiality to it, but there surely should be something that is formal and agreed and which can produce a degree of political debate. Perhaps the Minister can say exactly how this accountability will be achieved in practice, if it is not via some formal process of this nature. I repeat, to conclude, that the first subsection proposed by my amendment is the most important, and indeed, really quite substantively important to the nature of the body we are creating.

Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I too have put my name to this amendment and I am delighted that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, have been able to negotiate this compromise. It is important that this is in the Bill; it will make a difference and I am very pleased to see it here. It also reflects the language that was used in the Crown Estate Bill and that is particularly useful for GB Energy because of the strong connection they have with one another. I welcome the words that the Minister used at the Dispatch Box, mentioning the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I welcome the monitoring that is taking place on this.

I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. These are obviously all very difficult conversations, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put that quite well. Actually, the way we talk about it, the spirit in which we put these things into place and how we make them work in practice are the big challenges that we all have, going ahead, but I am very pleased to see this here.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 40 and 47. I have recent ministerial experience of the Environment Act and the powers available under it, which is why I tabled some Questions for Written Answer. I was somewhat confused by the responses from the Government. When I asked whether they would publish their assessment, under Section 20 of the Environment Act, about not having the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection, I was informed by the Minister that the information was “legally privileged”. It surprised me that the Government, who are committed to the environment—I do not dispute that—are not prepared to share with the House why they do not think this will have an adverse impact on the natural environment. I went further, asking which provisions would be “environmental law” or would impact, and I was referred to Clause 3.

Under the Environment Act, the Minister is not required to ask the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, but I would be grateful to know whether he, or any other department, has done so. Again, that sort of information would be useful to this House, recognising that we still do not have the strategic priorities—we have the objects, but nothing wider than that—in our consideration of this. I know for sure, from living in Suffolk—I referred to this in my earlier contribution today—of the significant impact that this energy infrastructure can have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to say anything at this point because it is getting late in the evening, but I was pretty staggered by that last intervention. I found it pretty rich, coming from a Minister who signally emasculated Defra and knocked the legs out from underneath it. The statement of environmental principles to which she referred was significantly reduced as a result of the work that happened around that period. So I actually think that we should thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am very happy to have that discussion outside, but I think it is a complete impugnment of all that we did achieve. I assure the noble Baroness that the strategy for our ground-breaking biodiversity plan is under way. I wish the Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, well in getting on with some of this stuff. It is ridiculous to try to suggest that the work the Conservative Government did in Montreal did nothing; it did a hell of a lot for the environment and I want the Labour Government to continue it and to succeed—we all do. That is why this amendment that the Government propose is not enough.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with the noble Baroness’s sentiments on this amendment. We should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the Minister for reaching an agreement so that we can get something in the Bill. Amendment 40 would have been a lot stronger, but at least we have got something. We now need to ride heavy shotgun on what is contained in the framework to make sure that that happens.

I cannot take a lecture from the noble Baroness, because I know for a fact that Defra was severely prejudiced in its ability to do any of this work by the way that she operated when she was in that department.