My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for Amendment 10. I will speak to Amendment 16 in my name, which is retabled from Committee. It is a simple amendment that inserts in Clause 7(7) a reference to using the “best” available scientific evidence—a term used elsewhere in the Bill. It is also consistent with the wording of Amendments 10
and 17, to which I have added my name. In Committee, the Minister stated that the insertion of “best” was not necessary, as the overall fisheries objectives in Clause 1 already set this benchmark. However, the context in which “available scientific evidence” is used in Clause 7 is very different to the overall thrust of the Bill. As the Minister will know, Clause 7(7) provides a list of relevant changes. It allows authorities to depart from the original contents of a joint fisheries statement. My reading of the current drafting is that any available scientific evidence could be cited as a reason for departing from the previously published plans, even if this evidence were to fail the test of the “best available” that is applied when a plan is initially formulated.
To be best in class, scientific advice needs proper peer review. We are always aware that there are studies which deny the true scale of the climate crisis. These studies are available but would clearly not be classified as being the best, as they are an anomaly compared to mainstream scientific thought. I know that that need not necessarily make them incorrect, but surely they could not be classified as “the best”. Under Clause 7(7), as currently drafted, a study could be cited by a fisheries policy authority as a reason to depart from original proposals, especially in conjunction with promoting an alternative objective that could take precedence over another in some circumstances. The Minister may well say that no responsible fisheries policy authority would wish to do this, but it would still be possible, so I ask her to accept this amendment.
I have also added my name to Amendment 17 and agree that greater consultation with fisheries stakeholders in management plans in England, as well as the devolved Administrations, should be properly addressed. While I have not formally supported Amendments 14, 15 and 54, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I believe that there is merit in the questions he is asking the Minister.