Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-559)
Mr Cephas Ralph
1 MAY 2008
Q540 Viscount Ullswater: But you
do not put anybody to sail out on fishing vessels?
Mr Ralph: No, we do not.
Q541 Viscount Ullswater: You do not
do that sort of inspection?
Mr Ralph: That kind of activity is normally
called observer programmes. There are provisions for observer
programmes across the EU for specific instances but we are not
involved in the provision of observers. The issue of discards
was the other part of your question. The fishermen that I speak
to, their attitude to discards is quite sensible and I really
do not think we have the huge scale of discards that we might
have had in the past, but the nets that are in use nowadays are
generally 125 millimetres or above, which is significantly larger
than anything that was in use previously and I think that is having
a pretty good effect.
Q542 Viscount Ullswater: Just one
final question. Do you think that the reduced fishing intensity
in the North Sea haddock fishery has changed the discarding and
the fishermen's attitude to discarding?
Mr Ralph: Yes. I think in general the fleet
has reduced hugely. The white fish demersal fleet in Scotland
has been reduced. I cannot remember the exact figure but it is
somewhere between 50 and 60%, I think, in capacity. Those that
are left really are demonstrating that they are aware that they
have a huge stake in this industry and they are being responsible.
Would I like to be in charge of policing a discard ban, to pre-empt
the question you have not asked yet? Probably not, but I think
it is likely that anyone who was involved in high levels of discards
and tried to hide it, their fellow fishermen would probably tell
us about it. We would never have the resources to be able to go
on all the boats to police a discard ban but I think the level
of buy-in that is now evident in the fleet would be the only possible
way of effectively policing it.
Q543 Viscount Ullswater: When you
are out at sea are you aware of what ships discard?
Mr Ralph: Our officers will generally board
a vessel towards the end of a haul, so they are present when the
nets come up and they will record and report back to headquarters
what the quantities are in that haul and they will also report
back the discards, so we are aware but it is not illegal.
Q544 Chairman: Do you think there
is any benefit in putting observers on boats?
Mr Ralph: Yes, potentially it does have benefits.
There are many observer schemes throughout the world. Some are
discredited due to the quality of observers that are put on. A
lot of observers in the oceanic fisheries find themselves at some
risk to their personal safety.
Q545 Chairman: So limited life expectancy?
Mr Ralph: I have heard some very disturbing
stories, and I do not want to say in which parts of the world,
about people whose flights home were cancelled when they turned
up at the airport and essentially they could not get out of the
country; they could not get back to their home country. I have
heard of officers who have been denied use of the communications
equipment for days or weeks on end and who have been offered bribes.
Observers have a place but it is not a panacea.
Q546 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Given your own experience and also the report from the Court of
Auditors about the enforcement of the Common Fisheries Policy,
what would you like to see in the revised Control and Enforcement
Regulation that is currently being prepared by the European Commission,
and, more generally, what changes would you like to see in the
Common Fisheries Policy?
Mr Ralph: Are you asking the questions from
my experience?
Q547 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
There are two parts to the question. One is, given your experience
and the Court of Auditors' report on the enforcement of the CFP,
the Commission are currently revising the Control and Enforcement
Regulation. What would you like to see in that revision and are
there any general revisions of the CFP that you would like to
see?
Mr Ralph: The consultation paper produced by
the Commission I thought had a few good things in it. I think
the CFP is something that pretty much everyone involved can tell
you what is wrong with it. I am not so sure that everyone involved
can you tell you how to fix it. In my view one of the things that
I hope will make it better is the move towards regionalisation.
I have personal experience of very good measures being voted down
in Brussels by Mediterranean or landlocked countries because of
the political process that exists within the EU and connected
with fisheries. If measures were proposed, implemented and evaluated
on a regional basis then I think things should become more logical,
and if it is more logical and the industry buy into it then they
will stick to it. The job of catching fish generally takes place
on a fishing vessel out at sea unobserved by anybody and, like
most types of human activity, if it is unobserved by anybody then
rules are theoretical rather than practical, but if the rules
are believed and if people understand and accept that the rules
are legitimate then we can have a good chance of people sticking
to them. It is when people do not believe that the rules are legitimate
and they have an economic imperative to break them that the thing
has no chance. I think the original CFP was devised from a naive
scientific view of how quotas on fish stocks could be managed.
It did not really give any thought to how the rules could be enforced
and over time, when faced with wholesale breaking of the rules,
the CFP has responded with more technical and complex rules. Most
lawyers are pretty good at getting round technical and complex
rules and that has been the sort of leapfrogging situation that
has prevailed. If the capacity of the European fleet matched the
fishing opportunities within Europe then the rules could be relatively
simple. Some of the proposals put forward by the Commission are
essentially a ramping up and an introduction of greater complexity
to that which is already there and my view is that that will not
succeed. Simplifying the rules and matching the capacity will
in my view succeed.
Q548 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Some of the people who have given us evidence have suggested that
the development of the Regional Advisory Councils has been a big
step forward here, that it has brought the scientists and the
fishermen together and it has also increased the mutual understanding
amongst fishermen of different nations. Would you agree with that?
Mr Ralph: Yes. The Regional Advisory Councils,
certainly the ones that I have experience of, which are the North
Sea RAC, the Pelagic RAC and the North Western Waters RAC, are
obviously not full of homogeneous views. There are many different
views about the way forward and they do not have a veto on legislation.
Q549 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
No, we realise that.
Mr Ralph: But they do have the ear of those
who are pulling the levers. I think for the first time people
feel that they have an influence through the RACs. We have tended
to keep our distance from them, certainly at the overt level,
in that we take the view that we are the enforcers of the rules,
we will advise on any proposals that come forward and we will
tell you if something can or cannot be enforced or in our opinion
if it will or will not work, but it is not really for us to become
involved in what is essentially a political process.
Q550 Earl of Dundee: To achieve better
results in the UK and the European Union should the Common Fisheries
Policy be employed more regionally?
Mr Ralph: That would certainly be my view. I
was involved with the feasibility study for the Community Fisheries
Control Agency when the feasibility of such a body was being looked
at, and I put forward the view very strongly that the CFCA could
only operate effectively on a regional basis. There was no point,
for instance, much though I am sure my officers would like it,
in Scotland sending a fishery protection vessel to Sicily or Greece
sending one of their vessels to the west of Scotland. There are
those in Europe who think that that is what co-operation is but
in my view co-operation has to be those round each pond helping
each other first. The Common Fisheries Policy rules for our pond,
or our two ponds; we have a North Sea pond and a North East Atlantic
pond, need not be the same and they need not be influenced by
people who do not have a stake in those ponds. That is my personal
view.
Q551 Earl of Dundee: And with an
improved Common Fisheries Policy do you also believe that RACs
should become managers rather than just advisers?
Mr Ralph: That is certainly something that could
be looked at. I suspect that we have a way to go before that would
be a possibility given the national politics that play in the
management of fisheries across the EU. I do not think nation states
would be willing—and this is my personal view, not an Agency
or Scottish Government view—to give up that kind of control.
Q552 Earl of Dundee: So that might
be difficult to win agreement over, that switch in role for the
RACs, but, going back to your first answer, if matters can improve
where the CFP becomes more regionally deployed, which expedients
would you use to win agreement for that?
Mr Ralph: Across the EU, you mean, or with national
governments?
Q553 Earl of Dundee: I think you
would believe that it would be of benefit across the EU.
Mr Ralph: Yes.
Q554 Earl of Dundee: And you also,
not least, would advise us that it would be a good thing within
the UK, but to start it at all how would you proceed?
Mr Ralph: It is a concept that I had not thought
of, I must admit. I suppose that if it were down to me I would
start with the concept that essentially those involved in the
RAC are the ones who will benefit or fall from the success of
the management of the fishery, so they have everything to gain
and everything to lose by its failure. I suppose the lever would
be saying that the UK Government will survive if the North Sea
is a barren pond but those in the Irish Sea will be out of business.
They are closer to the problem so they should manage it. It is
possible. Whether it would work I do not know.
Earl of Dundee: It might be some time before
it was agreed to.
Q555 Chairman: Can I ask about the
Community Fisheries Control Agency? To what extent has it played
a role in assisting the co-operation between Member States at
the moment and how do you see it developing in the future? Has
it been a success?
Mr Ralph: The Community Fisheries Control Agency
was proposed without any real thought as to how it might do its
job, so the leader of the feasibility study I know had great difficulty
in coming up with a precise role and remit for it or any kind
of idea as to how it would go about its work. Actually, where
the regional idea came from was that he and I thrashed out this
concept that it would operate on a regional basis and it would
facilitate co-operation and the spread of best practice throughout
that region and then, obviously, spread best practice more widely.
Has it been a success? We were the co-ordinating centre for the
first joint deployment programme in Scotland. We certainly tried
very hard to make it a success. We essentially devised the planning
techniques for joint deployment, the research that would go in,
the targeting methods, the analysis of fisheries data to have
the assets ashore, afloat and in the air in the right place. I
suppose what I am saying is that if we cannot make it work I do
not believe anybody else can make it work. The impact is difficult
to gauge. I also serve on the administrative board of the Community
Fisheries Control Agency. I believe you are going to take evidence
next week from Harm Koster, the Executive Director. I think it
is going in the right direction. I do not think the impact on
fish stocks can be measured yet and I suppose that is the only
measure which matters. Politically I would say it has had a big
impact in that a lot of countries have been pushed together and
made to work together for the first time. Those who were willingly
working together before are doing more than they did before. It
has limitations. It can only set up a joint deployment programme
for stocks which are designated recovery stocks for which a specific
recovery programme has been implemented by the EU. Essentially
for Scotland that means cod and most of the cod in the North Sea
is caught in two particular places, east of Shetland and to the
north west of Denmark, and we were working together with Denmark
and Norway anyway, so I think it would be very hard to measure
any additional benefit for us. There are great things being done
in the Channel under the auspices of the CFCA where England, Germany,
France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark are working together,
but there are not many cod caught there. There are lots of sole
and plaice caught there and it is having a big impact but the
headline of the joint deployment programme speaks about cod.
Q556 Chairman: What you are saying
is that where you have got the cod recovery programme the co-operation
was already there so it did not make a big deal of difference.
Mr Ralph: Yes. It formalised that which was
there before.
Q557 Chairman: The test would be
if there was a species where all the Member States had not had
a degree of co-operation and this provided a framework which was
sufficiently strong to get them to co-operate.
Mr Ralph: Yes. I think what we have demonstrated
in the Channel is that the current limitations on the CFCA are
too restrictive and it should be allowed to set up joint deployment
programmes across any species. It should not be limited to recovery
stocks.
Q558 Viscount Brookeborough: I would
like to ask you about satellite and airport technology. For a
long time there has been talk about how satellite in particular
could help and I would like you to tell us how far it has progressed
and whether it is in fact a useful substitute. I notice that you
have two aircraft. Have you got good technology on those? In Northern
Ireland, okay, there are the Security Forces, but even watching
boats and ships the technology was there from aircraft to read
newspapers at three or four miles. I simply do not understand,
or perhaps I am misinformed (it does happen), why we are not able
to cope with a lot of this from the air. It is quite a valuable
industry and even if Scotland could not do it alone could not
Europe as a whole?
Mr Ralph: I will start with satellite and then
come to air. We have a satellite monitoring system in the UK.
It exists essentially as two mirror systems, one in London and
one in Edinburgh, and they are connected. Externally it appears
as if the UK has one system, so our incoming and outgoing satellite
information is UK addressed, and we monitor the movements of UK
vessels anywhere in the world and we monitor any non-UK vessels
in the UK zone if we have reciprocal arrangements with their home
state. For instance, we do not have any reciprocal arrangements
with Russia, so if a Russian vessel was fishing in the UK zone
we would not see him on our satellite system. Bizarrely, if he
is fishing just outside the UK zone in the North East Atlantic,
because we are responsible for policing the area to the west of
Rockall in association with NEAFC, the North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission, we can see him there but when he crosses over into
Scottish waters he becomes invisible to us on the satellite monitoring
system. The satellite monitoring system works extremely well.
What it does is that it tells you where boats are and how fast
they are going and what they have done and you can do lots of
clever things with analysis and see what they are and it is terrific
for targeting your other resources. It does not really replace
your other resources but it makes your other resources so much
more effective, basically ships and aircraft. We have two aircraft.
You have seen the pictures in our annual report. I was across
in France last weekend picking up one of our new replacements.
I came home with that on Saturday. It is a very similar aircraft
but the technology inside is essentially 13 years newer than the
technology in the old one. We do have not military grade optics
but it is the grade below military. It is not for sale to the
public. For instance, we bought it under an export licence from
the United States and one of the restrictions on that licence
was that we do not sell it. I do not know exactly what its designation
is. We cannot read newspapers at three miles but we do have extremely
good day and night vision capability and we can identify boats
and what they are doing.
Q559 Viscount Brookeborough: And
can you use that as evidence?
Mr Ralph: Absolutely, yes. The satellite tells
you where boats are and how fast they are going. The aircraft
or a ship will tell you pretty much what they are doing and it
is what they are doing that makes them illegal normally. You still
have to get on board to find out who is in charge of that vessel
because it is only the person in charge of the vessel that is
committing an offence. The vessel itself, of course, does not
commit an offence, so you need all three.
| 
