Official Report 283KB pdf
Finally, we come to the tendering of ferry services in the Clyde and Hebrides. I said that we would bring back to the committee further information about work that we might undertake. Some members have suggested that we take more evidence from academics, including David Edwards, who is a British representative at the European Court of Justice, and Dr Paul Bennett and Professor Neil Kay, who have recently submitted evidence to the Executive. I suggest that we also seek a position statement from the Minister for Transport to update us once he has concluded negotiations with the European Commission on the tendering of ferry services in the Clyde and the Hebrides.
I support the proposals, but I thought that we had agreed that Jeanette Findlay from the University of Glasgow had also provided a solid piece of academic research. In fact, that was the subject of more of the debate and questioning in our session than the other papers were, especially with the unions. I assume that it might be acceptable to take evidence from her, too.
I am content for us to seek to have Jeanette Findlay as a witness.
Good. On the discussions that are taking place between the Executive and the European Commission, paragraph 5 of the note states:
We received that information through consultation between the clerks and Executive officials. We could seek an interim update from the Executive for information for members, but the information that we were given is that the discussions are not likely to be concluded in the near future.
I raise the issue because it was news to me that the Executive had given an indication in public that it does not envisage that the matter will be determined before the summer recess. I was not aware that that information was in the public domain. I want to clarify whether that is what the clerks have been told, because it is new information.
There has not been a public statement on the issue, but that is the estimate of when the discussions will be concluded.
There has been a public statement now.
The point is that there is no specific deadline for the conclusion of the discussions with the European Commission. That is not a big issue, given that the matters under discussion are complex. The Executive is considering detailed submissions from academics and several of the issues require careful consideration by the Executive and the Commission. We have simply been given an estimate that it is likely that the discussions will continue for some time; no specific deadline has been given.
So the statement that
That is our understanding.
I have one final point. The paper recommends that we seek a position statement from the minister, which I welcome, but it also states that that should be
It would be useful for us to have an interim position statement. As you rightly say, it might be inappropriate to publish at this stage some aspects of the Executive's negotiating position, because that might undermine it. It is fair enough for the Executive to say what it believes the legal position to be. As you well know, Governments do not often publish detailed legal advice that they receive from their legal officers. I do not want to get into a debate about that. Individual members of Parliament can legitimately debate with the Executive whether that is the right approach, but it is the approach that Governments of different political parties have generally followed in the past. However, we should pursue an interim position statement from the Executive so that we understand the present situation.
There is a difference, convener. Until the vote in the Parliament, the minister accepted the legal advice on the tendering process that he received from the European Commission. Fergus Ewing is asking for a statement from the minister about his understanding of the European Commission's legal position, which made the minister take the view that he had prior to the vote. That is slightly different from a situation in which the Government is in conflict with the Opposition. The issue is what the European Commission said and what regulation led the minister to the conclusion that he had no option but to proceed with tendering.
The Executive receives legal advice not from the European Commission, but from its internal legal teams. The Executive will have discussed with the Commission aspects of European Union legislation, the Executive's understanding of it and whether the Commission believes that that understanding is correct. However, the legal advice comes from the Executive's officers, rather than from the Commission.
Will we take evidence from the academics and experts before the summer recess?
Yes. However, Professor Kay is out of the country for a number of weeks, so it may be a few weeks until we can take all the evidence.
Meeting closed at 16:57.