Official Report 250KB pdf
The final item of business is my report to bring members up to date on a number of issues. First, in a letter of 20 June, Mr McCabe states that the Government does not intend to bid for any of the EU agencies that may be looking for sites, based on the Government's view that we do not have a sufficiently strong background in the matters to justify a realistic chance of success. The agencies were the European Network and Information Security Agency, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the European Railway Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States—I would have thought that we had an interest in that one—and the new Community Fisheries Control Agency which—as Margaret Ewing has just pointed out to me—is going to Spain.
I note that most of the partnerships seem to have met the N+2 targets this year, which is an improvement on previous years. However, the information is not in a readily understandable format. It would have been helpful to have had a table with each of the partnerships and some measures and indicators to allow us to cast our eye along it and get an idea of how well we are doing.
From Mr McCabe's evidence, it seems that he is against tables, measures and performance indicators—or perhaps that was just me. I am sure that we can feed that comment back to the Executive.
I thought that you were against tables and measures, too, convener.
An annex to accompany the document would be useful.
I know that there is a table outlining different partnerships' performance, because I have seen it at the twice-yearly meetings of the structural funds forum. We can certainly ask for that to be added.
I note in paragraph 3 of the response that the Executive drew the concerns of Ferguson Shipbuilders to the attention of the Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry and
On the sentence in paragraph 3 that Irene Oldfather referred to, are there any written documents on this matter that the committee could receive or has all contact been made by telephone or e-mail? Can we access what the DFT and the DTI have said?
If the committee wanted that material, we could certainly ask for it. I see no obstacle in that respect.
When we meet Roger Liddle from Peter Mandelson's cabinet on Thursday evening, we might be able to find out whether the Commission has concluded its initial investigations and has deemed that no further action be taken or that a more formal inquiry be launched. I am sure that he is reasonably well placed to advise us on the stage that proceedings have reached.
The last sentence on the first page of Mr Finnie's letter does not entirely clear up the question about the response that the Executive received from Commissioner McCreevy. Perhaps that is what Mr Finnie outlines on the second page, but I am still not clear whether he is referring to the commissioner's response or whether he is awaiting a further response.
From my reading of the letter, the approach that was made in June has not yet been answered.
That is how I read the letter, but I am not entirely clear about what it means.
That is why I am puzzled by the response. I could quite understand it if the Government had exhausted every possible avenue and the Commission had told it, "Look, there's no issue. We're not having an inquiry. No questions have been asked." At that point—regrettably, but understandably—the Government would have reached its conclusion and awarded the contract.
I certainly agree that we should follow up the matter with the Commission on Thursday night. It would also be worth writing again to Ross Finnie to ask for clarification on that final point. We should ask what Ross Finnie said to Commissioner McCreevy and what Commissioner McCreevy said to Ross Finnie so that we can be clear about what questions were posed and answered.
In addition, the third paragraph of Ross Finnie's letter refers to queries that were sent to the Department for Transport and the DTI. We understand from UK Government ministers that there were concerns that there might have been grounds to challenge those decisions. It is therefore puzzling that the Scottish Executive went ahead and ordered the vessel when there might have been outstanding doubts about the affairs of Remontowa.
If you read it carefully, that third paragraph relates to a specific contract that was awarded by the General Lighthouse Authority in 2004 and not to the more recent contracts. It is a contract in which the Scottish Executive had no locus, other than to look after Ferguson's interests.
That is the correct interpretation.
I was the person who had the dealings with the DTI.
You can tell us what is in the correspondence then. Waken up! [Laughter.]
We received assurances that there was no evidence of illegal state aid.
That is about the 2004 contract; there are still questions about where we are now and it would be worth taking up those points by writing to the minister to ask for clarification. The matter will come back to the committee in due course.
On that point, it would be remiss of me not say on behalf of the committee that we wish you well in your new position and take the opportunity to thank you for all the work that you have put in over the past year. I think I speak on behalf of all committee members and I know I speak on behalf of the Labour members. You have exercised your role very judiciously and we appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you.
Meeting closed at 16:08.
Previous
Sift