Written Question · S3W-01970 · Session 3
Further to the answers to questions S3W-12 and S3W-889 by Richard Lochhead on 7 and 27 June 2007, whether the statement, attributed to a sp…
The question
To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the answers to questions S3W-12 and S3W-889 by Richard Lochhead on 7 and 27 June 2007, whether the statement, attributed to a spokesman for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) in the Mail on Sunday of 10 June 2007 regarding the possible replacement of the FPV Norna, that, “This replacement is unnecessary”, implies that in providing previous advice to the contrary the Chief Executive and Accounting Officer of the SFPA had acted in breach of his fiduciary responsibilities, with particular reference to the obligations set out in the Statement of Agency and Chief Executive’s Responsibilities and the Scottish Public Finance Manual.
The answer
No. The statement by theSFPA spokesman requires to be read within the context it was made to maintainthe operational capability of the fleet. The answer to question S3W-12,answered on 7 June 2007, indicated that the review would includeconsideration of the case for increasing the Agency’s fleet from four to fivevessels. Given that by the end of 2007 the agency will have three new vesselsin its fleet as well as the newest of the Sulisker class (FPV Norna)with at least five years operational capability remaining, it was not necessaryto go forward immediately with the tender procedure for a fourth new vessel.
All answers to written parliamentaryquestions are available on the Parliament's website the search facility forwhich can be found at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
All answers to written parliamentaryquestions are available on the Parliament's website the search facility forwhich can be found at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/webapp/wa.search.
In the Official Report
No contribution in the Official Report cites S3W-01970 by reference.