SNP MEP Alyn Smith has written to the EU Commission calling for an investigation into the process through which the UK Government awarded three ferry contracts worth more than £107.7 million.
Smith’s letter outlines concerns that proper procurement processed have not been followed and that the Government’s handling of the situation sets a worrying precedent for similar contracts.
The Government claims that the contracts were awarded to help ease congestion at Dover by securing extra lorry capacity in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
READ MORE: Poll says 57% of Tory faithful prefer no deal to Theresa May's Brexit plan
However, they have faced fierce criticism after it emerged last week that Seaborne Freight, who were awarded a £13.8m contract, had what appeared to be terms and conditions on its website more akin to a food delivery service.
“It is the responsibility of the customer to thoroughly check the supplied goods before agreeing to pay for any meal/order,” read part of the text on the company’s website.
The gaffe saw tough questions raised over the capability of the company but also the due diligence of the Government in awarding the contract to Seaborne Freight.
In his letter, Smith writes: “I am concerned that proper procurement process has not been followed and that as well as potentially representing an extremely poor deal for the UK taxpayer and their impact on competition and the single market, the contracts could be used as templates for future, bigger, contracts likely to be awarded by the UK Government. I would be grateful if your services could investigate.”
READ MORE: 2019 will see myths of our ‘precious Union’ exposed
The UK Department for Transport awarded three contracts for additional shipping freight capacity direct to providers without running an open EU competitive process.
In late December, three contract award notices (CANs) were published in the Official Journal of the European Union announcing the awarding of contracts to Danish shipping and logistics firm, DFDS A/S for £42.3m, French company Bretagne Angleterre Irlande for £46.6m and Seaborne Freight (UK) Ltd for £13.8m.
The contracts are for additional freight capacity services between England and France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany and are intended “to minimise the potential disruption of trade across the Short Straits in the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement”.
The Department for Transport justified the direct awarding of the contracts due to their status as cases of “extreme urgency”. The CANs state that “extreme urgency [was] brought about by events unforeseeable” for the contracting authority and “in accordance with the strict conditions stated in the directive”.
However, Smith’s letter highlights his concerns that the UK Government’s spending-spree has led to public money being squandered.
READ MORE: Scots urged to lead campaign for People's Vote on Brexit
“Under Article 32 of the Directive and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice I cannot see how proper process has been followed,” Smith writes.
“Not only has the risk of disruption to trade been apparent since the start of the Brexit process, the sense of
crisis, now, has been reached entirely by the actions of the UK Government itself.
“I fear that public money is being wasted in order to provide an illusion of action, but the effect on the ground will be minimal.”
In response to Smith’s call for an investigation, a Department for Transport spokesperson said: “We undertook a competitive procurement process to secure additional ferry capacity between the UK and the EU which is in line with proper procedures.”
Smith, speaking to the Sunday National, said that he eagerly anticipated the response of the EU Commission on the matter.
He said: “Having just taken the UK Government to the European Court of Justice and won, I don’t have a lot of respect for UK Government civil servants and I have zero respect for the vandals who claim to be in charge of the UK Government.
“I believe there are severe deficiencies to these processes and I look forward to hearing the ruling of the EU Commission.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel