PLC Public Sector reports:
Two headlines that may follow a refusal to answer the following questions:
How many knives have been confiscated at local comprehensives in the last year? What schools in our borough have been identified as ”coasting”?
David Gollancz, partner, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP:
The European Commission has issued a press release saying that it “recognises” the need, in response to the economic crisis, for use of the accelerated restricted procedure in public procurements. The OGC has issued its own brief Procurement Policy Note on the press release, suggesting that the accelerated procedure is available for any above-threshold restricted procedure procurement, subject to considering its suitability.
It seems a little unlikely that cutting the maximum 87 required days of delay in procurement to 30 for restricted procedure procurements only, will have a significant impact on the European economy. High value procurements are comparatively rarely conducted by the restricted procedure, while acceleration is not available in competitive dialogue and the Commission has pretty much warned us off using the negotiated procedure except in extremis. But leaving aside its efficacy, there are some questions to be asked about the legal implications of this pronouncement.
PLC Public Sector reports:
The banks failed … the Government threw the golden rule out of the window and bailed them out. The banks failed again … the Government bailed them out again.
The Government is now pledging to spend its way out of the depression, sorry recession (apologies for the ”slip of the tongue“), including providing the necessary funds to support several large PFI schemes. Many of these schemes have been experiencing difficulties because the banks refused (and in most cases still refuse) to provide the required finance.
We will only be able to judge the success of the Government’s financial stimulus in time. However, a debate is needed now as to whether PFI is the appropriate vehicle for the Government’s rescue plans.
Martin Smith, partner, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP:
NOTRAG (the No Third Runway Action Group) called it a “Con”sultation. The Liberal Democrat Shadow Transport Secretary called it a “sham”.
The Government’s consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow airport is now over and the Secretary of State has concluded that a third runway is needed. Much as everyone ‘knew’ he would. Does this make the consultation a pointless process, a fig leaf to cover the inadequacies of a Minister determined to get his way? Was the consultation so inadequate as to be unlawful? This is a matter that may ultimately be determined by the Administrative Court, as legal challenge has been threatened.
