NPR

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:07 pm Truss even with her proscribed limitations has done a fantastic job in the last year with trade deals.


Remember many posters claimed the UK would be North Korea.


That’s your comparison here to the critics.

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:07 pm Truss even with her proscribed limitations has done a fantastic job in the last year with trade deals.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:33 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:07 pm Truss even with her proscribed limitations has done a fantastic job in the last year with trade deals.

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:09 pm Wtf is a proscribed limitation?

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:09 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:33 pm

Bimbowomxn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:07 pm Truss even with her proscribed limitations has done a fantastic job in the last year with trade deals.

Wtf is a proscribed limitation?

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:41 pm

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:09 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:33 pm

Wtf is a proscribed limitation?

Not being able to use gunboats as a negotiating tactic.

Liz Truss is refusing to answer questions about trading crisis sparked by Brexit, parties protest

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Liz Truss is refusing to answer questions about trading crisis sparked by Brexit, parties protest

The International Trade Secretary has “transferred” all enquiries about the plight facing firms to other departments, they say – despite it being her job to promote exports overseas.

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:21 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Liz Truss is refusing to answer questions about trading crisis sparked by Brexit, parties protest

Too busy negotiating a trade deal with Mauritius or Vanuatu for another photo op for her scrapbook

The International Trade Secretary has “transferred” all enquiries about the plight facing firms to other departments, they say – despite it being her job to promote exports overseas.

Thousands of Amazon workers received the wrong Coronavirus test results after a mistake meant they were given inaccurate information by test and trace and 3,853 staff members at the online retailer received an erroneous result. Officials said they had tested negatively but received notifications to say they had tested positive and asking them to self-isolate.
One test-and-trace worker said: “The tests, as far I can tell were good, but what people were told about their results is wrong.”

It not clear how these errors occurred but separately some test-and-trace healthcare professionals have expressed increasing concerns about the use of outsourced, inexperienced, call-centre staff to carry out the role of clinically trained staff. They are often employed on minimum wage by telesales businesses contracted by Serco, which has been drafted in to carry out detailed interviews with coronavirus patients.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:25 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:21 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Too busy negotiating a trade deal with Mauritius or Vanuatu for another photo op for her scrapbook

The International Trade Secretary has “transferred” all enquiries about the plight facing firms to other departments, they say – despite it being her job to promote exports overseas.

PM's Questions tomorrow should be fun.

Openside wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:02 pm

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:38 pm So now the cat is truly outta the bag on Conservatism, what are we going to do about it?

I vote we tax half the country until they have to fuck off.

You are a parody, once you have taxed all the country's wealth producers into exile, who is going to pay for all the flaky scroungers??

Openside wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:02 pm You are a parody, once you have taxed all the country's wealth producers into exile, who is going to pay for all the flaky scroungers??

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:36 am

Openside wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:02 pm

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:38 pm So now the cat is truly outta the bag on Conservatism, what are we going to do about it?

I vote we tax half the country until they have to fuck off.

You are a parody, once you have taxed all the country's wealth producers into exile, who is going to pay for all the flaky scroungers??

That's a simplification. The reality, Tory or Labour is
1) the poor pay no tax because they have no income to tax. OK, they get screwed a bit unknowingly via VAT, NI etc

2) the rich and big businesses pay no taxes because
- they bribe the politicians
- they threaten the politicians: "Amazon has created x jobs in the UK" = thinly veiled threat to leave if forced to pay 1p in Corporation Tax
- they can afford better lawyers to exploit the loopholes created in an increasingly complex tax system (see point 3)

3) that leaves those of us in the middle paying for everyone else. But it's a war of diminishing returns: HMRC fiddles with tax rules to try and screw us some more --> more people at the edges deem it worthwhile to look for loopholes in the new rules to save paying the extra tax --> HMRC gets less revenue --> HMRC fiddles with tax rules to try and screw us some more --> last one out, turn off the lights

Have a guess roughly what % of revenues is raised from Corporation Tax?

Spoiler

Show

About 8%. Versus more than 50% in Income Tax and NI. Go figure.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:52 am Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks et al are never going to leave Britain for the sake of some tax. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Anyone who thinks massive multinationals will leave is a simpleton.

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:59 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:36 am

Openside wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:02 pm

You are a parody, once you have taxed all the country's wealth producers into exile, who is going to pay for all the flaky scroungers??

That's a simplification. The reality, Tory or Labour is
1) the poor pay no tax because they have no income to tax. OK, they get screwed a bit unknowingly via VAT, NI etc

2) the rich and big businesses pay no taxes because
- they bribe the politicians
- they threaten the politicians: "Amazon has created x jobs in the UK" = thinly veiled threat to leave if forced to pay 1p in Corporation Tax
- they can afford better lawyers to exploit the loopholes created in an increasingly complex tax system (see point 3)

3) that leaves those of us in the middle paying for everyone else. But it's a war of diminishing returns: HMRC fiddles with tax rules to try and screw us some more --> more people at the edges deem it worthwhile to look for loopholes in the new rules to save paying the extra tax --> HMRC gets less revenue --> HMRC fiddles with tax rules to try and screw us some more --> last one out, turn off the lights

Have a guess roughly what % of revenues is raised from Corporation Tax?

Spoiler

Show

About 8%. Versus more than 50% in Income Tax and NI. Go figure.

Torq ‘the wealth producers’ are also the ones paying most of the income tax too. I read some startling figure that something like 50% of Income tax is paid by 5% of the population.

Ministers are out of touch and “institutionally biased” against supporting children and families, while Britain is being put to shame by measures unveiled by President Joe Biden in the US, the children’s commissioner for England will say.
In an excoriating speech at the end of her six-year tenure, Anne Longfield will say it is a “national scandal” that a fifth of children leave compulsory education without basic qualifications.
She will call on Boris Johnson to introduce a “Covid covenant” of education and wellbeing support to help children and young people recover from the pandemic, saying that unless children are at the heart of his “build back better” campaign it is “just a slogan”.

Lobby wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:15 am The top earning 5% of the population includes anyone earning over about £80k, so it’s not that surprising that they pay most of the income tax. It also shows that Torque’s statement that most tax is payed by the “middle” is also true. The super rich who pay hardly anything in tax is tiny as a percentage of the overall population.

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:50 am Children's Comissioner telling it how it is before handing over to one of Gove's stooges!

Ministers are out of touch and “institutionally biased” against supporting children and families, while Britain is being put to shame by measures unveiled by President Joe Biden in the US, the children’s commissioner for England will say.
In an excoriating speech at the end of her six-year tenure, Anne Longfield will say it is a “national scandal” that a fifth of children leave compulsory education without basic qualifications.
She will call on Boris Johnson to introduce a “Covid covenant” of education and wellbeing support to help children and young people recover from the pandemic, saying that unless children are at the heart of his “build back better” campaign it is “just a slogan”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2 ... longfield

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:18 am Oh goody, we're going to have another discussion about UK education standards. Teachers will be along soon to put their case forward....

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:11 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:50 am Children's Comissioner telling it how it is before handing over to one of Gove's stooges!

Ministers are out of touch and “institutionally biased” against supporting children and families, while Britain is being put to shame by measures unveiled by President Joe Biden in the US, the children’s commissioner for England will say.
In an excoriating speech at the end of her six-year tenure, Anne Longfield will say it is a “national scandal” that a fifth of children leave compulsory education without basic qualifications.
She will call on Boris Johnson to introduce a “Covid covenant” of education and wellbeing support to help children and young people recover from the pandemic, saying that unless children are at the heart of his “build back better” campaign it is “just a slogan”.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2 ... longfield

It shows the bluster about the Post-Brexit UK becoming some kind of Tech powerhouse; for what it is.

If you want to become a European Singapore; you first need to have an Education system that provides good outcomes for the countries children; that doesn't mean they all have to go to University; but it does mean they all need to be able to read & have a decent level of Mathematics skills.

A succession of Tory Ministers have been more interested in fighting culture wars in the schools & Universities; than in making sure their Ministry worked for the benefit of all children.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:24 am

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:18 am Oh goody, we're going to have another discussion about UK education standards. Teachers will be along soon to put their case forward....

And then will be along to; cherry pick statistics; fling mud at other countries; & blame immigrants & Tony Blair......

But if a respected childrens commissioner; appointed by the Tories; says they're doing a shit job for 20% of children ...

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:27 am

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:11 am

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:50 am Children's Comissioner telling it how it is before handing over to one of Gove's stooges!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2 ... longfield

It shows the bluster about the Post-Brexit UK becoming some kind of Tech powerhouse; for what it is.

If you want to become a European Singapore; you first need to have an Education system that provides good outcomes for the countries children; that doesn't mean they all have to go to University; but it does mean they all need to be able to read & have a decent level of Mathematics skills.

A succession of Tory Ministers have been more interested in fighting culture wars in the schools & Universities; than in making sure their Ministry worked for the benefit of all children.

This is something of a bugbear of mine. I was briefly (two years) at Uni doing electrical engineering, we parted ways by mutual agreement, but whilst there we were shown a report by one of the chartered engineers organisations.
The bottom line of it (this was late 80s/early 90s) was that the lack of proper apprenticeships being offered in all trades and professions was going to come back to bite us on the arse, especially when all the current workforce retired, leaving an untrained cadre behind them. They forecast that we'd need to import skills and that the trades here would vary massively in skills and costs to anyone who employed them.

I'm all for universal education to the highest possible level, but we shouldn't neglect proper training in other areas.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Liz Truss is refusing to answer questions about trading crisis sparked by Brexit, parties protest

“Today we received the extraordinary news that Liz Truss has gone through topics for next week’s session & ordered removal of 6 questions relating to trade with Europe, despite severe problems”

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:48 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Liz Truss is refusing to answer questions about trading crisis sparked by Brexit, parties protest

Yep and she's vetoed answering 6 specific questions on the subject at Select Committee next week
Just who the fuck does she think she is if she's not answerable to parliamment?

“Today we received the extraordinary news that Liz Truss has gone through topics for next week’s session & ordered removal of 6 questions relating to trade with Europe, despite severe problems”

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:06 pm

SaintK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:48 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:44 pm https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 02529.html

Surprised she didn't just say Fantastic!

Yep and she's vetoed answering 6 specific questions on the subject at Select Committee next week
Just who the fuck does she think she is if she's not answerable to parliamment?

“Today we received the extraordinary news that Liz Truss has gone through topics for next week’s session & ordered removal of 6 questions relating to trade with Europe, despite severe problems”

Remember last year, when there was a very strategic leak of a letter from Liz to the Govester; where she warned that the UK wasn't going to be ready, & she wasn't going to carry the can ?

Spoiler

Show

Dear Rishi and Michael,

I am writing to you to set out my key areas of concern on border policy risks and readiness for the end of the transition period and to seek your assurance that these concerns will be addressed. This letter comes in advance of the Border Operating Model publication on 13 July, where the UK's proposals for the border will come under renewed scrutiny, both on the domestic and international stage.

My key concerns are outlined below:

1) The Staged Approach and WTO Challenge — When we exit the Transition Period, the UK will be vulnerable to WTO challenge regarding its border regime. This is especially relevant concerning the implementation of the NI protocol and the application of the staged approach. These measures could significantly impact on the UK's reputation at the WTO and I would appreciate your assurance that full border checks for EU-GB goods will be implemented no later than July 2021 and that all messaging will clearly reflect this point. I would also like to underscore that, where there is a risk of legal challenge at the WTO, departments are responsible for mitigating the risk and for funding the costs of any defensive trade dispute brought against their measures. Given this risk, I was pleased to hear that following the XO meeting last Friday, it was decided that the temporary waiving of export declarations will not be included in the publication. I would want to be part of any decision to revisit this, either with reference to the publication, or plans thereafter.

2) Controls at the Border — I recognise there are challenges to delivering tariff declaration systems on both EU and Rest of World (RoW) imports but, to ensure we can develop appropriate handling plans for national and international stakeholders, it is essential that my department has a clear view of operation delivery plans, timescales and risks going forward. This is also particularly important for controlled goods at those EU-facing ports where the infrastructure to implement controls does not currently exist. Given the legal, reputational and security risks, I would like assurances that we are able to deliver full controls at these ports by July 2021 and that plans are in place from January to mitigate the risk of goods being circumvented from ports implementing full controls.

3) Tariff Assessment and Collection — I have some further concerns about tariff collection due to the staging in approach, especially around the increased likelihood of circumvention, where RoW traders could import their goods via the EU. This would undermine the effective operation of our trade policy, as well as create significant handling difficulties with negotiating partners. For example, it might lead to remedy tariffs being circumvented, due to a lack of checks at the border, in addition to impacts on TRQs. I therefore would like firm assurances that mitigation against such risks are in place. Further, I am seeking assurance that tariffs on goods from RoW, specifically from countries where the Trade Agreements Continuity programme applies, will also be payable from 1 January 2021 and will be collected within one month as is currently the case.

4) Northern Ireland Protocol risks — I understand that the digital delivery of the dual tariff system (both EU and UK tariff) in Northern Ireland is a high risk and that HMRC are planning to apply the EU tariff as a default to all imports in NI on 1 January 2021. This is very concerning as this may call into question NI's place in the UK's customs territory. Failure to deliver the UK tariff digitally in NI, would have political, legal, and reputational risks. I am keen to see HMRC and BPDG delivery plans, specifically on how both the UK and EU tariff will be digitally implemented, including detailed mitigations, and where there are risks to delivery by 1 January 2021. These plans should also include details of when commodity code divergence will be delivered for the whole of the UK.

As we fast approach the end of the transition period, we need to ensure that the UK border is effective and compliant with international rules, maintaining our credibility with trading partners, the WTO and with business. I encourage the continued close cooperation of officials in our departments to achieve this.

I am copying this letter to the Home Secretary.

Best wishes,

The Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP

Secretary of State for International Trade & President of the Board of Trade

This is her, not so subtle way of washing her hands of the consequences, that she warned of.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:11 am If you want to become a European Singapore; you first need to have an Education system that provides good outcomes for the countries children; that doesn't mean they all have to go to University; but it does mean they all need to be able to read & have a decent level of Mathematics skills.

A succession of Tory Ministers have been more interested in fighting culture wars in the schools & Universities; than in making sure their Ministry worked for the benefit of all children.

HIGH COURT DECLARES GOVERNMENT ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN ITS PPE PROCUREMENT
Posted at 12:02h in Adam Hundt, HP Image, Human rights, Judicial review & public law, News, NHS, Procurement, Ugo Hayter by DPG Editing BG

The High Court has ruled that the government has acted unlawfully by failing to disclose details of Covid-related contracts until forced to do so by litigation.

We represented the Good Law Project and a cross-party group of three MPs – Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas, and Layla Moran, in a judicial review challenging the government’s widespread failure to publish details of the enormous contracts that had been awarded without competition, to companies that the public knew little about, some of whom had close ties to those in government.

The judgment is available here. The judge said:

“The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and that “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the Secretary of State breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.”

He went on to say:

“The obligations imposed by reg. 50 (in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and by the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded. This was important not only so that competitors of those awarded contracts could understand whether the obligations owed to them under the PCR 2015 had been breached, but also so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions about this expenditure.”

The Judge was clear that the case had resulted in the admission of a breach by the Government (stating it was “secured as a result of this litigation and at a late stage of it”) and sped up the Government’s publishing of contracts: “I have no doubt that this claim has speeded up compliance.”

The declaration from the High Court is hugely significant – if Government continues to fail to publish contract award notices within 30 days it is doing so in full knowledge it is breaching the law, and hindering scrutiny:

“if the publication had been on time… the First Claimant [Good Law Project] would have been able to scrutinise CANs and contract provisions, ask questions about them and raise any issues with oversight bodies such as the NAO or via MPs in Parliament; and it would have been able to do so within the timescales provided by the law.”

The Judgment has significant implications for future public interest challenges, in relation to “standing” and the application of s31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which circumscribes the Court’s power to grant relief in certain circumstances.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:52 am Amazon, Facebook, Google, Starbucks et al are never going to leave Britain for the sake of some tax. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Anyone who thinks massive multinationals will leave is a simpleton.

Private firms handed contracts to run the UK’s hotels quarantine programme have links to the Conservative Party and have already benefited from a series of government deals during the coronavirus pandemic.
Mitie, Corporate Travel Management, G4S and Corps Security have been contracted to provide hotels and security by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), it is understood.

Tory peer Philippa Roe, or Baroness Couttie, sits on the company’s board, and was given a seat in the House of Lords by David Cameron in 2017. A party whip in the upper chamber, she was Conservative leader of Westminster Council between 2012 and 2017.

Conservative peer Baroness McGregor-Smith, who is currently president of the British Chamber of Commerce and a non-executive board member of the Department for Education, was CEO of Mitie for almost a decade.

Both Roe and McGregor-Smith have stood to be the Tory candidate for London mayor.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:29 pm News you won't see reported on the BBC tonight.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-declare ... ocurement/

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:29 pm

Spoiler

Show

News you won't see reported on the BBC tonight.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-declare ... ocurement/

HIGH COURT DECLARES GOVERNMENT ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN ITS PPE PROCUREMENT
Posted at 12:02h in Adam Hundt, HP Image, Human rights, Judicial review & public law, News, NHS, Procurement, Ugo Hayter by DPG Editing BG

The High Court has ruled that the government has acted unlawfully by failing to disclose details of Covid-related contracts until forced to do so by litigation.

We represented the Good Law Project and a cross-party group of three MPs – Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas, and Layla Moran, in a judicial review challenging the government’s widespread failure to publish details of the enormous contracts that had been awarded without competition, to companies that the public knew little about, some of whom had close ties to those in government.

The judgment is available here. The judge said:

“The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and that “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the Secretary of State breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.”

He went on to say:

“The obligations imposed by reg. 50 (in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and by the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded. This was important not only so that competitors of those awarded contracts could understand whether the obligations owed to them under the PCR 2015 had been breached, but also so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions about this expenditure.”

The Judge was clear that the case had resulted in the admission of a breach by the Government (stating it was “secured as a result of this litigation and at a late stage of it”) and sped up the Government’s publishing of contracts: “I have no doubt that this claim has speeded up compliance.”

The declaration from the High Court is hugely significant – if Government continues to fail to publish contract award notices within 30 days it is doing so in full knowledge it is breaching the law, and hindering scrutiny:

“if the publication had been on time… the First Claimant [Good Law Project] would have been able to scrutinise CANs and contract provisions, ask questions about them and raise any issues with oversight bodies such as the NAO or via MPs in Parliament; and it would have been able to do so within the timescales provided by the law.”

The Judgment has significant implications for future public interest challenges, in relation to “standing” and the application of s31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which circumscribes the Court’s power to grant relief in certain circumstances.

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:08 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:29 pm

Spoiler

Show

News you won't see reported on the BBC tonight.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-declare ... ocurement/

HIGH COURT DECLARES GOVERNMENT ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN ITS PPE PROCUREMENT
Posted at 12:02h in Adam Hundt, HP Image, Human rights, Judicial review & public law, News, NHS, Procurement, Ugo Hayter by DPG Editing BG

The High Court has ruled that the government has acted unlawfully by failing to disclose details of Covid-related contracts until forced to do so by litigation.

We represented the Good Law Project and a cross-party group of three MPs – Debbie Abrahams, Caroline Lucas, and Layla Moran, in a judicial review challenging the government’s widespread failure to publish details of the enormous contracts that had been awarded without competition, to companies that the public knew little about, some of whom had close ties to those in government.

The judgment is available here. The judge said:

“The Secretary of State acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the Transparency Policy” and that “there is now no dispute that, in a substantial number of cases, the Secretary of State breached his legal obligation to publish Contract Award Notices within 30 days of the award of contracts.”

He went on to say:

“The obligations imposed by reg. 50 (in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015) and by the Transparency Policy and Principles serve a vital public function and that function was no less important during a pandemic. The Secretary of State spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded. This was important not only so that competitors of those awarded contracts could understand whether the obligations owed to them under the PCR 2015 had been breached, but also so that oversight bodies such as the NAO, as well as Parliament and the public, could scrutinise and ask questions about this expenditure.”

The Judge was clear that the case had resulted in the admission of a breach by the Government (stating it was “secured as a result of this litigation and at a late stage of it”) and sped up the Government’s publishing of contracts: “I have no doubt that this claim has speeded up compliance.”

The declaration from the High Court is hugely significant – if Government continues to fail to publish contract award notices within 30 days it is doing so in full knowledge it is breaching the law, and hindering scrutiny:

“if the publication had been on time… the First Claimant [Good Law Project] would have been able to scrutinise CANs and contract provisions, ask questions about them and raise any issues with oversight bodies such as the NAO or via MPs in Parliament; and it would have been able to do so within the timescales provided by the law.”

The Judgment has significant implications for future public interest challenges, in relation to “standing” and the application of s31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which circumscribes the Court’s power to grant relief in certain circumstances.

All well and good, but are there repercussions?

What's the point of a High Court action if nobody is held to account?

SaintK wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:19 pm

Rinkals wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:08 pm

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:29 pm

Spoiler

Show

News you won't see reported on the BBC tonight.

https://dpglaw.co.uk/high-court-declare ... ocurement/

All well and good, but are there repercussions?

What's the point of a High Court action if nobody is held to account?

Quite
It will all be ignored in the long term

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:17 pm You guys don’t honestly believe that the Tory Party will convict the people who contribute to the Tory Party?