Daily Archives: 5 Aug 2016
Widespread “disgust” at Swire “honour”
Owl is not at all surprised that Swire accepted the “honour” as unless and until his cronies get back into power, it is his only opportunity. Presumably, after pledging allegiance to his Eton cronies and having served only briefly as Mrs May’s PPS in Parliament a few years ago, she was quite certain she did not want him around.
Remember, this is the chap who “went to” St Andrews University but did not get a degree, “joined” the army but served only very briefly, had a couple of non-jobs in family-owned firms before becoming an MP, made fun of people on benefits and spent nearly £500 on a Mulberry iPad cover that he expected us to pay for (but which he ended up having to pay for himself.
In a widely-derided and disparaged honours list, he fits right in with all the others!
The Express and Echo and Claire Wright’s view:
“Hugo Swire, wealthy politician and close chum of David Cameron has been criticised after being awarded a knighthood.
Devon County Councillor Claire Wright called the move “jaw-dropping”.
Hugo Swire, East Devon MP, has come under fire for being named in the former prime minister’s controversial honours list. The reasons for his knighthood are cited as “for political and public service”.
But dozens of his constituents are challenging the decision, asking what Swire has actually done to deserve the title.
County Councillor Claire Wright, who stood against Swire in the 2015 General Election, said she found it ironic the politician was knighted just weeks after he was resigned to the backbenches. She said: “On July 19 Mr Swire blogged that he was joining his “close friends” David Cameron and George Osborne on the back benches.
“Ironically, just two weeks later Mr Cameron announces that our MP will be knighted. Quite a few people have been asking what Mr Swire has done to deserve this. To my knowledge he has never voted against the party line to support his constituents.
Some residents are also challenging the decision, asking what Swire has done for their constituency. One man challenged the decision publicly, and wrote to Swire: “Can I ask why you have received this?” One woman said: “I am disgusted. He has continually voted for cuts to welfare and benefits and yet he has the nerve to accept this,” Another wrote, on learning the news: “You have got to be taking the Michael.” Ian Humphries, who lives in Exmouth, wrote on Facebook: “He certainly doesn’t deserve it, he’s done nothing for East Devon.”
Swire himself said he would now have more time for his constituency after he was sacked from his ministerial post last month.
Beforehand he served as Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister of State for Northern Ireland which meant, he said, that he had less time for his constituency area.
Cllr Wright said she had seen no evidence that Swire had voted in favour of his constituency against his party in the past. She shamed the list as being “filled” with Cameron’s “old boy network of friends and Tory party donors.
She said: “The former prime minister’s honours list which is filled with his old boy network friends and Tory party donors corrupts the entire system of honours and reflects badly on the conservative government. I firmly believe that knighthoods, peerages and other honours should only be bestowed on people who have given exceptional public service for the greater good.”
Cameron has been widely criticised in the national press for showering a total of 46 former aides, advisers and ministers with honours in a resignation list. Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, said it was embarrassing.
“David Cameron’s resignation honours list is so full of cronies it would embarrass a medieval court. He is not the first Prime Minister to leave office having rewarded quite so many friends, but he would be the last.”
A Devon man who was keen to point out bizarre appointments of honours was Paul Baker. He wrote on Facebook: “Worst still, Sam Cam’s sister just for being her sister and the woman who suggested George Osborne went on a diet. True one nation Conservatism.”
Some on social media were not so critical of Swire’s knighthood. He also received dozens of tweets from those happy with his news. Ahmed Naseem, former foreign minister for the Maldives, wrote: “Congratulations sir, we in the Maldives value your efforts to bring back democracy we lost in the last four years.”
While Tony de Brum, former foreign minister for the republic Marshall Islands, shared a joke. He said: “Congratulations Hugo, you are a friend of the islands – even when our dry cleaners shrunk your suit.”
Former city councillor John Harvey congratulated him and said it was well deserved.”
Now you can talk Hugo, remember what you wrote about Knowle planning application
EDDC should not grant itself planning permission … probity, accountability, transparency – remember?
Cameron’s Lords to cost taxpayer millions
“David Cameron sparked an outcry last night with a crony-filled resignation honours list that ‘would embarrass a medieval court’.
As he finally unveiled the ‘toxic’ nominations, the ex-prime minister gave out 13 Tory peerages and 46 honours to allies, aides, Remainers and party donors.
The Electoral Reform Society blasted the gongs as a ‘sorry legacy’ that would lumber the taxpayer with a bill for even more unelected Lords.”
and
“The list was denounced as “a sorry legacy” by democracy campaigners the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), which called on the new Prime Minister Theresa May to “sort out this mess once and for all” by allowing voters to choose members of the Upper House of Parliament.
ERS chief executive Katie Ghose said: “For a Prime Minister who promised to cut the cost of politics, David Cameron is leaving a big bill for the taxpayer as he leaves office.
“His parting gift of 16 lords is a sorry legacy, both in terms of cost to the taxpayer and the quality of our democracy.
“Mr Cameron’s Lords legacy could have been about real, democratic reform.
“Instead, he has unfortunately chosen to follow the well-trodden route of every other PM and packed the second chamber with former politicians, donors and party hacks.
“These unelected peers will cost the taxpayer millions over the long-term – hardly a fitting goodbye.”
“Book Early for LEP’s Annual Conference 3rd October 2016”
“Message from LEP Partnership Manager –
We suggest that you book your place soon for the LEP’s Annual Conference, which this year will be held in the afternoon of Monday 3rd October near Exeter. You can book your place on Eventbrite at:
The Conference is an opportunity to meet with the wider LEP partnership and to network with other stakeholders. It is a free event that is aimed at the private, public and third sectors, and that will include an update on present economic issues for our area and a look at what is planned for the future. This year the focus will be around Productivity and particularly in relation to the ‘people’ and supply chain elements.
Booking is essential and we recommend that you reserve your place soon, as we already have over 100 people registered. Please use this link and if you have any queries please contact Sam Snowdon at
sam@snowdonmarketing.co.uk
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=1330a3c5dc&e=fa5cdb1f18
Something rotten in the nuclear procurement industry?
It seems to be our very, very bad luck that our Local Enterprise Partnership is so heavily represented by people in the nuclear procurement arena.
The winning bidder in the court case below, in a process found by the judge to be very, very seriously flawed, was a consortium (CFP) that included our old friend Babcock via its Cavendish Nuclear subsidiary:
“CFP is a joint venture between the UK’s Cavendish Nuclear, part of Babcock International, and US-based Fluor Corporation. … ”
Here is a damning summary of the judgment, including a scathing attack on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s transparency:
Energy Solutions wins landmarks public procurement challenge
29 July 2016 – UK
On 29 July 2016, judgment was handed down in the much-anticipated case of Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The result, that Energy Solutions is entitled to damages as a result of errors made by the NDA [Nuclear Decommissioning Agency] in the evaluation process, will be welcomed by suppliers to the public sector struggling with the difficult decision whether to challenge a seemingly questionable tender award.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute relates to the procurement of a major contract for the decommissioning of a number of nuclear facilities. Energy Solutions was part of a consortium (RSS) that bid for the contract, but was unsuccessful. Energy Solutions questioned and subsequently challenged the award, on the basis that there had been ‘manifest errors’ in the evaluation process, and that its consortium should have instead been awarded the contract. Energy Solutions did not, as is usually the case in procurement challenges, issue proceedings within the statutory ‘standstill period’. As a result, the NDA was able to, and did, enter into a contract with the winning bidder, and Energy Solutions was left having to claim damages, rather than seeking to have the tender exercise re-run or the contract awarded to it.
NDA challenged this approach at the interim stage, arguing that by failing to issue proceedings within the standstill period, Energy Solutions had failed to mitigate its loss, or had broken the chain of causation. That argument failed at the preliminary issues stage and subsequently at the Court of Appeal, and the case proceeded to trial.
What did the Court decide?
Fraser J, giving judgment, found that there had indeed been manifest errors by those evaluating the bids. Had the bids been evaluated properly, he found, the winning bidder should have in fact been disqualified, under the NDA’s own evaluation criteria; alternatively, Energy Solutions’ consortium should have been scored higher and should have been awarded the contract. The question of quantum of damages will be decided separately, in a decision that will be watched with interest given the rarity of a successful claim for damages (rather than annulment, for example) in a procurement challenge.
The case has generated a number of other points of interest for suppliers, authorities and lawyers alike. Energy Solutions challenged the NDA’s approach to preserving and providing records. In a previous hearing, the court upheld the NDA’s right to claim legal privilege over documents generated by its solicitors in relation to the carrying out of the evaluation exercise (which Energy Solutions had argued was a commercial, rather than a legal, role). However, Fraser J noted that the withholding of these records meant that, in some instances, there was an omission in the evidence on the decision-making. This, he held, did not assist the NDA in defending Energy Solutions’ claim. The judge was even more critical of the NDA’s approach to the making and retaining of notes relating to the evaluation exercise, finding that this left certain important issues being dealt with “in a manner that is wholly contrary to the obligation of transparency.”
The case also took a dramatic last-minute turn, when it transpired shortly before judgment was to be handed down that Energy Solutions had agreed to pay certain of its witnesses a “bonus” payment if it were successful. After learning of this, the NDA applied for the case to be struck out or retried as a result. Having heard further submissions and cross-examination of those witnesses, though, the judge declined to order this. Although such payments are not allowed under English law, he held that the correct approach would be to look again at the evidence given by those witnesses and decide whether a different result would have been reached had that evidence been excluded. Fraser J concluded that the result would have been the same.
What does this mean for suppliers?
The judgment is highly detailed, and we will be reporting further on the issues that it raises for suppliers to the public sector. However, one thing that is clear is that this will give encouragement to those challenging awards that, in addition to seeking to prevent the contract being entered into or having the tender re-run, a claim for damages may well be a viable option.
“Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner blew her rivals out of the water when it came to campaign spending”
Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner blew her rivals out of the water when it came to campaign spending, it has emerged.
Newly submitted election expenses reveal Conservative Alison Hernandez spent more than twice as much as her Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP rivals put together during the campaign.
Ms Hernandez, who was elected to the £85,000-a-year post in May, spent
£31,212
during the campaign – more than any other candidate. Her campaign was funded by donations of money and services from Conservative headquarters and local branches in Devon and Cornwall.
The second biggest spender was retired senior police officer Bob Spencer, from Lympstone, who spent
£19,000 of his own money
on an unsuccessful campaign.
The full list:
Alison Hernandez (Conservative) – £28,595, plus personal travel and accommodation expenses of £2,617;
Bob Spencer (Independent) – £17,602, plus personal expenses of £1,446;
Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat) – £6,340, plus personal expenses of £490;
Gareth Derrick (Labour) – £4,982, plus personal expenses of £419;
William Morris (Independent) – £2,488, plus personal expenses of £1,453;
Jonathan Smith (UKIP) – £2,414.
East Devon Watch 