For the second time in a few days I want to share an editorial by Bew Wray from Common A.M., which is published by Common Scot, which in turn is linked to Common Weal. As Ben says this morning:
The extent of how clueless Ministers are is frightening. In the House of Commons on Wednesday, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack was asked about the awarding of a major contract at the £2 billon Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm off the coast of Fife to Indonesia, while the manufacturing workers at nearby BiFab missed out. The contract could have created a 1,000 jobs at the Fife yards, instead the manufacturing of the sleeves will travel across half the globe, generating significant carbon emissions from the shipping alone. Jack blithely responded that it is just "the market economy at work". That dogma doesn't stand up to an ounce of scrutiny. The Scottish Government licensed the offshore wind farm. The UK Government set the basis for renewables subsidies through Contracts for Difference. The EU restricted what subsidies are possible through public procurement and state aid rules. The company which won the contract, EDF Renewables, is owned by the French state. The Indonesian firm which won the sub-contract off EDF, Saipem, is owned by Italian conglomerate ENI, and benefits from operating in an 'enterprise zone' which offers special tax, regulation and infrastructure incentives, and with few workers rights. The state has had a role to play in shaping this 'market' every step of the way.
Trade unions are rightly angry about Jack's remark. The promised green jobs boom has not come because the sector is dominated by multinationals (some owned by other country's states) which know how to rig public procurement processes and state aid rules to maximise their profits. Meanwhile, the local supply chains we need for the zero-carbon transition are undermined, and the farce of offshoring contracts around the world to build a windfarm in Scotland in the middle of a Climate Emergency continues. There is a small window of opportunity to rewrite the rules on procurement and state aid as Britain exits the EU in such a way that it is fit for the zero-carbon transition, but with Minister's like Jack in charge talking nonsense about an imaginary free-market, there's little hope that anything other than corporate interest will win out.
What's really quite bizarre is that despite leaving the EU the UK is still determinedly playing by rules that no one else seems to think apply to them when it comes to procurement, and UKjopbs losses are happening as a result.
The big question is, why is that?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There could be all manner of reasons from which I offer the following possibilities. 1. Jack is a compulsive rule taker. 2. Civil service bureaucracy is glacially slow at adapting to changing circumstances it did not plan for. 3. UK government lies when it talks about generating local jobs for local people. 4. Prejudice against the Scots is greater than we thought. 5. Jack got a sufficiently large backhander that he was persuaded of the merits of the Indonesian bid. I am sure many other possibilities exist.
… 6. The British State is engaged in a war of attrtion with the Scottish Government.
It seems like you’re suggesting they should disobey the law (a law we would continue to be bound by indefinitely if we had remained in the EU, as you have advocated), but I’m sure you’re not saying that.
What advice would you have given at the time this procurement exercise was put together?
I would have suggested they should follow EU wide practice
Agreed – one of the major failings of UK was to fail to work around EU legislation or to understand the rules and how to usefully apply for the greater good. There were so many things we could easily have done under EU rules that we steadfastly avoided using.
How would that stack up if the procurement were challenged? The courts would apply the law, not ‘EU practice’ (whatever that is).
I think the answer has already been given to you by another commentator
There is nothing to stop any government from accepting any contract at a competitve price. It does not have to be the lowest cost option. This is accepted by the EU “Under EU public procurement rules, contracting authorities may take multiple aspects into account when purchasing works, goods or services. Examples include protecting the environment, supporting social considerations and fostering innovation. However, 55% of procurement procedures use lowest price as the only award criterion for public contracts. This indicates that public buyers are probably not paying enough attention to quality, sustainability and innovation.”
Jim, these factors must be ‘linked to the subject-matter of the public contract in question’ (reg 67(2)) and must meet the proportionality principle.
I doubt placing a requirement for ‘Scottish jobs’ or even ‘British jobs’ as a requirement in the ITT/specification would meet those requirements. A challenger from outside Scotland/UK would have an easy challenge.
Actually, there are a great many reasons why, for example, key industries and skills can be supported, most especially in the context of a climate emergency
Sure there’s a risk
But the precedents would suggest it is small
And only the UK interprets the law this way