The offence of Treating

Prior to hearing that the police are investigating a councillor who, 11 days before an election, bought tea and cake for residents of a care home, I hadn't heard of the offence, within electoral law, of 'Treating'.

 "A person is guilty of treating if either before, during or after an election they directly or indirectly give or provide any food, drink, entertainment or provision to corruptly influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Treating requires a corrupt intent – it does not apply to ordinary hospitality."

Of course, what we can't tell is whether or not there was realistically any chance of the 'treating' having an impact, for example, if the councillor knew no postal votes were requested by the residents, whether postal votes had already been cast, whether the residents had access to transport to the Polling Station, or indeed whether they were even registered to vote? It is also interesting to note that it is not the residents who are deemed guilty of receiving tea and cake which could have 'corrupted' but the potential candidate who bought the cake.

But visualise if the 'other advantage' under the Bribery Act  was also deemed to include 'treating' to food, drink and entertainment within a certain period of a contract award? Of course it would have to exclude 'ordinary hospitality' too, but then who's to say what constitutes 'ordinary hospitality'.

As we start to approach the season of 'one-way giving', I wonder how much takes place without gaining some 'influence' over future procurement decisions, only if it is to ensure an RFP is received at some stage which wouldn't otherwise have been. Aren't 'treats' for procurement all really just 'tricks'?

Thus spake PAC on Universal chaos and waste

"...the Department lacked an overarching business transformation strategy, and focused its effort on the programme's IT aspects. The failure to develop a comprehensive plan which will deliver these important changes has led to substantial nugatory expenditure which has yet to be finally determined and extensive delays in the implementation of the programme. 

 The Department accepts that timescales have slipped and that value has not been secured from the X million[s] invested so far. There has been a shocking absence of financial and other internal controls and we are not yet convinced that the Department has robust plans to overcome the problems that have impeded progress. Our recommendations are designed to help get the programme back on track. In particular the Department needs a robust plan on how to transform its business and what is required from the new IT systems it intends to use to support the transformation. If the Department is to secure the benefits it seeks, the new IT capabilities must enable more online operations, must address fraud risks, and result in a system capable of handling the real-world complexities of [key users] circumstances. The Department must be realistic and transparent about its expected costs and timescales, and the milestones against which we can hold it to account. We believe strongly that meeting any specific timetable from now on is less important than delivering the programme successfully."

It's highly likely that a high proportion of the millions invested will have to be written off. Without even getting beyond the summary, it isn't hard to ask "aren't these the basics of PRINCE2 and MSP?"  However, how many other projects could the same narrative apply to with a little 'cut and paste'?

But just in case you thought this was all the fault of IT strategists and policy wonks;  procurement were also named and shamed:

Constructive comments when CLG Inquiry focus on construction procurement

After three sessions which left me quite despondent, the CLG Inquiry then focused on Construction. I have to say that the witnesses from Civil Engineering Contractors Association, KeepMoat, and Federation of Master Builders were quite impressive, constructive and, to me unbiased.

Sadly, there was a view that while there is some best practice, there is also some practice which is 20 years out of date. Now that should give both LGA and CIPS something to think about!

I also found it disappointing that the witnesses weren't probed on the lessons which could be learnt from the former Local Government Taskforce and Constructing Excellence initiatives - is it a sign of my age that I can recall the investment which was made in those improvement programmes? Anyway, unless we can learn from what worked and what didn't in the past, we are not only doing the previous investments a disservice but also at risk of trying to reinvent the wheel - the Committee really need to start probing these lessons.

So what did I think was helpful in their evidence?

1. There needs to be an improvement in the writing of Briefs - that's a foundation for success;
2. If councils provide better visibility and certainty of what is required then councils can expect better prices;
3. The skills deficit could overcome if a  peripetic 'flying squad' were set up which travelled from project to project - I think this was envisaged as a more 'hands on' service than the type formerly provided by the 4Ps;
4. PQQs were not seen as a 'bad thing' but there could be standardisation.

Then we had what has become a common question (so a warning for all those yet to give evidence): "Do you favor central government mandating greater centralistion of procurement in local authorities?" , my view was that the witnesses were not in favor, however, constructively, they felt there could be:

• a mandate to provide a procurement pipeline;
• a standardised PQQ;
• a consistency in approach and standard models.

As I say I felt this was the best session so far.

Collaboration just doesn't sit well with strategic procurement functions in local government?

On the Monday the CLG Committee Inquiry into procurement shifted its focus to collaboration. Yet again the Committee struggled to prise information from the witnesses, for example, a simple and predictable question kicked it off "What proportion of councils are up to speed with best practice and, if not [up to speed], what are the barriers?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Messrs Taylor, Walsh or Robinson actually provided an answer!

However, we did learn from one of the witnesses a useful nugget "... the last national procurement strategy gave rise to a proliferation of a number of strategic procurement functions, so most councils have got a strategic function". Now that struck me as quite a good thing until Ed Walsh continued: "as a consequence they don't think with any form of collective mentality very easily, so looking at efficiencies and the benefits of economies of scale isn't something that comes easy to local authorities". Sorry, I just don't get that. I don't get it because councils have been collaborating on purchasing for over 50 years; I don't get it because organisations like NEPO and YPO and ESPO and Pro5 all exist. I don't get it because that same national procurement strategy which is praised, or was it criticised, for leading to the introduction of strategic procurement functions in councils, also had a complete section on collaboration!

Then we heard there's the potential for billions of pounds worth of savings in councils - I wonder what the LGA will make of that and what will be the strategy for achieving those savings if, on the strength of that evidence, the Committee advocated further cuts of billions of pounds to council budgets? But then again the Committee were told of evidence that suggests SCAPE in 1,200 local government procurement projects have delivered average savings of 14%.

Now that last savings claim gave Ian Taylor some cause for concern and he cited his own viewed, based on spend analysis, of the potential scope for collaboration, namely, 10-15% of spend was suitable for national buying, +/- 25% suitable for regional buying, and +/- 50% required local buying. I don't know how accurate those figures are but they do strike me as quite reasonable.

So what's the solution? Well the Committee could take on board one of the witnesses suggestions and put in place a centralised national buying organisation, or perhaps a regional structure - hold on though wasn't that what the RIEPs tried to do in partnership with Pro5? Or, as another of the witnesses suggested, the Committee could sort out the fear of failure which is pervasive in local government as a result of potential EU challenges.

My own suggestion is that the Committee will have enough on its plate trying to reconcile the first two days of oral evidence and how to stop local government procurement witnesses undermining anymore the good work of the sector.

I suspect I may return with more comments on the oral evidence but that seems like enough to think on for the time being.

NHS getting ready for another procurement scrub

I found the news in today's Financial Times that the NHS is in talks regarding the future of Commissioning Support Units an interesting brain teaser - what would I do?

The 19 CSUs were set up last year to support the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CSGs) in designing health services, providing back office computer services, payroll and procurement services. Now NHS England is considering the options for their future. Yet, it appears it's the CSUs who have to decide on their own future - how will that work and what freedom will they have to plough their own furrow?

Anyway, it does seem strange that there wasn't a clear strategy when CSUs were set up as opposed to 19 CSUs starting to deliver services and then debating their future so soon.

The usual outsourcing organisations could bid for all or part if the services, but is the current environment (e.g SFO now probing tagging contract) likely to be conducive to productive discussions when the government seem to lack confidence in so many of the providers and also the ability to successfully contract manage?

Alternatively, could the CSU services be provided through the contract let recently for government shared services? That may be difficult since it didn't appear to be in scope. One could of course ask why it hadn't been included in the scope?

Could the Crown Commercial Service provide the procurement aspects? It seems odd that the CCS would allow independence of such a vast amount of spend so early in its life, but then again why haven't they been providing the procurement services up until now, and if they have, have they failed to win over hearts and minds?

Should the NHS aim to let one job-lot contract for the whole of the 19 CSUs and, if so, how will they shape the contract? If NHS England went down that route, how would they avoid being held hostage to the provider? How would they gain the ownership of the CCGs?

Could each of the CSUs become a centre of excellence and each deliver a specialist shared service to the others, say one CSU leading on payroll and another on procurement?

If theoretically it was possible for CSUs to become centres of excellence, with the sole aim of supporting CCGs, why couldn't the CCGs 'cut out the middle men' and just agree among themselves which of the CCGs would become centres of excellence?

Would my position be different depending who I was advising? Well, I think to be honest, if I were in a CSU or one of CCGs, my inclination may well be to let all the others sign-up to a central deal and then use that as the starting position to get better deals from those who were unsuccessful in winning the main contract. When you compare the classic Prisoner's Dilemma scenario doesn't it sometimes make sense to actually avoid collaboration and standalone in procurement?

Well, it gave me something to muse on during this morning's flight in the absence of the facts - what would you recommend?

The UNISON v NOA bout at CLG Committee Inquiry on procurement

On Friday I discussed the evidence of the local government panel witnesses to the Communities and Local Government Committee Inquiry into procurement. My main issue was the reliance was the absence historical evidence which should have been easy for LGA to access. My second criticism was the danger of hubris, ripping up the rule book and believing you alone have discovered the Holy Grail - passion in your work is great but it will not count for much when hindsight is what judges you, if not the legal profession.

So that was the first witness panel's evidence, the second panel gave evidence from UNISON and the National Outsourcing Association - as you would expect these two opponents traded unhelpful blows with each other on outsourcing.  It did strike me as strange though that the earlier session hadn't sought answers from the local government witnesses on outsourcing. Equally, why didn't the Committee follow through with UNISON and NOA on the local government witnesses evidence on social value - absolutely no triangulation of the evidence!

I cringed when the UNISON spokesperson referred to the DeAnne Julius report as "outdated and largely based on CCT" - now let me think, wasn't CCT led to rest nearly ten years prior to the report?

What drives local government procurement improvement?

I'm sure many of you have been eagerly awaiting the evidence sessions on local government procurement to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee. On Monday the Committee  had its first session of oral evidence which is now published.

I had previously highlighted what I felt may be worth exploring, but it doesn't really look as if either the  Committee or LGA have spent anytime learning from history and would rather listen to some suspect assertions.

A good starting point was the Committee trying to establish what drives procurement improvement? Sadly, the LGA spokesperson had to have that question broken down into bite-sized chunks before the Committee came to his rescue. Then we heard, what I consider to be absolute nonsense, that the electorate are driving change through the ballot box. Thankfully the Committee had enough sense to question that assertion too. Having interviewed hundreds of local government procurement stakeholders this was the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest there is something in a manifesto about local government procurement. It's all about campaigns and the X factor in one council it seems.

We heard that the LGA have been working on a national procurement strategy since 2006 - why so little progress? Well perhaps, and I quote, "I am not sure a national framework is terribly helpful". We may be in a better position to judge whether a national procurement strategy would be helpful if they considered the evidence of the impact of the first NPS - there were annual impact assessments completed, why weren't they drawn upon? There were also some academic papers and from memory a ODPM financed impact assessment.