to remind us all that whatever today's result, the sky will not fall?

[Just5minswithDacre]

It would be nice if we could all keep it fluffy in the aftermath

[Just5minswithDacre]

Given that the EU..........I don't feel particularly fluffy about this.

Fine, fine.

Disown your relatives, shun your neighbours and brawl in the streets for the rest of 2016 if you want to.

I feel very strongly about the outcome too, but I'll do everything I can to avoid any ongoing recriminations, whatever the result.

I just thought maybe we could learn something from the bitter after pains of indyref

[purplevase4]

If it's a leave, the sky won't fall in but a lot of peoples' lives will be very seriously adversely affected.

The winners will be the lawyers and people like Boris who will do fine whatever the result.

Turkeys and Christmas really do come to mind...

I don't hold out much hope of a remain vote anyway, whole areas of the country seem solidly leave and I can't see the remain majorities in Scotland and London being sufficient.

Dear Gibraltar - sorry
Dear Northern Ireland - sorry

Dear rest of EU - sorry and please remember that a great number of people DID vote to remain so don't be too horrible to us in the exit negotiations please.

:(

[Ailicece]

Disown your relatives, shun your neighbours and brawl in the streets for the rest of 2016 if you want to.

I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, but felt it needed to be said that Brexit could have catastrophic consequences that would make our current woes pale into insignificance. I listened to Sheila Hancock in the debate last night, and I for one don't want my children ever to have to experience what she did. So yes, it could be a case of "the sky falling down", in the long term.

[Just5minswithDacre]

Yes we ALL think that we know which result will save us from dire political consequences. The problem is that we don't all agree.

Just let's keep a sense of proportion eh?

There's been enough viciousness in the run up.

[Bumpsadaisie]

Hi Pausing Flatly and Just5mins

The EU Directive is EU 2014/24 which is implemented in E and W by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. See regulations 74 to 76 The regulations pretty much copy out what is in the directive.

Regulations 74-76 require that, where a clinical services contract value is over the £600k odd threshold, CCGs (the people who commission clinical health services) must advertise the contract in the Official Journal of the EU and that a competitive process is held with certain procedural guarantees. It means that for the first time CCGs can no longer simply award a contract directly without competition to an NHS Provider.

That said it is fair to say that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (or rather, the regulations made under it) did put the onus on commissioners to consider competition. So you can't say that the move towards encouraging competition is entirely EU driven, because our own governments have been encouraging it for years. And even before the Health and Social Care Act, when there was no obligation to advertise health services at all, many NHS Trusts (who were the commissioners of services at the time before commissioners moved over to the CCGs) did use to advertise on a voluntary basis in any event, as this was a good way of achieving transparency and vfm.

That said, since 18 April this year is the first time that a competitive process MUST be held for over threshold clinical services contracts, and that is entirely due to the EU Directive.

The Directive gave each member state several options around how it implemented this requirement (eg a member state could choose to be more or less prescriptive about how the competition for these services was to be run) but significantly there was no option to choose not to implement the core requirement that these contracts must be (a) advertised and (b) a competitive tender process of some kind run for them.

The result is that if a CCG awards a health service contract that is over the £600k odd threshold directly with no competition, it is in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the EU Directive. As a result it could easily face legal challenge in the High Court and, where the breach was a failure to advertise the opportunity, the Courts can declare the contract "ineffective" - i.e. overturn it. As you can imagine this would cause no end of hassle and liability to the CCG not to mention problems for service continuity.

There are cases in the courts right now where a provider NHS Trust is suing a CCG, which has awarded a health services contract to a private provider.

Hope this is helpful. I can pm you some further reading if you like.

[GhostofFrankGrimes]

very naive OP, Brexit would be a disaster.

[PausingFlatly]

a member state could choose to be more or less prescriptive about how the competition for these services was to be run) but significantly there was no option to choose not to implement the core requirement that these contracts must be (a) advertised and (b) a competitive tender process of some kind run for them.

Thanks.

That sounds close to what happens with other UK government contracting out, if I understand it correctly (and a lot depends on how the competition is run: so competitions can include factors like eg best value rather than merely price, and prioritising small local firms over big ones.)

In fact I'd assumed the basics of competition were already happening under the Health and Social Care Act, so am actually a bit horrified that a CCG has awarded a major contract to a private, for-profit provider without even advertising.

[PausingFlatly]

Off topic for this thread, but could you point me to the case(s) you mention where a CCG has awarded a large contract to a private provider without even advertising?

I'd be interested to see how the Health and Social Care Act has been panning out...

[Just5minswithDacre]

Thanks bump, I'll have a nose later.

[wasonthelist]

How naive and callous you are, OP.

Beats being gratuitously nasty

[Just5minswithDacre]

Ghost Im banning the words naive, deluded, loony-liberal, dupe and bigot from this fluffy thread if you don't mind

[wasonthelist]

Just let's keep a sense of proportion eh?

Totally agree - we need to respect everyone's democratic rights.

[Bumpsadaisie]

Pause, it did advertise, it's just that there were alleged flaws in the procurement process. See here

I will PM you privately (as its "outing"!) an article about this.

[PausingFlatly]

That's very kind of you, Bumps. I appreciate it.

For the thread and without going into "outing" detail, that sounds like it won't be affected by the closure of the "must advertise" loophole, then?