RULES that govern emergency purchases by States departments could be relaxed.
The Policy Council is recommending a review in the light of its recent fuel-tanker purchase which, it acknowledges, was outside the rules.
‘It has become clear during this process that the rules drawn up to allow States departments, in conjunction with the Treasury and Resources Department, to make purchases which are in the strategic interest of the island did not envisage the circumstances explained in this report,’ said Chief Minister Lyndon Trott (pictured) in a special Billet on the issue to be debated at the end of the month.
Treasury can agree to buy land and property without immediate reference to the States when it is in the island’s strategic interests and the relevant department has the money available.
But the rules do not make the same provision for buying assets that are neither buildings nor land.
The Policy Council is proposing that Treasury review the financial rules.
It is also recommending that the States Assembly and Constitution Committee reviews department and committee rules to address unplanned or unforeseen circumstances which need immediate action.
Deputy Trott said that in the fast- moving scenario that developed over the tanker purchase, following established procedure would have carried a high risk of failing to secure a critical part of the fuel oil infrastructure on which the Bailiwick depends.
‘To have prepared a report for the States (even on an emergency basis) and then held a debate, which would have been reported by the media, and then, subject to States approval, entered into a negotiation for these vessels would have had a number of potential consequences,’ said Deputy Trott.
‘Given the existence of a number of competing parties for the vessels and the desire of the administrator to act swiftly, decisions needed to be made in days and in some cases hours rather than weeks.’
He added that revealing the States’ hand and thereby alerting the administrator to the strategic value of the vessels to the island would have made them more expensive.
‘Public exposure of the States interest would also have alerted other parties, which could have affected their bidding behaviour.
‘Concerns such as these were the reason for the rules concerning land and property purchases.’
Article posted on 12th January, 2009 - 2.29pm
One Article Comment
This makes no sense – it states the States can buy ‘land & property’, but goes on to say however not ‘assets that are neither building nor land’.
Property includes assets, a vessel is an asset – assets can be anything but generally they are items of a certain value that tend to have a determined lifespan, hence depreciation calculations on assets.
Not sure of the reporter is trying to differentiate between fixed assets and other assets here?
In any case – Policy Council, as I have stated before, are in Lyndon’s pockets so if they are going to ratify this they may as well given Lyndon carte blanche to do his thing; everyone outside of Lyndon and Policy know this would be a bad thing, but that hardly matters as Lyndon is the top dog, big cheese, number one, the man. He wants more power really is what he is trying to say.
I would not trust someone who gave us the black hole, asset overspend, asset stripping (demoloshing 2 schools as currenty debated), dubious financial management of States accounts to run a tap, let alone a Government. But what do I know.
I would be interested to find out what Lyndon’s history is, i.e. his qualifications, his early career etc.
Report abuse