The draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority ( Functions and Amendment) Order proposes  (1) for certain functions to be exercised by the Combined Authority and its Mayor and (2) changes to governance and constitutional arrangements. The functions to be exercised by the Combined Authority relate to transport, education, skills and training, and housing and regeneration.

The proposed governance and constitutional arrangements deal with issues such as the appointment of political advisers, the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, and the ability of the Mayor to cast a deciding vote. The Order also proposes initial measures to create a Mayoral Development Corporation in the Combined Authority’s area.

In R (JP) v Croydon CCH & Croydon LBC (2020) EWHC 1470 (Admin) the claimant advanced what Mostyn J, at para 46, described as “an adventurous argument” that GPOC, under Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 (LA 2011), empowered the local authority (LA) to provide medical care, notwithstanding that this was clearly within the remit of the NHS/CCG. In rejecting this argument found that there was a limitation pre the commencement of LA 2011. The limitation under Section 2(2)(a) expressly applied, by virtue of Section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (NHSA 2006) and the NHS Bodies & LAs Partnership Arrangements Regulations 2000, which clearly delineated the boundaries between the NHS and Las as to what could be provided by whom. GPOC could not be used to usurp decisions reposed in the NHS and NHS bodies. LA 2011 should not, para 48 be construed as “driving a coach and horses through very carefully delineated frontiers of competence and function”.

Section 10(1) of the Children Act 2004 and Section 82 of NHSA 2006 promoted CCG/LA co-operation, but, para 51, these are “macro or target duties” and it is “extremely doubtful” whether they confer a justiciable right on individuals.

Apparent bias exists where, in context, the hypothetical “ fair-minded” and “ informed” observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a “real possibility” that the tribunal was biased, for example by pre-judgment. In R (Roberts) v Leicester Crown Court (2020) EWHC 1783 ( Admin) it is held, para 48, that does not rule out “ probing the issues from the outset”. On the contrary : “ Early identification of the real issue in a case is very helpful to any tribunal”. Moreover, para 52, it is often helpful to indicate when a particular issue is troubling the tribunal.

However, para 53, the tribunal’s insistence that it has kept an open mind is not itself of much weight.

Procurement Policy Action Note 04/20 “ Recovery and Transition from Covid-19” sets out guidance on payment by public bodies to their suppliers to ensure service continuity during the coronavirus outbreak. It builds on PPN 02/20.

Two Districts and a Town in Germany entrust the disposal of their mixed municipal household waste to a special purpose association which they control together. The local authorities are of course “ contracting authorities” for the purposes of the public procurement regime. The association is a “body governed by public law”. It also is a “contracting authority” for the purposes of Directive 2014/24.

Read more »

MHCLG has published “ Review into the risks of fraud and corruption in local government procurement”. Pages 50-52 make a series of good practice recommendations.

PFI contracts are starting to expire. Managing their end will be complex and time and resources intensive. Decisions will have to be made on whether services should then be provided in-house or by a contractor. Early preparations are needed.

The National Audit Office has produced a Report, “ Managing PFI assets and services as contracts end”. It examines the risks to assets and services, the preventative steps to be considered, and the preparation and delivery of contract expiry.

On the application of the ultra vires doctrine to contracts with public bodies, see SFM v Christ the King College and Isle of Wight Council (2020) EWHC 1118 (Comm). The Judge held that the contract in question was a finance lease rather than an operating lease, I.e. a form of borrowing, and beyond the College’s capacity and ultra vires.

In R (AD) v Hackney LBC (2020) EWCA 518 the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the rejection of a challenge to a 5% cut to funding for one element of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The cut was alleged to have been unlawful on account of a failure to consult under Section 27 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The Court held that there was no such failure. They overruled first instances that such a duty arises whenever a local authority makes a decision which will necessarily affect the scope of outs SEND provision. The – per Bean LJ – “modest reduction in one element of SEND funding” was not sufficient to trigger a strategic review with the consequent requirement of widespread consultation. The Court left for another day (para 48j the issue of what level of major budget cuts or transformation of a local authority’s SEND provision would trigger a duty to consult wider than the Schools Forum either under Section 27 or at common law. If a local authority rationally concludes that a particular level of saving in SEND provision can be achieved without a significant adverse impact, but that a more drastic budget reduction, which it is not proposing to implement, might well have such an impact, that is not enough to bring Section 27 into play.

Explanatory Notes to S.I. 2020/392 state :

It will be possible to make secondary legislation to bring forward the end date of 7 May 2021 “ if social distancing rules are relaxed or removed on the basis of medical and scientific advice”: para 3.4.

The Government does not intend to issue Guidance : para 11.1