GSD Renews Questions Over Concession Contracts
The GSD has renewed its questions over changes to concession contract regulations, arguing that the Government has not clarified whether the rules could apply retrospectively or to future contracts already being considered.
A statement from the GSD follows below:
The latest Government press release on the new rules for contractual concessions contains a lot of noise that does not actually answer the central question of whether the rules are being introduced to retrospectively legitimize the grant of a concession without tender or whether the GSLP Government intend it as cover to grant an envisaged concession without tender in future.
The Government asserts that the rules introduced in Gibraltar are the same as UK law. They are not. Under UK law the circumstances for a direct award are much more strictly defined and controlled including in relation to conflicts of interest. But it is a red herring to simply say that there are UK and EU rules that allow the grant of negotiated contracts in certain circumstances.
It is also untrue for the GSLP to pretend that they are always compliant with procurement rules. The GSLP have been heavily criticised by the Principal Auditor for breaching procurement rules in relation to a number of contracts. It is this GSLP Government that have favoured persons close to the GSLP and does not recognise obvious conflicts of interest when they arise. That is an issue that permeates throughout the Government. That will also not be remedied by their weak and ineffective conflicts of interest draft law which simply plays to the gallery on this issue.
Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi said: “Given their track record it is no surprise that many people legitimately question whether these rules are intended to cover retrospective or future concessions which the Government already have in mind. There is, for example, a specific provision in the rules that would have retrospective effect by allowing the grant of a concession without tender within processes that had been commenced before the rules were in place. That was presumably inserted in these rules for a reason.
As this is a Government of opaque financial dealings that does not properly account to people for certain transactions it is no wonder that legitimate questions arise and it is hard to take at face value that they have nothing in mind when introducing these new rules.”
