I don't know this specific contract, but certainly, the idea of having open contracts, in this case, over 81 years seems outrageous. This is when you have to ask what the point of having a civil service is.
Our model is predicated on this idea of a permanent, merit-based and neutral public service, who provides continuity of service and corporate knowledge across different administrations. This is where ministers are supposed to be able to turn for frank advice and loyal implementation. This is at the core of our Westminster model. When you start to see things like this, such as an open contract to dip into external advice as and when needed.... The justification was probably that you want to get that quickly, so if you can create an open contract, then you don't have to keep going back through the process.
I do think you encourage that with how convoluted the process has become. That's another reason why part of fixing this mess is going to be streamlining the rules around how contracts are given. Streamlining is key. It's not adding new rules, because new rules are going to make it even harder and encourage this activity of creating standing offers and having open contracts that are kind of non—