2.2.1 Following the publication of the Bates review, the Taskforce undertook a wide public sector consultation process with major users of advisers to agree a way forward. After an extensive review, it became clear to the Taskforce that a detailed formal accreditation system would prove unwieldy and impose a bureaucratic burden on the public sector which would be disproportionate to the potential benefits.
2.2.2 One particular difficulty identified was that major variations in quality occur even within the same advisory firms. For an accreditation system to be of real use, it needed to go further than a company overview; it had to monitor the performance of individuals. This was considered impractical without the input of a tremendous amount of on-going effort and procedure.
2.2.3 There were also legal difficulties identified, particularly in respect of EC procurement rules on the selection of service providers to be invited to tender. For example, selection could not be limited simply to previously accredited service providers. All those responding to a contract notice would need to be considered on equal terms, regardless of accreditation or not.
2.2.4 In addition, there were also Data Protection issues relating to the sensitivity of potentially anecdotal and unchallenged information stored on individuals. Complying with the Data Protection Act 1984 would add yet more bureaucracy to any accreditation system and still leave departments open to legal challenge if, for example, there were objections to adverse comments on individuals.