Is there a lesson for procurement in Tory's forgotten manifesto?

The suggestion that the Chancellor's advisors simply "forgot the manifesto"  may well be a symptom of incompetence or just contempt for previous commitments but it does have lessons for procurement leaders.  First let's think about the purpose of a manifesto - it sets out the basis on which the political party seeks election and says "if you elect us, we'll do this".  It is a bit like a contract commitment with the electorate. It is a commitment, through choice, to pursue a particular strategy. Simply 'forgetting' that policy commitment and strategy is a serious breach of trust.

So what's the 'forgetting the manifesto' lesson for procurement? Well, I have long since stopped being surprised when I find out that procurement staff are oblivious to the higher-level policies, and even their own prior commitments, which are supposed to shape their decisions.  For example, a commitment that all staff complete anti-bribery training - when you ask the staff when they last completed it they were unaware of such a commitment.  Then there's the Fairtrade commitments, the sustainable procurement commitments, prompt payment commitments, .... need I go on? Breach of all these 'policy' commitments represents a reputational risk at the very least.  Let's face it the commitments are rarely made without a lot of deliberation and business case justification.

Many of those commitments are voluntary but there are also statutory commitments - surprisingly there appears to be little external policing of those, for example, the Equality Act, Modern Slavery Act and Bribery Act.

Strange thing is when you interview staff for a position, quite frequently they can trot out all the relevant commitments!

Is this a case of selective memory or perhaps just ignorance? Both could be factors but they are unlikely to be the only causes.

My suggestion to ensure there is no 'forgetting' is that:

1. Complete an audit to identify and catalogue external and internal commitments;
2. Embed within risk management, yes, even at the top table;
3. Raise awareness; 
4. Ensure no commitments are overlooked through the use of checklists for both strategy and tactical decisions. 

The UK Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer now appear to have to backtrack due to 'forgetting the manifesto' - surely there's a lesson for procurement risk management to make sure there isn't a similar carryover in your organisation.

Procurement Fraud on the increase - you are vulnerable too

The 2016/17 Global Fraud and Risk Report by Kroll has just been published and it indicates an increase for 17% to 26% in 'vendor, supplier or procurement fraud'.

We've been discussing procurement fraud for some time and only yesterday Spendmatters' Peter Smith raised the question of why those involved risk their careers and potential jail sentences for such low returns. I think the answer to Peter's question is not only greed but the probability that the perpetrators will not be caught and the easy of completion.

What I have often come across are processes which are so fundamentally weak and lacking in robustness that I remain amazed how organisations are not more aware of the significant risks they face - are they in denial or just unaware?

The reality is that no organisation can have zero risk of supplier, vendor or procurement fraud but all can certainly take steps to reduce vulnerability - you may find my whitepaper of interest.

The publication of Kroll's Report provides an opportunity for those in procurement to highlight this risk, ask how it is being addressed corporately, and take the lead in developing a robust approach. Let's remember that the Bribery Act places a responsibility on organisations to prevent fraud - that's not passive but about being proactive in identifying vulnerabilities and taking steps to reduce the risks.

It's time for a review of the impact of procurement legislation

Today The Times reported that the Ministry of Defence takes bribery and corruption very seriously and has made dozens of allegations about bribery and corruption in supply chains.   Now, I ask you, which organisation is going to admit it doesn't take bribery and corruption seriously?

However, often when I meet with 'procurement leaders' and make reference to the Modern Slavery Act, and/or the Bribery Act, I don't get the impression either of those pieces of legislation are taken that seriously at all. Indeed, I am often left with feeling nothing is really happening there.

Perhaps, as a profession, it is time to take stock and ask what difference these types of legislation actually have on the procurement community.  Are we fooling ourselves?

Surely if the profession is committed to the spirit of the legislation it would make sense to lead an impact assessment to establish 'so what?'.  Commitment to the spirit of the legislation isn't enough.  I suggest we need performance management, and yes, sanctions on those within the profession - I have to think long and hard to recall any 'naming, shaming and being struck off' - are we fooling ourselves that all is rosy.

Have the NAO got it wrong on gifts & hospitality?

I read the National Audit Office report on the 'Investigation into the acceptance of gifts and hospitality' with interest but have to say I am mystified. While the EU and United Nations are against the receiving of gifts within a procurement context, the NAO appear to have come to a view that:

While barring UK officials from accepting gifts and hospitality is an option, it would run the risk of hampering the legitimate activities of the departments and officials, including engaging with stakeholders.

How could the refusal of a gift hamper (excuse the pun) business? I am also mystified at the lack of explicit recommendations.

Hospitality and gifts are only targeted at those who are likely to have influence over a decision, and there should be no 'ifs' or 'buts', they are offered to distort decision-making. Of course, the NAO have referred to avoiding perceived conflicts of interest - sorry perception of hampering business is unavoidable when gifts and hospitality are received in the procurement process.

Let's also remember that any gift or hospitality offered is not free from cost - that cost has to be recouped from somewhere and in all probability is an overhead cost included in all public sector contracts.

So what were the examples of gifts received:

These included: tickets to professional sports and cultural events, sometimes accompanied by a spouse and/or children; bottles of champagne; wine for a team’s Christmas lunch; iPads; Fortnum & Mason hamper, a painting valued at £300.

That list is of course constrained by the fact that the systems for recording gifts are not robust and not adhered to anyway.

I didn't pick up anything which specifically addressed staff involved in procurement, but let's remember that if they are MCIPS/FCIPS the CIPS Code of Conduct applies.

Regardless, I think the NAO have missed a mark on this one, a robust approach to the acceptance of gifts and hospitality is not just about the perception of conflicts of interest, it is about protecting staff from potential allegations of bribery and corruption - it should not only be a risk management issue but a health and safety issue too.

Fifa's "Unfavourable" contract should be a warning for all Board members

I'm sure many of you heard the news this morning of the latest PR disaster to befall FIFA, namely, that its President signed a contract "unfavourable to Fifa" and in doing so "violated his fiduciary duties and acted against the interest of Fifa...".

I have to admit this is the first time I have heard such a phrase used so I'l have to watch as the story unfolds to learn more.

I assume a contract can be unfavourable to an organisation under the following circumstances:

• Contracting for something which is not required;
• Contracting on contractual terms which place more power than is necessary with the supplier;
• Contracting on commercial terms which do not represent value for money;
• Contracting for a longer term than makes commercial sense.

However, the news reminded me of one of my early jobs which included the signing and sealing of contracts - way back in 1974 when I was a mere 17 year old.

Let me first tell you about 'the Seal'. The was stored in a strongroom. The key for the strongroom was kept in a safe. That key was used to open the main strongroom door - which was really heavy to move. Then a separate key was used to get through the next door which looked like prison bars. Then  a further two keys were used to unlock what looked like an enormous vice. Only then could you seal the contracts by placing each of the signed contracts in the gap between the vice and closing the vice - the contract then had the imprint of the seal embedded on it.

However, prior to sealing the contract, I first had to get the contract signed by the Town Clerk. I'd make an appointment, fold and mark each of the contracts so that the place for signature was clear and then place each of the contracts before the Town Clerk while he signed, in all probability multi-tasking by drinking a cup of coffee or reading other papers. Success, for me, was minimising the amount of time spent by the Town Clerk signing the contracts.

The contract signed by the Town Clerk then had to have the Lord Mayor's signature too.  Once again an appointment was made, I sat with the Lord Mayor and we made small talk as I placed each contract before him for signature. The objective: get in, get the contracts signed, and out as quickly as possible!

That's a lot of formality for a reason (and from memory the threshold at which contracts had to be sealed was as low as £15,000) but yet there was virtually no scrutiny. The contracts were signed by both the Town Clerk and Lord Mayor without their reading on the assumption that those in the Town Solicitor's Office and Purchasing had spent time making sure everything was in order prior to signature.

I wonder will Sepp Blatter use a similar argument as his defence, that he was merely completing a formality on the assumption that the due diligence was completed by others as part of their 'day job'?

But let's remember that those who 'sign on the line' do so for a reason, only they have the authority to commit the organisation to contracts. They are representing those who placed them in power and gave them the authority to commit on their behalf. Whether or not Sepp Blatter manages to exhibit the skills of Houdini is secondary, the allegation that he signed an unfavourable contract should serve as a reminder to all those Board Members who sign contracts of the need to protect themselves, if not their organisations.

Does your procurement strategy address Economic Crime?

Thankfully there now appears to be a move to widen the reach of the existing UK Bribery Act to embrace economic crime. My own opinion is that the Bribery Act has not yet had sufficient impact, partly because no prosecutions have taken place, partly because 'bribery' is only part of the problem, partly because of denial, partly as a result of ignorance and partly because of a lack of understanding of the need to take steps to prevent bribery.

Anyway, yesterday we learnt that the journey to an crime of economic crime is underway with cross party agreement. Therefore the election is unlikely to be an impediment but finding time in the parliamentary calender could be an issue. We also learnt that the government plan to publish its first anti-corruption plan - that should be of interest and no doubt procurement will have more than a passing reference.

This is all good news to me and provides an opportunity for CPOs to make use of today's press coverage to place the issue of procurement risk management on the Board's radar - perhaps that's an opportunity worth taking before you become the first case which receives the bite of the current and future legislation.

You may find my related whitepaper of interest

Ecclestone issues for procurement bribery

"Broadly, the [Uk's Bribery] Act defines bribery as giving or receiving a financial or other advantage in connection with the "improper performance" of a position of trust, or a function that is expected to be performed impartially or in good faith."

Given that definition it seems somewhat ironic that the German courts have accepted a payment of $100m to end the Bernie Ecclestone bribery trail!  That means no decision was reached on the allegations and Ecclestone is considered neither guilty nor innocent.  It is the ultimate 'Get out of jail' card with a potential ten years imprisonment wiped off the slate. Of course, in the eyes of UK law he is obviously innocent as not proven guilty.

While $100m seems like a gigantic amount of money, when that is set against Eccleston's estimated wealth of  $4.2bn, it is a mere drop in the ocean, but a gross waste of money if he would have been proved innocent. 

What interests me though is whether this creates a precedent for future bribery trials? Would a proportionate amount be acceptable to 'close' the case in a procurement bribery case? Would it be worth corrupt firms setting aside such monies rather than going through the courts and being 'blacklisted' from future contracts? Would the precedent apply to individuals facing allegations of bribery? 

Royalty vulnerable to procurement fraud, bribery and corruption

One of my enduring memories of The Tutors TV series was the gruesome tortures meted out for any form of causing Henry VIII displeasure - a quite literally had to turn my head away from the screen on occasions. In medieval times I suspect the mere thought of the potential punishment and extraction of evidence was an effective deterrent to procurement fraud, bribery or corruption.

Today's Monarchy do not lead in such a culture of fear but news of a palace official facing £100,000 bribery trail demonstrates that even some of the most security conscience 'firms' can be vulnerable to procurement fraud, bribery and corruption.

The allegations are that building ,heating and energy contracts for royal palaces were awarded as a result of bribes. The bribes didn't were not just cash but work done at employees homes 'free of charge'. Needless to say the work, is alleged, to have been completed at inflated rates, some of which subsequently channeled to the defendants.

This case demonstrates no-one is invulnerable to procurement fraud, bribery and corruption. You can read more about your vulnerability here.

Plot gets thicker on police procurement

On Tuesday I discussed potential procurement corruption in the award of a contract for vehicles with the Police Service of Northern Ireland.  Now it looks as though the investigation has been extended to another contract and spread and led to the suspension of West Yorkshire"s Chief Constable. 

Those leading the investigation need to recognise that the reputation of the police in the UK is at the present quite low. They also need to avoid falling into the trap of not being seen to be doing the right thing or providing an easy exit for those implicated.

However, if it is subsequently established that there has been procurement bribery, fraud and corruption, it will be most unlikely that it will be isolated to just vehicle contracts.  The investigation will need to review:

1. The procurement governance structure;
2. Which other areas of spend the culprits have been involved with and how vulnerable those areas were to abuse;
3. Which other public sector organisations have been supplied by the supplier/s involved - it is unlikely that the supplier only found one area of vulnerability;
4. Consider the history of dealing with the supplier/s involved and how long the abuse has been going on;
5. Which other police forces, and indeed public sector organisations, may have been following the same 'failed' preventative systems;
6. etc..

There also needs to be a due diligence of the procurement processes to establish vulnerability to procurement fraud, bribery and corruption. The Bribery Act requires organisations to put in place processes to prevent bribery anyway.

But if it is subsequently proved that contracts have been wrongly awarded as a result of corruption other relevant issues may arise. For example, 

1. Assuming the contracts were awarded through the Public Contracts Regulations, surely there must have been a breach of those laws?
2. What about the suppliers who would have been awarded the contracts had there not been corruption? Would those potential suppliers not be entitled to compensation for loss of profits? That would open a major can of worms as all those award evaluations would potentially be exposed to scrutiny and who knows how robust they would have been.

What will the next instalment be?

The arresting case of police vehicles and procurement

The UK fight on procurement fraud, bribery and corruption moved up a notch today following the arrest of six involved in the award of contracts for police vehicles in Northern Ireland. As part of the investigation the police have also seized computers.

It is interesting that the PSNI have made reference to trying to establish whether there has been a breach of their Code of Ethics. of course it is good that they have a Code of Ethics, but sometimes I wonder what purpose such a Code has if it is not widely communicated and, dare I say, 'policed'.

As a profession we need to understand what went awry with this procurement. We need to understand the lessons and we need to take those lessons home to our own organisatons. So let's hope that the findings of the investigation are shared.

If it is subsequently proved that there has been a breach of the PSNI Code and we have a case of procurement bribery, and potentially fraud and corruption, surely the case cannot be dealt with under the Code but needs to be dealt with under the Bribery Act - who would bring forward such a case?

Then again will PSNI be subject to the strict liability of the Bribery Act for failing to put in place measures to prevent bribery?

Then of course we have to see how CIPS will react if any subsequently found to be guilty turn out to be CIPS members. Will they be subject to CIPS discipline? If that is the case CIPS will be able to use that as a warning to its membership around the globe.

I will watch this case with interst - it has the potential of a precedent for the Act and CIPS.

PS you may find my related paper published in EDPACS, which can be downloaded here of interest.

Procurement Fraud Vulnerability: A Case Study

This case study reports on a due diligence review of vulnerability to procurement fraud in a global manufacturing organization. The review was carried out in response to the UK Bribery Act 2010’s need for organizations to put in place processes to protect against bribery in procurement. The case study organization was identified as having 41 areas of vulnerability to the risk of procurement fraud; illustrative examples are provided. It is argued that due diligence reviews to protect against procurement fraud could help in repositioning procurement and reduce costs. The article also poses the question: Are employees owed a duty of care by their employers to protection against allegations of procurement fraud?

This is an abstract of my paper published in EDPAS (EDP Audit, Security and Control) Newsletter which can be accessed here.

Kiss and tell procurement codes

There was a lot of coverage in Wednesday's press on Ipswich Borough Council's new Code of Conduct, for example, in The Independent and The Times. The Council's new Code, we are led to believe states:

Employees must declare any close personal relationship with another employee of the council where the relationship could cause, or be perceived to cause a conflict of interest, for example, where there's a risk of the requirement for the separation of duties in connection of the with the award of contracts or funding, or a risk of conflicts arising in the employment relationship between such employees. In such instances there may be a need to consider alternative employment for one of the employees concerned. 

Long and short-term relationships between members of staff, with councillors or with outside contractors and suppliers, must be declared.

I have searched high and low on the internet to see an actual copy of the Code but have been unable to access it, so I will have to take the various reports at face value.

Anyway, while the popular press are picking up on the legality of the need to declare staff relationships, we need to reflect on the relationships between members of council staff and suppliers.

Given the rise of internet dating, for example, and, I am told, the number of 'one night stands' what would constitute a relationship which has to be declared? Would some even recognise a 'relationship'? What about someone who wasn't actually told the truth about the name and role - do they now have to keep a log book and check ID? What about if you were jilted? Will the next iteration be a need to declare connections through membership of a social network?

Without doubt I see the value of declaring potential or perceived conflicts of interest in procurement but I think to make a Code work it has to be pragmatic. If the Code isn't pragmatic breaches will take place and gradually it will lose its teeth.

I'd be interested to hear if any readers have experience of 'kiss and tell' procurement Codes and how they were implemented? I'd also be interested in learning more on Ipswich experience of policing the Code?

Allegations of procurement fraud at Police Federation have lessons for all

Confidence in the police is probably at an all time low as a result of Plebgate, behaviour of undercover officers, hidden union bank accounts, Hillsborough, 'stop and search', and the failure to get any form of closure for the Lawrence family. The last thing the 'Peeler's Union' want is more damage to its reputation through a scandal of questionable procurement practices. Yet, 'Fraud squad investigates police union boss over charity deal' screamed out of today's Sunday Times.

Those implicated claim to be innocent yet they will now be paying a high personal price, whether or not the allegations are proved.

There is little doubt there was a lack of good judgement by those concerned. I don't think that lack of good judgement is solely with the specific individuals under investigation, I think a lack of good judgement was exhibited by all those concerned with the oversight of the Federation. They could have stopped the 'questionable' procurement - isn't that what oversight is supposed to include? It is my interpretation of the Bribery Act that they also failed to put in place processes to prevent bribery in procurement - had they done so, there wouldn't have been the opportunity to engage in the 'questionable' activities.

A QC representing the individual under the spotlight, acknowledges that appropriate procedures hadn't been followed. Contracts were rushed through in the absence of competition and awarded to friends who appear to have charged excessive fees. Advice from the charity's lawyer and auditor was ignored. There was also an absence of due diligence in the award.

This is a complete and utter mess yet I think it is far from unique. I believe too many organisations needlessly leave themselves and their staff open to allegations of impropriety, partly believing it will never happen to them, partly through complacency, partly through naivety.

How vulnerable is your organisation? How vulnerable are you?

Whistleblowing for procurement

I think we all recognise the benefits that whistleblowing can bring. We've seen it lead to the
exposure of NHS failures, police manipulation of figures, and exposure of public sector contract failures. If I am correct, whistle-blowing polices are being presented as one of the key strategies in the fight against fraud, bribery and corruption, but they are also largely inward focusing and fall short of boundary spanning buyer/seller issues.http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/node/262

But when serious questions are, in parallel, being asked about the role major contractors to the public sector is it time to come up with something more substantial?

I would like to see contractual obligations which put in place a mechanism for contractors to provide a 'whistle-blower' line to the buyer's head of risk management for any contractor staff to whistle-blow on contract abuse or procurement fraud and corruption.

Of course such an approach may be cumbersome on a contract by contract basis and may only be justified for the biggest contracts. However, many are familiar with the work of Crimestoppers, a charity which enables anonymous reporting of crime. Perhaps what we need is a Crimestoppers type service for procurement, it could be jointly funded by the CBI and the Government and be a national service.

Having said that, we do have Action Fraud but when I look at the procurement fraud section I struggle to see how it ties in with the types of procurement fraud we are most familiar with. Let's be honest, if you were aware of a fraud would you think of Action Fraud? I doubt it.

No, I think we need to recognise fraud is unlikely to pass us by, improve Action Fraud to make it more procurement specific, and, embed in contracts an obligation for contractors to raise awareness of procurement fraud and widely raise awareness of that procurement fraud should be reported and how.

The offence of Treating

Prior to hearing that the police are investigating a councillor who, 11 days before an election, bought tea and cake for residents of a care home, I hadn't heard of the offence, within electoral law, of 'Treating'.

 "A person is guilty of treating if either before, during or after an election they directly or indirectly give or provide any food, drink, entertainment or provision to corruptly influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Treating requires a corrupt intent – it does not apply to ordinary hospitality."

Of course, what we can't tell is whether or not there was realistically any chance of the 'treating' having an impact, for example, if the councillor knew no postal votes were requested by the residents, whether postal votes had already been cast, whether the residents had access to transport to the Polling Station, or indeed whether they were even registered to vote? It is also interesting to note that it is not the residents who are deemed guilty of receiving tea and cake which could have 'corrupted' but the potential candidate who bought the cake.

But visualise if the 'other advantage' under the Bribery Act  was also deemed to include 'treating' to food, drink and entertainment within a certain period of a contract award? Of course it would have to exclude 'ordinary hospitality' too, but then who's to say what constitutes 'ordinary hospitality'.

As we start to approach the season of 'one-way giving', I wonder how much takes place without gaining some 'influence' over future procurement decisions, only if it is to ensure an RFP is received at some stage which wouldn't otherwise have been. Aren't 'treats' for procurement all really just 'tricks'?

Essex Fire: Naive or just plain stupid

It's hard to say how mystified I am at the decision of Essex Fire Service to accept a supplier paid trip to China. Essex has not been without criticism as a result of the behaviour of its former Leader Lord Hanningfield who ended up in jail, so you would have expected them to have been a bit more risk averse in all matters of potential criticism.

It may well have been perfectly innocent to accept the payment of flights and accommodation from a supplier in the hope that Essex would be viewed as a beneficial training provider to Chinese firefighters, but if business development was in the mind of the FRS they need to be significantly more business savvy. How on earth did they not see the high probability of the visit and a public procurement exercise being linked and open to allegations of abuse. I can see almost no circumstances which would justify a supplier paid visit by anyone in the public sector.

I hope the FRS will be judged to have been merely naive and this will be a warning lesson to others. However, if they are to be exonerated they will need to demonstrate there was openness in the decision-making to attend and a sound business case, no connection between those involved in the procurement and those who took part in the visit, absolute integrity in the equipment procurement decision, clarity of when the decision to attend was first mooted, what the deputation actually did in China (detail of who was met, when and the level of hospitality accepted), whether the sought after training which was the purpose of the visit was gained, and, how and when the report of the visit was fed back.

Unfortunately, as I suspect Essex Fire have now discovered, when you're dealing with public procurement you need to not only be spotlessly clean but also to be perceived as being spotlessly clean. Some will no doubt say "there's no smoke without fire" - I hope Essex Fire do not let this smoulder.

Corruption is a UK problem too

Transparency International has just published its Global Corruption Barometer, sadly it is not good news for the UK . There is now a perception that the UK political system appears to have lost its puritanical past. That's hardly surprising when you think of the recent boasts of some parliamentarians that they can 'make things happen'.

We may like to believe that the Bribery Act will stop all that nastiness but if we do we fail to recognise basic human nature, temptation, and opportunistic behaviour. We also fail to recognise that those who were subjects of the recent parliamentary 'stings' would also been involved in bringing the Bribery Act into law.

To make matters worse there is a political storm in Northern Ireland, where the traditionalist and protestant fundamentalist Democratic Unionist Party have become embroiled in internal allegations of using party influence to skew public procurement decisions. Even the First Minister, doesn't know who to believe. The claims were made as part of a BBC Spotlight programme and of course the DUP are naturally calling into question the reporting (as an aside you may recall that it was a BBC Spotlight programme which had previously raised public procurement questions regarding Peter Robinson's wife and the awarding of a catering franchise a few years ago). While perverting procurement decisions is bad, the DUP now appear to want to obstruct a fuller debate on the issue. The saga of the actual contracts in question is just so bizarre that a weeks blog posts couldn't bring you up to speed but by way of example it involves a firm who admitted charging for maintenance work on blocks of flats which no longer existed!

My advice to the DUP would be to open this whole saga up to as much scrutiny as possible otherwise it will become a running sore.

But we also need to look wider than the UK for frustration with corruption in public procurement - let's not forget that one of the reasons for the recent protests in Brazil was frustration with corruption.

Those involved in public sector procurement, regardless of whether they are politicians or practitioners need to be perceived to be 'whiter than white', particularly when there are spending cuts and the population are on the receiving end. Yet, in how many public sector organisations do we now see evidence of a robust approach to 'owning' and combating the corruption problem or even personal accountability? I don't view this as something which will just 'go away' unfortunately, given the right conditions, which I think we have, I think it can only get worse.

Degrees of rotteness

How can you interpret what is the right thing or reinterpret doing the wrong thing? Whether or not Patrick Mercer MP has done the right thing remains for others to judge but what I can't get my head round are some of the crazy statements which seem to imply there is some honour in doing the wrong thing. Take for example these two statements:

If Mr Mercer has done something wrong he would act totally honourably.

Patrick Mercer has done the right thing in referring himself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and resigning the whip. 

It is a strange world we live in where corporate tax avoidance is considered morally wrong even though it may be complying with the law. Yet someone perceived to be unduly influencing the legislative machinery of the land, breaking rules of the organisation is spun as doing the right thing if they resign when caught.

How big a shift is that from a child murder, who, when there is compelling evidence presented which places them beyond reasonable doubt as the killer, decides to change to a plea of guilty?

Or what about the public sector procurement manager; are they doing the right thing awarding contracts to 'mates', until their malfeasance is exposed?

Is it any wonder confidence in the democratic system is waning when you can make up definitions of what is right as you go along, or rather, when you are exposed!

Can MOD procurement be influenced by ex-Generals?

Today's Sunday Times carries an Insight Investigation into MOD procurement, claiming that ex-generals are available for lobbying those who make procurement decisions. The focus of the report appears to be on the so-called 'revolving door'.  That presents only one side of the potential problem.

Whether or not the Generals are breaching agreements and lobbying too early, to me, is irrelevant.  What is relevant, yet doesn't appear to have been probed, is why do both the lobbyists and the Generals appear to believe that investment in them will pay dividends?

Surely, it implies that the Generals, who were formerly MOD staff, did see and experience  procurement decisions improperly influenced - that  has to be the real issue. If procurement decisions have been influenced in the past, we need to know and we need to see the full might of the Bribery Act 2010 brought to bear.  Of course, if the Generals are found to be misleading and self-serving, they need to be discredited and an end brought to the implied allegations against MOD procurement.  We need to have a reassurance that such enormous sums of of public money are spent honestly; up to now we have had no cause to doubt that.  Now the Generals have muddied the waters the doubt has to be removed.  The Generals have cast aspirations on MOD defence; they have brought shame on the organisation with which they should have had greatest pride.  Shame on them.  Shame on us if we don't remove the doubt.