Anti-Corruption Summit - Is Afghanistan's Procurement Strategy right for others?

Linked to today's Anti-Corruption summit in London, the Prime Minister's Office have published 'Against Corruption: A Collection of Essays.  One of the essays, by Afghanistan's President, specifically addresses procurement.

In that essay President Ghani argues that a failure of individual and institutional accountability is at the heart of corruption; that is compounded by fragmented institutions. The panacea, to Ghani, is strong political leadership:

In fragmented systems, only strong, national political leadership can tackle corruption at its roots. This is because only the top leadership can look across the different areas and ministries where corruption happens, in order to provide an effective agenda for reform. By demonstrating top commitment through positive action, even fragmented systems can build coalition with internal and external reformers.

 Ghani reports that public procurement in Afghanistan suffers from:

• bid rigging, including, bids received from non-existent companies; 
• buyers sharing cost estimates 'for a fee'; 
• conflicts of interest in the decision making process; 
• coercion of bidders to alter or withdraw competitive bids;  
• specifying for sole supply; 
• acceptance of deliveries which are not of the specified quality.

Let's be honest, these are not problems unique to Afghanistan, nor the public sector alone - they are common in many businesses throughout the world and few can be sure they are completely immune or risk free. 

The Afghan strategy to combat the above is "formation of a National Procurement Council (NPC) to review all high-value contracts and the consolidation of construction contracts through two specialised agencies."  The National Procurement Council is chaired by the President himself!  This overseeing is claimed to have saved $350m in the first year.  Ironically we are told though that punishment of those guilty of corruption in procurement has been almost negligible. 

No-one could deny that public procurement in Afghanistan has become a 'top table' issue and I congratulate the President on his commitment.  However, I do question the strategy: 

1. Responding to institutional corruption through concentrating oversight on a few at the top table, or even two 'centralised buying bodies' is well meaning but the Brazilian President's current predicament may be worth considering and learning from?  What if corruption is at the top?  Perhaps Afghanistan could consider what risk management approach is applied and how there can be independent scrutiny of 'the executive'?
2. I also think it is naive to think all procurement can be addressed or policed by 'the few'.
3. I don't actually believe fragmentation of governance is a cause, in fact, the tiered government system of the UK between Central, Devolved and local government may serve as a useful demonstration that it is not. Local democratic accountability may well provide part of the solution.
4. Ghani implies a culture change is required - how is that actually being addressed and managed?
5. Simplifying, standardising and automation of procurement processes, led by the Top, is an essential part of the solution, but that has to include clearly defined segregation of duties. That is not referred to by Ghani but perhaps is on the agenda.  
6. The procurement systems need to be fit for purpose, make compliance easy and abuse hard - better use of eProcurement tools can spread the load and enable the NPC to focus where it is necessary.
7. I didn't see any mention in the essay of the performance management structure, given that personal accountability is identified as part of the solution. I think that should be addressed otherwise rhetoric and an essay will be the only legacy.
8. Ghani has implied that the consequences of being caught need to be addressed; I would argue that unless the risks, penalties and probability of being caught outweigh the potential rewards of fraud, bribery and corruption, the Afghan strategy is merely chasing the wind and unlikely to succeed.

I am genuinely impressed that Ghani has been prepared to lead the reform of procurement in Afghanistan, and I wish him well, I look forward to hearing of progress in a few years time. Hold on, what are the plans to review the effectiveness of his strategy?

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 corruption and bribery tells us warning shots just aren't enough

How on earth could the gift of a watch valued at £15,000 be viewed  as 'symbolic or trivial value'?  Of course, what value is considered 'trivial'? Well, thanks to another exposé in today's Sunday Times we now know that all but three of FIFA's leadership are so out of touch with reality, greedy and/or so immune to probity that they seem to think acceptance of such gifts within 'goody bags' is fine. We don't know what else was in the 'goody bags' perhaps a pencil, a memory stick which set out FIFA's ethics policy and a eraser?

FIFA had previously become completely discredited after the farce of the Quarter World Cup award, so you may have assumed they'd have been wary of a further scandal, but that just doesn't seem to have registered with them.

It's strange but 'goody bags' seem to be expected - should event organisers now state they are no longer to be issued or should the contents of the bags be published on event websites? Should all 'goody bags' include a declaration relating to potential conflict of interests? Let's face it those who sponsor the items in 'goody bags' would not do so if they had not first of all established the business benefit anticipated.

Yet, we see similar attitudes in the world of procurement. Stand outside any procurement conference and observe the 'goody bags' walking away!

But like FIFA, I have seen organisations where there had been corrupt behaviour in procurement, yet they believed they have 'lanced the boil' and all is now well. FIFA's greed reminds us of the need that such complacency is unfounded. We just can't assume all will be well. We just can't assume it won't happen again. We just can't assume our organisation will be immune. I just wonder how often we highlight the need for vigilance and caution.

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.

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?

CIPS Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning & Certificate

I can only give CIPS praise today for the introduction of its Ethical Procurement & Supply eLearning and certificate.

The training covers: eradication of unethical behaviour to the human race, eradicating corruption and exploitation, and, personal conscience, compliance and influence. The content, is bang up to date and well presented.

I spent sometime yesterday completing my employer's compulsory 'Compliance with Governance, Anti-bribery and Corruption Awareness' eLearning and test too. So I half expected the CIPS eLearning to have been a bit easier. However, I found the training, informative, quite demanding and not something I could rush through.

There's quite a nice mix of reinforcing detailed case studies and tests on the way through which give you a warm-up to the final test. On completion of the training, which probably took me in the region of four hours, there's a final test which is no pushover but leads to a Certificate. Perhaps useful as a Personal Objective for all procurement staff.

The eLearning and test is free for CIPS members until October 2014. I'd encourage CIPS to continue to offer the training and test free of charge as part of the overall membership offer but perhaps embed it into membership renewal, otherwise I suspect it will slip off the radar. Nevertheless, an excellent CIPS offer which I recommend.  

Don't mention you're in public procurement on your holidays - European Commission Anti-corruption report

The European Commission has just published its report on anti-corruption which aggregates various pieces of research and sadly highlights public procurement under the 'plenty of room for improvement' category.  

Research from 2008 is cited suggesting between 20%-25% of contract price and sometimes as much as 50% (p.21) can be included in some contract costs as a result of corruption. 

Looking across EU, 32% of companies which participated in public procurement said corruption prevented them from winning a contract (p.24). 

Areas of abuse were perceived to be ( p.25): 

• specifications tailor-made for specific companies (57%), 
• conflict of interest in bid evaluation (54%), 
• collusive bidding (52%), 
• unclear selection or evaluation criteria (51%), 
• involvement of bidders in the design of specifications (48 %), 
• abuse of negotiated procedures (47 %), 
• abuse of emergency grounds to justify the use of non-competitive or fast-track procedure (46%), 
• amendments to the contract terms after conclusion of the contract (44%).

I don't actually find the areas of perceived abuse remotely surprising but was initially slightly cynical of the research approach, for example, if you give someone a list of areas of abuse and asked them merely to guess were corruption is most prevalent, I think you'd get the same answers.

Yet,

Strangers on a Train - Procurement Theatre review

Yesterday, I took on the role of procurement theatre reviewer with 'Twelve Angry Man'. Unfortunately, it's not a role I envisage being able to do often and I am unlikely to be able to justify giving up the day job, not least as I am so rarely in London now. 

However, I recently also had the good fortune to see 'Strangers on a Train' - £11.50 for a £63 ticket seemed a remarkably good start to the night. The joys of buying a cheap deal and receiving an upgrade.

As with 'Twelve Angry Men' I could see procurement lessons. 

The story is that of a causal encounter on a train journey. Two strangers fall into conversation. One of the strangers falls into the trap of saying more than he should to his fellow traveller, who of course entrapped him and he never thought he would see again. In a bizarre twist he then finds himself blackmailed and obliged to act in a way which would have previously have been inconceivable. 

The play is set in the days before mobile phones and those 'private and commercially sensitive' telephone calls which are effectively 'broadcast' in train carriages and executive lounges all over the world. The procurement message is that 'careless words can cost dearly' so be cautious what you say and of your boasts, but equally, be wary of entrapment.

While not as good as 'Twelve Angry Men' I did find myself gripped by the play and drawn in to the extent I actually jumped at one stage. An excellent thriller. While I felt Laurence Fox was really good I just couldn't get past Lewis' sidekicks accent; to me, it was Jack Huston who really shone - an excellent performance. Sadly the benefit of a great set was sometimes detracted from by some of the action being  blocked by the ceiling of the rear stalls.    

What will CLG Committee recommend on tackling fraud and corruption?

Last month we discussed the perceived rise in procurement fraud and corruption. On 11 November the Communities and Local Government Procurement Inquiry took evidence on tackling fraud and corruption. This was the third of oral evidence sessions, two of which I have already discussed. I expected the evidence to go some way to answering the following questions:

1. Is fraud in local government procurement increasing or decreasing?
2. Is corruption in local government procurement increasing or decreasing?
3. How does UK local government procurement compare with the world best in tacking fraud and corruption? 
4. What would an effective strategy for tackling fraud and corruption strategy in local government procurement look like?
5. In what ways are councillors part of the problem and the solution?

Unfortunately those questions weren't asked. Why?

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'?

Procurement fraud is growing

Kroll's 2013/14 Global Fraud Report has just been published and it comes as no surprise that the greatest increase is in the world of procurement and conflicts of interest. 71% of companies in Europe have been affected by fraud. 19% have suffered vendor, supplier or procurement fraud - an increase of 7% from last year. We're talking about 1.4% of revenue slipping out of organisations.

Areas of interest to us also include outsourcing and offshoring which have increased the risk of fraud for 28% of respondents, and joint ventures and partnerships which have increased the risk of fraud for 20%.

It's only a few days ago Peter Smith drew our attention to Transparency International's report on UK Corruption in Local Government which also highlighted that procurement needs to be particularly vigilant throughout the procurement cycle given the dismantling of some of the former protection systems.

So what should you do?

1. Recognise that your organisation is unlikely to be immune;
2. Introduce a whistleblower culture (The TI report claimed whistleblowing had been more effective than audit, internal monitoring, or police investigations);
3. Train staff and encourage them to ask questions;
4. Put in place a strong governance system;
5. Ensure no-one is outside the 'scope';
6. Embed within procurement risk management;
7. Ensure the correct polices, procedures, processes and controls are in place;
8. Make use of eProcurement solutions;
9. Apply due diligence to all aspects of the procurement cycle, particularly in selection of new partners and outsourcing;
10. Create a cycle of learning from others and from past fraud attempts.

Indian helicopter vision on the need for procurement procedural ownership

Some months ago I discussed some of the lessons from the plagued Indian helicopter procurement - it has now emerged that procurement procedures were not adhered to. To me it is one of the fundamentals of good procurement, even though it doesn't seem very strategic, that you have pragmatic procedures which demonstrate probity, gained stakeholder ownership during their development, are effectively communicated, and then performance managed. If you cannot get those basics right then it doesn't mater how strategic your aspirations are for strategic recognition, the foundations just are not right.

So why is procedural compliance such a problem? The Indian Helicopter procurement, Stoke City Council, Serious Fraud Office, Lancashire County Council, and the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland are just a few of the recent discussions where procurement procedural compliance appear to have been flawed. It is almost irrelevant whether fraud and corruption took place if you have not adhered to procedures - non-adherence to procedures will always leave you perceived as doing wrong.

My suggestion is that the core lessons here are check the procedures are fit for purpose, make sure they are understood, and then performance manage. If you don't you may be the next case study.

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.

"Generally the MoJ is seen as doing good work in the procurement area"?

I'm going to leave it to others to dissect the G4S and Serco overcharging for tagging the Ministry of Justice. I fully expect a deluge of blogs. Nor do I intend to catalogue the long list of MoJ procurement issues which I have discussed previously.

But I will remind you that last September I highlighted the need to question the value for money of tagging and indeed the need to question the procurement approach including the failure to focus on outcomes.

I also want to remind you that I questioned the value of evidence given to the PASC Procurement Inquiry when one of the 'experts'' stated "Generally the MoJ in seen as doing good work in the procurement area".

The big issue to me is the decision of the Lord Chancellor to launch and internal investigation into contract management based on evidence that MoJ officials knew as far back as 2008 that there were issues with billing. If that proves to be true our profession has been discredited.

I want to learn of the evidence that was uncovered and why that wasn't reported? I want to know how broad, deep and high the awareness went? I want to know whether fraud was involved or corruption? I want to know how much money this has cost the tax payer? I want to know what will happen to tagging if there are only two providers and both are found at fault? I want to understand how these organisations have become so powerful suppliers to the public sector that it appears a blind eye is turned to past misdemeanours? I have long called for personal accountability, will we see that?

Prior to the separation of the MoJ from the Home Office, the then Home Secretary claimed the Home Office "wasn't fit for purpose" - I think we now need to understand what the MoJ Procurement Capability Reviews revealed (written and unwritten - think CQC) and how much of public procurement just isn't fit for purpose?

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!