This morning headline from the Guardian's daily briefing of stories is pretty telling:
However, Keir Starmer has followed a different line on this. He has called this a corruption scandal, and did so in a careful legal manner, justifying it under questioning from Laura Kuenssberg.
For those not familiar with the scale of this issue, this Tweet seems to be a fair summary:
The complaint about Paterson first arose in March 2019. Despite this in March 2020 it got the sole PCR contract from the UK government, for £133 million, without tender being required. That has now been increased, apparently, by a further £347 million. And it is Randox tests that have had to be taken by those travelling. In addition, if you saw the Channel 4 Despatches of testing that criticised standards in testing labs, that was reported to be about Randox.
It could be that there was no alternative but use Randox. But what is still undoubtedly true is that Paterson was paid, considerably. He also did lobby for Randox, as the Commissioner for Standards found, and Randox has undoubtedly gained considerably at a time when we know that there has been a contractual bias towards those known to ministers - and Paterson as Carrie Johnson's former boss remained in favour with power even after he returned to the back benches.
The possible links between Randox's good commercial fortune from this pandemic and Paterson are not proven. I make that clear. And they certainly do not prove corruption on its part. But we have to assume that Paterson knew what he was doing, and he did gain considerably from this. Call it sleaze, or corruption as Starmer does, the story remains the same and is that for all the crocodile tears Paterson might shed about the harshness of public life, and the sympathy he seeks to emote because his wife did kill herself, which is a reason for sympathy but not for excusing his actions, there is a scandal here.
That scandal is that Tory MPs were willing to favour particular companies without any attempt to follow due process. Randox was far from the only beneficiary of a contract issued without tender to a company known to a Tory MP and it may be guilty of nothing more than having one in its pay, but it is anyway the bigger scandal that needs investigating.
Sleaze is unacceptable and became the modus operandi of this government. That is the real story.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I as a public sector manager I have to use procurement in creative ways to solve problems which sometimes flies in the face of procurement standards.
But everything I do has to be signed off and recorded to make an audit trail and I and my colleagues have never been paid by the contractors we’ve taken on when procuring like this.
The payoff is usually in getting the right results for the project and the public you serve.
You can’t say that about Paterson, nor about the testing regime, hence I totally agree with your post.
The fact that Paterson evidently thinks himself innocent is, I suspect, because everyone he knows is doing the same sort of thing.
I have no doubt that Paterson believed or partially believed that what he was doing was in the public interest. What he wasn’t was openly honest about that at the same time he was being paid a substantial sum by Randox and that this could possibly be seen as influencing his actions. He should have declared that interest and known that such payments could be seen as buying influence for Government contracts. He has not acknowledged that nor shown contrition for an obvious conclusion. He has simply denied it could ever have been a legitimate factor.
All companies that pay sitting MP’s will by default expect some sort of special treatment especially if those MP’s are members of the Party in Government and MP’s receiving payment will expect to give something to those companies in return for that payment. That is human nature. The only way to stop it is to ensure MP’s cannot work for companies where by being an MP that company will receive or potentially receive a benefit.
Laura Kuensburg treated the Patterson corruption scandal in a tweet as just a “Westminster bubble” which the general public will either ignore or the story would soon blow over! How craven a government supporter can this be? Let’s hope the next BBC Chief political correspondent will be a bit more savvy.
Transparency International define corruption as the abuse of power for private gain. UK media tends to use sleaze rather than corruption. To my mind, and to many others I suspect, calling someone sleazy does not sound criminal, even when the actions amount to corruption. I would like the media to stop referring to sleaze and call out the behaviour for what it is.
So would I
But we have terrible libel laws
I have to respect them
There’s a lot wrong with pop journalism, but I think the reason for the choice of word is much simpler. ‘Sleaze’ is shorter than ‘corruption’. Not so many syllables, less space in the layout, easier to read if you don’t read much.
Tory arrogance knows no bounds
Downing Street today refused to rule out the prospect of Boris Johnson handing a peerage to shamed Tory Owen Paterson.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/owen-paterson-no10-refuses-rule-25389182
This government and its ministers and associated persons engage in such blatantly wrong practices. Were these in any other nation, ‘us Brits’ and our natural superiority would allow us no hesitation in using more telling and appropriate terminology. Corrupt. Authoritarian. Tinpot even.
Also. Follow the money.
Randox went from a loss-making organisation a few years ago (pre-tax losses of ~£10 million) to a highly profitable one on the back of a government contract awarded from pubic monies (without tender) totaling ~£500 million. Not too many days before that contract was announced to the public, Randox moved their operations to the Isle of Man and its tax haven status. Mmh. Those hundreds of millions of public money would not filter back to the public purse through the UK tax system.
Some of Randox’s money did filter back to the UK … more specifically Aintree. Chair of Aintree racecourse – Rose Paterson. Who was also a board member of the Jockey Club alongside Dido Harding (whose husband is John Penrose MP, Anti-corruption Minister). Beneficiary of many thousands of £s in donations from people associated with the Jockey Club and its members – Matt Hancock MP for Newmarket, the home of the Jockey Club.
Do I need to write allegedly here?
You did
But those facts are well reported
Sleazy is how one might describe the kind of personal and sexual scandals that occurred in Major’s time or Johnson’s personal relationship with Arcurri. Edwina Curry and David Mellor’s activities spring to mind. You might personally disapprove of them but money was not changing hands and government policy was not being influenced.
What we have now is clear examples of money changing hands and government policy apparently being influenced. As appears to be the case with Randox, PPE, housing and Arcurri’s business. That in any other country would be called corruption. Those Tory MPs defending the behaviour are very quick to want to cut aid to countries they accuse of the same behaviour.
Agreed
I’m with Mr Stafford.
Thank goodness John Major is leader of the opposition………
Regards
Paul
The Guardian’s acerbic Marina Hyde has nailed this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/05/owen-paterson-boris-johnson-standards-commissioner