the times | Monday December 6 2021 29
Leading articles
government in an emergency to conduct an
informal bidding process rather than either
conduct a full procurement process or hand out
contracts by ministerial fiat.
Early in the pandemic, speed of response was
vital. Everyone understands this. The government
needed to acquire large quantities of protective
personal equipment (PPE), among much else,
when all other governments were doing the same.
It is not a criticism that the sums involved were
vast. That is how markets work when there is a
spike in demand and limited global supply.
The problem was that contracts were awarded
without competition and hence the price premium
was greater than it ought to have been in a normal
bidding process. A report by the National Audit
Office in November last year revealed that of the
£18 billion spent on pandemic-related contracts,
more than half was awarded without competitive
tender. The particular concern was that companies
recommended by MPs, peers and government
offices were given priority in the provision of PPE.
This “fast track” to the rewards of being granted
a contract gave every appearance of cronyism.
This was not corrupt, but it was subject to
inadequate scrutiny and it was wasteful. One
example among many suffices. A contract with acompany with a senior adviser who was also an
adviser to the Board of Trade was awarded a
contract worth more than £250 million to provide
face masks to the NHS. Many of these masks
proved to be unusable. In a competitive tender, the
money would have been much better directed.
The success of the national vaccination
programme, even with the new threat from the
Omicron strain, has eased the criticisms on
government, but the eventual public inquiry into
the pandemic will need to examine how these
contracts came to be awarded so apparently
arbitrarily. The danger to life from a drawn-out
process of competitive tendering surely did not
justify awarding contracts on personal and
political connections. This happened long after
the initial stage of the crisis, moreover, and was
especially evident in the awards for test and trace
capabilities.
The government needs to restore faith in the
system. The easing of pressures on supply should
provide the spur to getting out of crisis mode and
hasten a culture of maximising value for money
for taxpayers. As EU regulations no longer apply,
the answer must lie in better and swifter rules on
public procurement, not in enabling profligacy
under the guise of crisis management.The principles involved in this debate go well
beyond the specifics of the case regarding the
duchess. In English law there was not till very
recently a separate right to personal privacy in a
way that has long been the case in some other
democracies. The French courts began to protect
the private lives of individuals from press scrutiny
around 140 years ago. French privacy laws are
indeed so sweeping that President Mitterrand
took office in 1981 without the public knowing he
had a seven-year-old illegitimate daughter. Her
existence was revealed only by a deliberate breach
of the law in 1994.
If British public life is to be governed by a law of
privacy, even one that is less stringent, then it
should not be left to judges to establish it piece-
meal. The Human Rights Act was passed by Tony
Blair’s government in 1998, and it incorporates
parts of the European convention on human
rights into domestic law. It is far from obvious that
the House of Commons had cases like the duchess’s
in mind when it carried this legislation, which
includes a right to a private life. Mr Raab indicated
yesterday that proposals to amend the law couldstrike a prudent balance between free speech and
privacy in preference to “an over-reliance on a
continental model, which is effectively what the
Human Rights Act has left us with”.
This has nothing to do with the recent fractious
political debates over Brexit. The convention and
its European Court of Human Rights are part of
the Council of Europe, which is a different legal
system from the European Union. Parliament
surely did not envisage that a right to privacy
would be a vehicle for the rich and famous to
escape scrutiny while those of lesser means are
fair game. In raising the issue, Mr Raab is doing
no more than expressing a sensible statement of
principle that the rights of press comment should
be set after democratic debate rather than on a
case-by-case basis by the courts.
If a democracy wants an extensive right to
personal privacy that would abridge the right to
press freedom, then the public will be deprived of
information. Such legal provision should at least
be voted on by those who are accountable to the
people. Otherwise speech may be eroded by
stealth, till the press can no longer report it.Polling evidence indicates two thirds of the public
would welcome it. And it would be the right thing
to do. At present only shell eggs are required to
carry labelling showing the method of production.
The principle ought to be adopted more widely.
Current legislation requires all animals to be
stunned before they are slaughtered, with a sole
exception on religious grounds for kosher and halal
methods. Whether that exemption should continue
is a separate issue. What cannot reasonably be
opposed is the provision of clear information to
consumers, including Jewish and Muslim shoppers,
on the methods of rearing and slaughter.Some people will continue to be swayed by the
price of meat and dairy products before any other
consideration. But if consumers wish to pay a
premium for particular products in line with a
preference for high standards of animal welfare,
that should be their decision too. And to enable
them to make an informed choice, the agricultural
sector should provide standardised information.
The experience of labelling eggs has shown a
shift in consumer habits from cage eggs to free
range. It is a hallmark of a civilised society that it
exercises compassion toward other species. Com-
pulsory labelling will enable everyone to do this.Procurement and Profligacy
New rules on competitive tendering for public contracts are urgent
given the lack of transparency in spending during the pandemic
In a historic crisis, governments may need to take
emergency powers. The public understand this,
which is why they have supported curbs on civil
liberties during the pandemic. With power,
however, comes the responsibility to exercise it
transparently in the public interest. The obligation
to get value for money in public procurement
during the coronavirus crisis has not been
observed as rigorously as it ought to have been. It
is hence timely that the government is publishing
new rules today on public procurement.
The sums involved in state buying amount to
around £290 billion annually. As a member of the
European Union, Britain was subject to strict rules
requiring that government contracts be put out to
competitive tender. The proposed new rules are
intended to fill the gap and, in particular, avoid the
controversies that have surrounded the granting
of contracts spent on public services during the
pandemic. The test will be in the application but
they appear to show awareness of the problems
that have dogged the government’s reputation.
First, the government will create and maintain
a list of companies that have acted either illegally
or without heed to value for the taxpayer. Second,
smaller companies should find the rules easier to
navigate. Third, new provisions would allow thePrivacy and the Press
Free speech is endangered by the trend to judge-made law
Only in a mythical utopia are all good things
compatible with each other. A free society needs
to judge how to trade them off. There is no obvious
right answer on how best to arbitrate between
both free speech and personal privacy. It should be
the prerogative of parliament to resolve the
conflict and make laws setting out the protection
of each. There are worrying signs that the law is
instead being made by judges. The dangers are
illustrated in a ruling by the Court of Appeal last
week upholding a complaint by Meghan, Duchess
of Sussex, against The Mail on Sunday.
The duchess complained that the newspaper
had breached her privacy in publishing parts of a
letter she had written to her estranged father. The
High Court judge ruled in her favour, finding that
she had had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Though he did not mention this specific case,
Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, will certainly
have had it in mind when, interviewed on
Times Radio yesterday, he intimated that the
government’s planned reforms to the existing
Human Rights Act would give greater protection
to free speech. It is the right course.Food Stamps
Meat and dairy products should carry information on animal welfare standards
Children eventually come to realise that the
bucolic farms of nursery rhymes do not exist in the
real world. Yet few adults either are fully aware of
how farm animals are overwhelmingly raised in
large industrial facilities with high density. Opinion
polls show that shoppers are keen to have accurate
labels on food to indicate standards of animal
welfare. Yet there is no requirement for meat and
dairy products to be labelled showing how the
animals were reared and whether they were
stunned before slaughter.
A government consultation closes today on
whether such labelling should be compulsory.UK: University and College Union members
are re-balloted for strike action in disputes
over pensions, pay and conditions; third-
round draw for the Emirates FA Cup (7pm).
“Birds of a feather
flock together” goes
the old saw, and so
they do — but in
the colder months,
when breeding
territories no longer
need defending from rivals, birds often form
mixed flocks — especially the smaller
species that benefit from safety in numbers.
Large groups made up of many bird species
moving about in the stark, leafless woods
and hedgerows and foraging while looking
out for predators are a common winter
spectacle. Mixed flocks are thought to form
around a “nucleus species” whose behaviour
tends to promote co-operation and social
cohesion. In the UK, these are often from
the tit family. melissa harrison
In 1975 the Balcombe Street siege began in
London when IRA gunmen took a couple
hostage. They surrendered six days later.
Andrew “Freddie”
Flintoff, pictured,
cricketer, Lancashire
(1995-2010, 2014) and
England (1998-2009),
and presenter, Top Gear,
44; Judd Apatow, film
director and producer,
The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005), 54; Bill
Ashton, founder, National Youth Jazz
Orchestra, 85; Rachel Atherton, five-time
world mountain bike champion, 34; Dame
Anne Begg, Labour MP (1997-2015), 66;
Nicolas Barker, editor, The Book Collector
(1965-2015), 89; Peter Buck, co-founder,
R.E.M, Automatic for the People (1992), 65;
Lord (Stanley) Clinton-Davis, Labour MP
(1970-83) and former minister, 93; Andrew
Cuomo, governor of New York state (2011-
Aug 2021), 64; Rajeeb Dey, co-founder
(2011), StartUp Britain enterprise group, 36;
Gerry Francis, footballer, QPR (1968-79,
1981-82) and England (1974-76), 70; Peter
Handke, playwright, Nobel prize in
literature (2019), 79; Tom Hulce, actor,
Amadeus (1984), 68; Sir Maurice Kay, lord
justice of appeal (2004-14), 79; Tessa
Kennedy, interior designer, 83; Karl Ove
Knausgaard, author, My Struggle (2009-11),
53; Richard Krajicek, tennis player,
Wimbledon champion (1996), 50; Richard
Lewis, chief executive, All England Lawn
Tennis Club (2012-20), 67; Baroness (Helen)
Liddell of Coatdyke, UK high commissioner
to Australia (2005-09), 71; Sir Martin
Moore-Bick, chairman of the Grenfell
Tower inquiry, lord justice of appeal
(2005-16), 75; Craig Newmark, founder, the
Craigslist website, 69; Nick Park, creator of
Wallace and Gromit, 63; Dame Heather
Rabbatts, the first female board member of
the Football Association (2011-17), 66; Keke
Rosberg, Formula One world champion
(1982), 73; Colin Salmon, actor, James Bond
series, 59; Wendy Ellis Somes, former
principal ballerina with the Royal Ballet, 70;
Prof Sir Terence Stephenson, chairman,
Health Research Authority, General Medical
Council (2015-18), 64; Yoshihide Suga, prime
minister of Japan (2020-Oct 2021), 73; Jack
Thorne, screenwriter, His Dark Materials
(2019-21), 43.
“We all have ability. The difference is how we
use it.” Stevie Wonder, American singer-
songwriter, quoted in The Story of Stevie
Wonder by James Haskins (1976).
Nature notes
Birthdays today
On this day
The last word
Daily Universal Register