This is a serious matter, which we are all taking seriously. Having been a member of a political group on a council, I know we are sensitive to the feelings of our fellow councillors. The central issue of whether private—that is, non-council-related—events should figure in the characterisation of a member is important. I share the view that we need to examine closely whether that ought to figure at all in the standing and reputation of the councillor. Then there are the consequences and penalties that might flow.
One needs to take human nature into account, however. If the extent of the private action, which we are saying ought not to figure, is publicly known, that in itself will bring consequences. Even though there are no consequences legally or statutorily, the mere fact that a person has been charged is enough, although I am talking not about someone who has been exonerated. Your Lordships know the phrases: ““Mud sticks””, and ““There’s no smoke without fire””. I have been in situations where people have been uncomfortable, not wishing to act precipitously, and yet inevitably their career has been blighted or besmirched simply because they have been involved in accusations of that kind.
We all have experience in both Houses of Parliament, where Members of this and the other House have committed something that has led them to face the wrath of a court. As a consequence they become subject to scrutiny from other Members who consider whether they should have sanctions applied to them. Most people are reluctant to cast the first stone. I am not talking about, ““There but for the grace of God go I””; I am talking about human nature. Unless the crime is heinous, something that just cannot be tolerated, one simply says, ““That might have been me””—or indeed, ““That was me, but I wasn’t found out, and I won’t do it again””. We try to be generous in our attitude to various people of that kind.
The noble Baroness has raised the bar. It is right that if a court arbitrates in a matter and the person is found guilty, that ought to be sufficient for action to be taken about his worthiness to serve on the council. She also raised the delicate question of interpretation. Some people are very generous and open-minded—I almost said ““liberal””—in such situations and prefer to leave these matters be. What with the public, the local press, the local group and the local ward committee, there are sufficient ways to punish the person, and I do not think that his or her private life ought to figure in that way. I hope that my noble friend can say something helpful; the amendments are certainly along the right lines.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Graham of Edmonton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 July 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c429-30 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:04:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412819
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412819
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412819