Blow for Common Sense
The House of Lords struck a blow for common sense yesterday - when a Lib Dem peer (Lord Stoneham) used parliamentary privilege to ask the following question:
"Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague.
"If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it."
Now the underlying and very serious point being raised by the noble Lord is that the super-injunction taken out by Sir Fred Goodwin - was no doubt based on people's right to privacy.
But the super-injunction also prevented proper scrutiny taking place - at the highest levels of the banking sector - where people's personal relationships may also have been be a matter for the regulatory authorities such as the FSA (Financial Services Authority).
Who knows whether Sir Fred's alleged relationship with a senior colleague had an adverse impact - on what was going on at the time in the Royal Bank of Scotland?
Like everyone else senior figures in public life are entitled to their privacy - though that has to be balanced against the responsibility on such people (more often than not men) - to behave properly at all times.
Because questionable behaviour involving female colleagues - especially more junior female colleagues - is not about morals and morality - it's about good government and professional standards.
And if you don't believe me - just ask Lord John Prescott or Dominique Strauss-Khan.
"Every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, so how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague.
"If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it."
Now the underlying and very serious point being raised by the noble Lord is that the super-injunction taken out by Sir Fred Goodwin - was no doubt based on people's right to privacy.
But the super-injunction also prevented proper scrutiny taking place - at the highest levels of the banking sector - where people's personal relationships may also have been be a matter for the regulatory authorities such as the FSA (Financial Services Authority).
Who knows whether Sir Fred's alleged relationship with a senior colleague had an adverse impact - on what was going on at the time in the Royal Bank of Scotland?
Like everyone else senior figures in public life are entitled to their privacy - though that has to be balanced against the responsibility on such people (more often than not men) - to behave properly at all times.
Because questionable behaviour involving female colleagues - especially more junior female colleagues - is not about morals and morality - it's about good government and professional standards.
And if you don't believe me - just ask Lord John Prescott or Dominique Strauss-Khan.
