Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 October 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised when I say that I am going to have to look at Hansard and study what she has said. I have done my best to take in all that she said, but I am not going to say now that I will not return to the matter at Third Reading because, in view of what she said, it is only fair that I should be able to—and I will. There is still conflict between us about how these provisions are made and how they deal with private life and a conviction. The Minister has in effect agreed that it will be a conviction on a criminal offence that will trigger the Standards Board taking additional action. Being contradictory again—let us be clear, we are talking about an offence that would bring with it a conviction of between none and three months, so it is at the lower end of judicial responsibility—action, even a prosecution, is not necessarily a conviction. It may never end up as a conviction. Allegations can be made for all sorts of reasons, some of which are not at all proper and may be mendacious and vexatious. For a Standards Board to be able to leap in at that stage and take action would be completely improper. That could happen under the Bill as it stands, including the phrase, "““would constitute a criminal offence””." I need to concentrate on the words ““would constitute””, because the Minister’s explanation was confusing, and it will not give us the clarity that we need. I am mindful that this all started when the Mayor of London got himself into a tangle in a public matter that ultimately went to the courts—although it was an appeal to the courts by him and not the other way round. We are dealing with a slightly different thing here. I am keen that we get this as near right as we can. I would like to have another go to see whether I can get the Minister to agree a different form of wording, or for us all to agree on an explanation. For today, I will withdraw the amendment, but I will come back to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 197A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 197, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 197B not moved.] On Question, Amendment No. 197 agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 197BA to 197E not moved.]
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 695 c556-7
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Disability Disclosure of information Councillors Convictions Byelaws Housing Health services Legislative competence Functions Ethics Local government Misconduct Public participation Local government executive NHS foundation trusts Standards Social rented housing Social services Unitary councils Overview and scrutiny committees Patients' forums Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health Local strategic partnerships Local area agreements Local involvement networks
- Legislation
- Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:38:20 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_416992
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_416992
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_416992