Lord Stoneham defends Goodwin disclosure

The Liberal Democrat peer who disclosed that former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin had a relationship with a senior colleague defended his action last night.

Using Parliamentary privilege, Lord Stoneham of Droxford told peers last Thursday:

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.

Speaking in the Lords last night, Lord Stoneham defended his action:

The issue I raised last Thursday was part of a long-standing commitment by Lord Oakeshott to ensure that the Financial Services Authority publishes a full report on the reasons for the collapse of RBS. I believe the FSA has now agreed to include the matter in their inquiry.

Responding to the Government’s statement on privacy injunctions, Lord Stoneham went on:

How are the courts going to ensure that the public interest is protected and considered when injunctions are being requested?

How will statutory bodies, such as the FSA, be able to investigate when corporate governance procedures may be being breached but the information about this is restricted?

Advocate General Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC replied:

It would not be proper for me to comment on any one particular case. If there is an issue of more general importance, then I am sure that it will be possible for these particular concerns to be fed into the work of the Joint Committee.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Parliament.
Advert

2 Comments

  • How could this issue NOT be in the public interrest?? Lord Stoneham is not sensation seeking here. In supporting Lord Oakskshott he is on the side of a residual Lib Dem Parliamentarian of whom we can be proud!!

  • This and Hemming’s burblings are distinct. Stoneham is far more likely to have seen the legal decision – not to mention know what a super-injunction is and is not – and the matters of whether that banker (am I going to get sued) Goodwin had his mind on the actual task of avoiding a financial catastrophe rather than keeping details of where he put his cash register secret [Ed. that’s enough sexual inneundo].

    ~alec

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Might the root problems of yesterday’s childish and selfish behaviours be found in the extremely unsuited design of the House of Commons, the lout behaviour o...
  • Jeff
    expats 21st Feb '24 - 8:24am: I looked at the ‘trading giants’ listed… This makes my point perfectly. As with other Brexit benefits, the...
  • Neil Fawcett
    @Paul Barker - she clearly didn't hide them very well. Another member spotted that she had made some abhorrent posts on social media and put in a complaint. As ...
  • Nick Baird
    Imperfect as it is, our democracy is the sum of its parts, and one of those parts is Opposition Day debates. The second largest party gets 17 of those per parl...
  • Nigel Jones
    So good to have Layla representing us in Foreign Policy, especially on this issue. A pity she did not have time to say more, especially to put things in perspec...