The amendment would address that issue by dealing with the question in the same way as the common law deals with it at the moment. No judge is going to accept that there is unlawful predetermination simply because a local councillor has followed the whip that is imposed by his own party or his own group. This happens day after day in local government, and there are no cases that can be pointed to in which the courts have said that that is unlawful predetermination. It is not unlawful predetermination because the local councillor has listened to the matters addressed in the local council meeting.
We are dealing with a phantom problem that is created by erroneous advice being given, or is said to be given, to local councillors up and down the land. We are dealing with it in Clause 25 in a way which is going to make the problem far, far worse; and it is for that reason that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Division on Amendment 3
Contents 152; Not-Contents 196.
Amendment 3 disagreed.
Clause 27 : Duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct
Amendment 4
Moved by
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c1042 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-22 18:40:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779672
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779672
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779672