Mr.
Waterson: Nor do I, but there are two parts of the
measure. It sets out the definition of a conflict of interest and goes
on to say: “which is
likely to affect prejudicially that person’s discharge of
functions as a member of the trustee
corporation.” An
example might be someone who was an active member of an extreme
right-wing party such as the British National party, but happened to be
brilliant on pensions. There would be no conflict of interest because
that would not prejudicially affect the discharge of that
person’s functions as a member of the trustee corporation. I am
not suggesting that having any political interest would exclude someone
automatically. To be excluded, they would have to be covered by the
rest of the
provisions. This issue
is important, but I do not want to labour the point about the
chairmanship of PADA. We said what we had to say at the time. Everyone
has now moved on, and our main concern—that of Paul Myners, too,
I am sure—is ensuring that we can deliver
by 2012. We still think that the amendment is important and that the
Minister should look at it
seriously. Mr.
O'Brien: As far as I am concerned, other interests
adequately cover this. If people have proper political views, I am not
in the business of saying that they should be excluded, as long as
there is no other conflict of interest. Defining “political
interest” would be a mess and I strongly oppose the amendment.
All too often there is a pejorative view in the media and elsewhere of
people who are engaged in politics. We need to say that being engaged
in politics is a citizen’s duty, to some extent, rather than
something that should be frowned
on. 4
pm
Mr.
Waterson: I do not want to turn the debate into a civics
lesson. This is not the most important issue in the Bill, and I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
David.] Adjourned
accordingly at one minute past Four o’clock till Tuesday 5
February at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
