Harriet Harman attacks the rule of law
Ms Harman told the BBC that if Sir Fred, the former chief executive of RBS, did not give up the money voluntarily, “it will not be accepted and the Government will take action”.
The basis of the agreement to give Sir Fred his full entitlement is being examined by lawyers at Slaughter and May at the request of the Treasury.
Asked if this would mean passing legislation, Ms Harman said that she did not want to reveal possible methods but emphasised that he was not morally entitled to keep the payments.
But is he legally entitled?
“To get a severance payment when you’ve led a bank to the brink of collapse with record losses and thousands of people fearing for their jobs and requiring the public to step in with loans to back up the bank, that is a matter of public interest now and the Prime Minister has said that that is unacceptable,” she said on The Andrew Marr Show [see the clip here]
“The Prime Minister has said it is not acceptable and therefore it will not be accepted. It might be enforceable in a court of law, this contract, but it’s not enforceable in the court of public opinion and that’s where the Government steps in.”
Ah yes, let’s submit to the rule of man, to the arbitrary exercise of power. What a wonderful idea Harriet.
If Goodwin is legally entitled to the money then as much as we may dislike it he must get to keep it.
Harriet, however, would like to be able to take the money despite Goodwin’s entitlement… …let’s bring back Bills of Attainder, she thinks…