EU pensions again

I have blogged before, most recently here about the fact that

"Various "Noble Lords" gave their opinions on the EU Treaty during the recent debates. None of those who in receipt of EU pensions declared this fact, despite the fact that these pensions are paid on the understanding that the EU can remove this pension, if in the view of the Commission or the Luxembourg Court, they "fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities"."

I note that in last night's House of Lords debate the redoubtable Lord Pearson brought up the matter and named names much to the fury of "Lord" Kinnock, one of the leading EU weasels. The whole EU debate can be found here but the part that I am quoting from starts here:

"Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords...I cannot disguise my disappointment that noble Lords in receipt of an EU pension did not, with the notable and honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, see fit to declare that interest in all our debates. I refer your Lordships to our debate on 19 July 2007 when we debated why they should have done so. In summary, the reason why I and my Eurosceptic friends believe that noble EU pensioners should declare that interest in our debates is that EU pensions are perhaps unique in that holders can lose them if they fail to uphold the EU’s interests or bring the EU into disrepute. Our case was unanimously supported by your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, chaired by no less a personage than the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Then, again I think uniquely, that sub-committee was overruled by our Privileges Committee consisting of party leaders and various prefects of your Lordships’ House for largely spurious reasons.

It is against that background that no fewer than 12 noble EU pensioners have between them played a leading role in our proceedings.

A noble Lord: Name them!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it your Lordships’ pleasure that I should name them? I was not going to because a number of them are not in their seats, but if I am called to name them I will. We obviously have plenty of time. If we look at former members of the European Parliament, we have the noble Lords, Lord Dykes, Lord Inglewood, Lord Harrison and Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord who asked the question, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, the noble Lord should realise that Members of the European Parliament are paid a salary by Her Majesty’s Treasury and that it is Her Majesty’s Treasury that pays my pension for service in the European Parliament. That is true for pensions of all Members of the European Parliament. I think that the noble Lord should be a little more circumspect before he throws around allegations. If he is then going to say that there is a supplementary pension scheme, he should also acknowledge that that supplementary pension scheme is run by a non-profit making organisation, ASBL, which is registered under Luxembourg law. It is not a pension from the European Union.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the treaties themselves and the European staff guidelines make it possible for the Commission and the court to remove an EU pension.

I had better complete the ex-Commissioners now, because I have got that far.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that in the early 1970s I was a member of the old, unelected European Parliament. We were appointed by the leader of the party in those days—any party—and we received no salaries or pension at all.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, of course I apologise to the noble Lord if he, of all those I am now being called on to name, does not receive a pension. One reason why I did not want to name them all—because there are others—is that the certainty of some of these conditions can, in particular cases, be difficult to discern. But there is not much doubt about it when we come to the ex-Commissioners and ex-Commission employees: the noble Lords, Lord Brittan, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Kinnock, Lord Patten of Barnes, Lord Richard and Lord Tugendhat. As I say, I would not have named those people, but I think it will help students who read Hansard in future to know that our debates have been influenced to that extent. There can be no doubt that this unseen hand has distorted the quality of our deliberations. I very much regret that....No, my Lords; I do not withdraw the fact that if one is in receipt of a pension that one can lose, it must influence the way in which one thinks and speaks."