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".
One of these "Noble Lords" was Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, Leon Brittan that was, you can read his "contributions"
here. I note that he did not declare his "pecuniary interest" in the debate contrary to the Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords. The relevant sections being one or more of:
"5.4 - The practice in relation to the declaration of interests is based on a long-standing custom that members of the House of Lords speak on their personal honour and where a member has a direct pecuniary interest in a subject being debated in the House, he or she should declare it.
5.7 - Lords who have a direct financial interest in a subject on which they speak should declare it, making clear that it is a financial interest. They should also declare any non-financial interest of which their audience should be aware in order to form a balanced judgment of their arguments. Such interest may be indirect or non-pecuniary, for example the interest of a relation or friend, hospitality or gifts received, trusteeship, or unpaid membership of an interested organisation, and they may include past and future interests.
5.9 - The conclusion which may legitimately be drawn from this is that in the case of the indirect and non-pecuniary interests mentioned, it was thought to be vain to invite enquiry in an individual case into whether any such interest had the potential to exercise "a profound influence" or did in fact influence what the speaker said in the House. Instead, the test adopted has been: is the interest of such a character that the peer's audience needs to be aware of it in order to form a balanced judgement of the arguments advanced? This approach contemplates the possibility that a peer might have an indirect or non-pecuniary interest (such as, say, being an unpaid office-holder in an 'interested organisation') where the peer would say: "This office has absolutely no effect on anything which I say in this debate or on how I vote", but where none the less the audience (including those who have access to the record) needs to be put into the position of being made aware of this interest so that not only the listening peers but also other persons outside the House can themselves form "a balanced judgement" about the motivation of the speaker."
His non declaration also seems to be in direct contravention of the House of Lords - Privileges - First Report -
Here is the Extract from the House of Lords Code of Conduct - Registration and Declaration of Relevant Interests :
"8. Members of the House must:
(a) register in the Register of Lords' Interests all relevant interests, in order to make clear what are the interests that might reasonably be thought to influence their actions;
(b) declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers, government departments or executive agencies, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion. This is necessary in order that their audience may form a balanced judgment of their arguments. In cases where Members of the House vote in a division where they have a relevant interest that they have not been able to declare, they should register that interest within 24 hours of the division.
What is a relevant interest?
9. The test of relevant interest is whether the interest might reasonably be thought by the public to affect the way in which a Member of the House of Lords discharges his or her parliamentary duties.
10. The test of relevant interest is therefore not whether a Member's actions in Parliament will be influenced by the interest, but whether the public might reasonably think that this might be the case.
11. Relevant interests include both financial and non-financial interests."
As
EU Referendum reminded us in April:
"As Lord Pearson of Rannoch mentioned in his speech to the Bruges Group, because one of his children is disabled, he has to mention this fact and his involvement with charities and organizations that help disabled children and their carers and teachers every time he speaks in a debate that is somehow related to the subject.
Whenever the Countess of Mar stands up to speak on matters to do with agriculture and animal welfare she declares the small farm she and her husband run, the goats and other livestock they keep, the milk, eggs and meat they sell in their farm shop. (Sadly, she has stopped making the world’s best goat’s cheese.)"
Why does Lord Brittan of Spennithorne think that his EU pension with its "understanding" does not have to be declared? Maybe he thinks that his motives are above suspicion, do you agree?
