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."

Missing information

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?