alternatives" when it granted Mr Goodwin his pension. A letter from RBS setting out the background to the October 2008 decision on Goodwin's employment termination, the corporate approval process of the pension award and HM Treasury involvement was submitted to the Treasury Select Committee. Had he been dismissed instead of accepting early retirement, his annual pension would have been £416,000, payable from age 60. If the government had not stopped RBS from going bankrupt, his pension would have been paid out of the pension-protection fund and been £28,000 a year, starting at age 65. His home in The Grange, Edinburgh was vandalised on 25 March 2009 by an anti-banking group apparently known as "Bank Bosses Are Criminals" according to a newspaper who were sent details of the attack by the group. In their message, they said Several windows in his house were smashed, and a car damaged in the drive below. On 18 June 2009, RBS stated that following negotiation an agreement was reached between RBS and Goodwin to reduce his pension to £342,500 a year from the £555,000 set in February after he took out an estimated £2.7 million tax-free lump sum. The agreement followed the completion of RBS's internal inquiry into Goodwin's conduct, which found no wrongdoing. Superinjunction On 10 March 2011, John Hemming, a backbench Liberal Democrat MP, referred in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) to the supposed existence of "a superinjunction preventing [Goodwin] from being identified as a banker". As matters discussed in Parliament can be freely reported by the press, newspapers including The Guardian, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph, reported that Goodwin had obtained such an injunction, while still remaining unable to explain what information the injunction restricted the publication of. On 19 May 2011, Lord Stoneham, speaking in the House of Lords, asked the Government "how can it be right for a super-injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague?" Later that day, the High Court varied the order, allowing Goodwin's name to be published, but continued it in relation to the identity of the lady involved. In his judgment, Mr Justice Tugendhat noted that the order had not been a superinjunction as it had been published in anonymised form on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute website. He also stated that the injunction had not prevented Goodwin being identified as a banker, but instead prevented the