British retired expats have taken their fight to unfreeze their state pension payments to the heads of state of the Commonwealth nations.
In a campaign fronted by Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley, thousands of expats have battled with the UK government to have their state pensions index-linked in the same way as retirees in the UK, the European Union and some select countries with special treaties are treated.
Currently, any British expat drawing the state pension overseas has the weekly amount frozen at the level of the first payment either until they die or return to the UK.
According to Bottomley and other protesters, this means some elderly state pensioners in Commonwealth countries are drawing just £6 a week for life while someone living in the UK who retired on the same day enjoys a basic state pension of £113.10 a week.
Now, the All Party Parliamentary Group has urged the heads of state of Commonwealth countries where the state pension is not increased in line with inflation each year.
Appeal to Commonwealth
Around 1.2 million expat pensioners live overseas and half receive non-indexed state pensions. Campaigners say about 95% of the people affected live in Commonwealth countries.
The International Consortium of British Pensioners claims Britain is the only Commonwealth nation that does not uprate state pensions with inflation.
“This policy is wronging many hard-working people and needs changing,” said Bottomley. “Just because righting this wrong costs money is not the point. It’s an issue we need to sort out sooner rather than later.
“Many people paid the lowest state pension payments may not see the situation change before they die, which is why we need to act now and why this should go on the agenda on the Commonwealth Secretariat because so many people in former colonies and dominions are affected.”
Cool response
However, the appeal received a sharp rebuttal from the secretariat.
“The policies of individual countries are not a matter of comment for us,” said a secretariat spokesman.
The British government view is a group of state pensioners who took the matter before the European courts lost their case and the court upheld the policy.
“The state pension is paid worldwide but only uprated where the British government has a legal obligation or reciprocal treaty with the nation where the pensioner now lives.
“This policy has not changed for many years and is something anyone deciding to emigrate must consider before they go.”
Thank you IE for highlighting this iniquity being perpetrated by the UK government on just 4% of the UK state retired pensioners world wide.
One really need to look at the excuses – they have long been demolished as justifable reasons – put forward by the secretariat spokesperson to appreciate how bereft of ideas the government is. This was shown with the utmost clarity by Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister in his pathetıc “defence” of the policy and ıntention to incorporate it as Clause 20 in the Pension Reform Bill when it was debated by the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee prior to the third reading.
Firstly, the DWP has confirmed that a reciprocal agreement is not necessary in order to uprate UK pensions world wide. It is a domestic policy that can be amended to index link pensions unilaterally at the stroke of a ministerial pen.
Secondly, the ECHR ruling simply confirmed that the UK law, although clearly discriminatory, did not breach human rights. A somewhat peverse decision most would acknowledge and based to a great extent on the inaccurate, misleading, redundant and obsolete pronouncements of Lord Hoffman. However, there is no appeal but, more to the point, the ruling did not make unilateral uprating illegal; it is solely in the hands of the government and the government is hiding behind this smoke screen.
Thirdly, the fact that the policy has not changed is not justifıcation for it to be continued. Longevity does not convert discriminatory bad policy into non-discriminatory good policy.
Fourthly, those deciding to emigrate should not have to consider the implications of this policy at all; it should not exist. These individuals contributed to the NI scheme during their working lives on the same terms and conditions as everyone else. In retirement they are being denied the right to withdraw from the Fund on the same terms and conditions as everyone else.
That is where the discrimination lies and the country of residence is totally and utterly irrelevant.
It is imperative that those eligible to vote in UK general elections register to do just that in 2015. According to the Electoral Commission there are a possible 3.3 million eligible British expat voters worldwide, yet less than 30,000 registered to vote.
Just imagine if even 1 million of those 3.3m were to vote. In swing seats it could give a bloody nose to the appropriate party and make MPs sit up and take notice.
So there is absolutely no point whinging about being an expat and getting the rough end of the deal if you have no intention of making your voice heard through the ballot box.
A lot of expats continue to pay taxes in some form or another to the UK coffers and should have a right of say. Unfortunately, many have lost that right due to the ridiculous “15 year rule” that disenfranchises expats from being eligible to vote after being out of the UK for that length of time. That has to change too!
No point resting on your laurels and moaning Change only comes about with action. Support those who are putting their heads above the parapet for the benefit of expats!
You may be right about ex-pats and their voting or not as the case may be.
Tilou Liberté
. Having been in the armed forces for many years it was almost impossible to get a vote registered because of the time limit and the distance involved and for that reason I used to vote by proxy. Although that is a way of getting your vote in, it is not very satisfactory. The postal service is totally inadequate today and with the internet being available, this method should be used and move into the 21st century. The same applies to the frozen pension policy as
Andy Robertson-Fox has do clearly said. This policy goes against all agreements signed between countries where poverty and discrimination are one of the reasons for the agreement’s existence. This is especially true with respect to the Commonwealth Charter which is just one year old and and already in the waste bin by the country who has our Queen as the head of the Commonwealth and whose embarrassment must be enormous when committed to sign a document which will deny her citizens their rightful indexing of their pension because of her government’s intransigence to honour the agreement and to even extend the discrimination to future pensioners.
Personally,like many I have no vote thanks to Tony Blair and all citizens wherever they may be should have that right. So not resting on my laurels but moaning is about all I can do like so many others. We need people like yourself to take up the campaign and fight for justice. Thanks for doing that.
I’m still eligible to vote in UK elections…whether I receive the paperwork in time is another matter because the idiots in charge do not allow for the time the postal service takes to get to Canada and back. Having said that who does one vote for in regard to frozen pensions? Webb (LibDems) “supported the ending of frozen pensions” in the run up to to the last elections as did Cameron (Conservative) and we all know how that turned out. Labour who “governed” the country through the previous years did nothing after promising to end it before they won the election in 1997. So it is always a pre-election pledge but then whoever wins reneges on the issue and then they wonder why we call them liars and hypocrites. It seems that particular description fits the lot of them very well.
This what Canada thinks of “The old boys club”
TORONTO — Canada is suspending its $10-million contribution to the Commonwealth Secretariat over the alleged human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, which currently chairs the 53-nation alliance, Foreign Minister John Baird said Monday.
Mr. Baird said Ottawa could no longer justify funding “an organization that turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, anti-democratic behavior and religious intolerance in its member states.” The money will be directed elsewhere, he said.
Too true Mr Baird. Good for you.
We need more Commonwealth countries with the same attitude.Good for you Canada.
“The policies of individual countries are not a matter of comment for us,” said a secretariat spokesman. –
This statement could come back to haunt the secretariat………………..Hopefully!!!!!
This matter is not for the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is up to individual affected Commonwealth countries to join in the fight for the sake of their own citizens, people who worked in the UK and paid their dues and want to retire to their country of birth.
True Jimmy, but it is also in the interests of the governments and especially those of Commonwealth ones who, because the UK government is freeloading on the backs of their taxpayers, are subsidising UK citizens on frozen pensions and not just those who were born there.
Australian taxpayers, for example, are “contributing” around GBP eighty million a year which, rightfully, is the responsibility of the UK government.
Drawing this discriminatiıon to the attention of not only the government of individual countries but also the Commonealth Secretariat – and any other relevant source – should not, I believe, be overlooked..neither should the opportunity for publicity!