|
"IF I WAS A LORD..." |
†‡The Baroness Greengross—To move to resolve, That this House regrets that the Government have not considered uprating the state pension rights of all United Kingdom citizens living abroad in the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2005, laid before the House on 18th March (S.I. 2005/632).
Scan down the space below for the especially good submissions
Just three of those affected by the freezing of their British State Retirement pensions
“Take Molly as an example. Molly drove ambulances during the Blitz, and at a later date served in France & Germany as well. I visit Molly every now and then, just for a chat. Molly is 89 and confined to a wheelchair having suffered amputation of both legs. Molly lives in a retirement home, her one luxury being a mobile phone. Molly’s pension is at the 1982 rate. She would dearly love a little extra to spend. She has to rely on the benevolence of Australian taxpayers for that. When leaving Molly to go home, her sense of humour remains. “Forgive me if I don’t get up” she says.”
“Alice is very proud of the framed letter from Their Majesty’s George V1 and Elizabeth addressed to her husband Tom who died last year. It congratulated him for surviving nearly four years of captivity by the Japanese. Tom had once recounted for me his experience of being transported in the dark hold of a boat swarming with vermin. The toilet facilities were a few overflowing buckets, impossible to find in the dark. He spoke to me of landing after a four day nightmare voyage, and then being force-marched for three days in monsoon weather in the grip of severe diarrhoea, destined to work in one of the copper mines. Stopping to defecate brought a rifle butt to his back. It was less painful to let the pouring rain wash the mess away. As Tom said, it was better to swallow your pride than to invite the continuous beating and cries of “speedo”! Tom was rewarded with a frozen pension, and Alice has one also, helped a little by a sympathetic Australian Government”.
“Michael’s pension was frozen in 1987.
He died this year aged 92, the oldest surviving member in Australia of the
British Royal Marines. His wife Eileen survives him. His funeral was impressive.
Led by a solitary Piper, followed by three flag-bearers in full uniform and with
the last hundred yards of road lined by veteran marines saluting his memory one
felt very humble. Although not a Marine I attended his funeral.
Each ANZAC day held in Western Australia, Michael had been chosen to lead the
surviving Marines past the saluting base. On a given signal Michael would stand
ramrod straight in his Jeep to give the salute. On further command he would snap
his head to the front and take his seat. Watching the TV news broadcast later
that day you would never guess Michael was blind. He had served in North Africa,
Italy, France & Germany. Eileen buffs his campaign medals, replacing them in a
special frame. He often spoke of his regret that a British government saw fit to
refuse him an uprated pension after he had given all he could to help his
country in peacetime and war”.
|
No "If"! I was a Lord - and here is what I would say: My Lords, |
|
If I was a Lord . . . But dash it, Jeeves, I am a Lord! |
|
If I was a Lord . . . I would be totally disgusted that we treat our elderly in
such a pathetic manner. For reasons that I cannot understand, the
Pension service has been allowed to introduce an illegal regulation that
some Pensioners will not receive the same pension as others. Furthermore,
Tony Blair has allowed Lawyers to defend the Carson case, no doubt at
immense cost when simple logic rationally establishes that everybody should
be treated the same, that is all that Mrs Carson requested. |
|
If I were a Lord.
My husband and I emigrated in 1957
to Canada and paid our contributions to England until 1976 when we were
told that we did not have to send any more payments as my husband was
fully paid up for a pension. We were definitely not told at that time
anything about frozen pensions and thought that we could look forward to a
comfortable retirement after sending the money yearly to England which I
might add was very difficult during those years.
Sadly my husband passed away last
year and could not believe that Britain
(The Country that he thought so much
of and served during the W W 11 in the R A F) could be so cold hearted and
have no principle whatsoever. I am now getting a Widow's pension of 37
Pounds per week instead of 82 Pounds per week which is rightfully mine.
Lily Ranson
B.C Canada
|
|
If I was a Lord
If I was a Lord I would be asking myself how this
country can possibly justify freezing the pensions for some overseas
pensioners and not for others. How can we justify allowing indexed
pensions to countries such as America, France and Spain, etc, and yet deny
such pensions to countries such as South Africa, Australia and Canada?
We cannot excuse ourselves on the grounds that people in
Commonwealth countries have chosen to live
overseas, because those in America, etc. have also chosen to live
overseas. Besides, why not then freeze the pensions of all
overseas pensioners? We cannot say that we cannot afford to pay everyone,
therefore we will simply discriminate against some and not others. We
cannot assume that some pensioners can afford to
live on a frozen pension, because we do not enquire as to their other
income. We cannot choose to favour countries that have reciprocal
arrangements with UK because we froze Australian pensions even when that
country did have a reciprocal arrangement with UK. We cannot pay less on
the grounds that some people have contributed less, because they all paid
at the same rate.
Having asked myself these questions I must now come to the
conclusion that we cannot possibly justify freezing some pensions - that
it is discriminatory, unfair and immoral, if not illegal.
Submitted by Vivienne Aird
|
|
If I were a Lord, and addressing the chamber I would say:
Frozen pensions remain an unfair and discriminatory anomaly
that should never have been applied to more than half million of our
pensioners, who for no reason other than that they live in certain
countries outside the UK, receive a steadily reducing pension.
There can be no justification whatsoever for paying some
less than others, who furthermore may possibly have no assets or income
other than the inexorably declining amounts being given.
Should they have chosen to reside in say Germany, the USA
or Israel, their pensions are paid in full every year, whereas if perhaps
living with family members in certain Commonwealth countries, such as
Australia or Canada, their pensions are frozen from the time they left the
UK.
And this could amount to a pension of just a mere few
Pounds a week, over twenty years or more.
As everyone is obliged to pay mandatory contributions to
the National Insurance fund throughout a working lifetime, it is both
morally wrong and a clear breach of human rights principles to impose
arbitrary discrimination upon the sole basis of choice of domicile.
I therefore propose that it is high time this absurd
illogicality be removed forthwith.
From: Wes Woolhouse (British Virgin Islands) |
|
If I were a Lord I would ask the question - why do we pay pensioners living in America an indexed pension but expect the Australian Government to make up the difference. We have a good relationship with both Governments - both are supporting us in Iraq and Afghanistan - why treat them differently?
If I were a Lord I would also ask
the question - why does the Australian Government keep so quiet about this
- why don't they get more angry?
Tony Walsh
|
|
If I were a Lord, I would give the following speech: The recent dismissal by a majority of the Judicial Committee of this House of the appeal by Ms Annette Carson concerning her “frozen” pension indicated two major points: 1. British Law is clear in not allowing age pensions to be indexed in countries with which the UK does not have a reciprocal arrangement 2. Restoring these rights was seen to be a political rather a judicial requirement The majority of the Judicial Committee was not prepared to oppose the Government by invoking the Human Rights Act to declare that this measure is incompatible with Human Rights. Indeed, Lord Hoffman went so far as to say that “The exclusion of pensioners resident in other jurisdictions ……. was not in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Pensioners may, therefore, have to prove him wrong by taking the action to the European Court of Human Rights. Lord Carswell, expressing the minority opinion, together with many thousands of others, believes that the freezing of the UK pension in some countries is both unfair and discriminatory. Although it seems that it is lawful, this is a section of the UK pension law which many see as bad, immoral and wrong. Bad law should be remedied by amendment. Lord Hoffman, spokesman for the Judicial Committee, made a number of points with which we may disagree on ethical grounds and which should not exist within properly drafted laws. These points include: - Because Ms Carson lived in a country where her pension would be frozen, she could not have received an increase. It is strange, therefore that one of the reasons for her failure to receive it was: “She has never had a right to an uprated pension, so there can therefore be no question of her having been deprived of that right”. Yet many frozen pensioners have received indexation in the UK or elsewhere before moving to a frozen country and the Government does not allow them to continue to receive uprating. I look forward to hearing that this group of pensioners, at least, will now receive an immediate uprating. - The Judicial Committee’s report stated: “But essentially the reason for not uprating pensions in these countries is one of cost”. We are told that the country cannot afford £400 million. Indeed, in the debate in Westminster Hall in April 2001, the minister reported that “If the scheme had uprated pensions in all countries, the cost would have been higher and would not have been covered by the contributions”. However, the current information from the Government Actuary’s report of 2005 shows that the NI fund is forecast at end year to be £34.6 Billion, and “substantially exceeds” the recommended “reasonable working balance”. It is a sad day for the British people when such a comparatively small sum is able to override justice. Far greater sums than these are routinely written off by such departments as the Child Support Agency and Income Credit. - If cost is to be the main reason for the failure to index certain pensions, then the countervailing savings caused by the absence of the pensioners from the UK must also be taken into account. The courts have quoted the minor loss to the Treasury of taxes not paid by emigrant pensioners. Apart from the fact that any annuities being paid to these pensioners from their past employment are taxed in the UK before being sent abroad, there are huge savings derived from these peoples’ absence. They do not use the NHS, they are not paid Pension Guarantee, nor Winter Fuel Allowance, nor are they supported in Care Homes, issued with motorised invalid carriages, provided with Home helps or any of the myriad social services the Government provides. Further to this, their very absence relieves the housing shortage and takes traffic off the roads and railways. In fact, if more pensioners were encouraged, by uprating their pensions, to emigrate, this country would benefit by having a reduced number of old people to support. - The minister, in April 2001, further stated that the function of bilateral agreements is “mainly to provide co-ordination between social security systems, so that workers moving between the UK and another country obtain a degree of cover for contributory benefits from one country to another.” Since most of these agreements were made the volume of movements between countries has increased beyond recognition. It must be time for the Government to remove the narrow discrimination between one country and another and follow all other OECD nations by uprating pensions world-wide. - Lord Hoffman’s comments on the views of the Judicial Committee included the sentence: “It would be curious indeed if Article 14 were to compel the government to pay uprated pensions to those living abroad irrespective of any countervailing benefit offered by their countries of residence”. Yet all other comparable countries do indeed pay uprated pensions regardless of “countervailing benefits”. And several of the countries with which the UK has agreements have few, if any, social security arrangements to provide a benefit. - Finally, I would quote again from Lord Hoffman. “Discrimination meant a failure to treat cases alike. There was obviously no discrimination when the cases were relevantly different”. This is mere hair-splitting. The case of a pensioner living in Detroit, USA, and receiving an uprated pension is to any normal person “relevantly” the same as the pensioner living in Sarnia, Canada and having his pension frozen. What is “relevant” to a pensioner is how much his pension pays. This Government should come into the modern world and recognise that concerns, as expressed by Lord Hoffman, about “the Enlightenment” and “noble birth” are no longer “relevant” to the present day. Michael MacFarlane
|
|
If I was a Lord I would treat all Old Age Pensioners equally and ensure
that they all received indexed pensions to keep pace with inflation. In my
case I am a full time carer for a paraplegic wife, suffering from advanced
Parkinson's disease who needs twenty four hour care. She requires numerous
injections of apomorphine each day and has to be helped with her feeding,
bathing and toileting and has now lost the feeling in her hands and feet.
As she suffers from a degenerative disease and her condition deteriorates
the cost of caring becomes ever more expensive BUT our retirement income
remains the same because it is not indexed. Having had to retire early to
become a full time carer for my wife I have a reduced superannuation, so
my British old age pension to which I contributed to for most of my
working life is an important component of our income. We ask not for
charity but parity with other pensioners! We migrated from "The Old Dart"
- UK - out of necessity as I was out of work and the South Australian
Department of Agriculture offered me employment commensurate with my
qualifications. Would you not have emigrated under the circumstances.
John Dickinson
|
|
“ If I Were a Lord” If I were a Lord I would legislate for indexed link payments to pensioners irrespective of country of residence. It is ironic that years ago Britain was encouraging people to migrate to Australia, even paying their fares. These people are now pensioners and discriminated against for residing in a country showing allegiance to the Queen, and not in Europe or the USA. The reason for this, we are told, is not discrimination but because that same Government failed to arrange a “ reciprocal treaty”. ! My husband is now 85years of age. He paid National Insurance for fifty two years. Apart from his war service his payments were continuous. No National Health claims were ever made and he was never on the “dole”. He had no option regarding the payment of National Insurance; by law this was deducted from his pay! He receives the English pension of forty pound seventeen pence per week! This has, of course, remained static since our migration. We do not recall there ever being a clause that said we must reside in Britain to receive an indexed pension. As the deduction was made by law why not the indexed payment by law? Unfortunately he now suffers from angina and peripheral neuropathy. By residing in Australia he is of course saving the National Health money to which he contributed! K. J. Hampton |
|
If I was a Lord I would be ashamed of the way in which this British government is treating those pensioners who have chosen to live outside the UK in certain other countries of the world. If you happen, for perfectly valid domestic or family reasons, to live in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, or a few other countries, you will find that once you have become eligible for the British retirement pension, you will be denied any increase in that pension for the remainder of your life. As one who spent the whole of my working life in the UK, and who emigrated to New Zealand for family reasons I have a deep sense of being grossly discriminated against in this manner. Michael Larking |