moved Amendment No. 14:
14: Clause 5, page 5, line 33, at end insert ““including those claimed by British citizens abroad””
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns a very serious and persistent injustice which affects about half a million people. The reason we do not hear more about it is that most, although not all of them, do not have votes in this country. None the less it is an injustice that we need to address and begin to right.
This amendment seeks to unfreeze the frozen pensions of British pensioners who have moved abroad. Many may have been there for 30 or 40 years and the real value of their pension has been eroded enormously in that time. We do not seek to bring them back to where they were but at least to stop the problem getting any worse by restoring the link to the pensions at the level they have now got down to. It is a modest amendment which none the less seeks to halt the decline and at least let those pensioners begin to share again in the rising pensions that their fellow pensioners in Britain enjoy.
There is also considerable injustice as between different overseas pensioners depending broadly on where they have moved to and whether the countries to which they have moved have reciprocal arrangements with Britain. In the case of the European Union, pensioners are automatically entitled under reciprocal arrangements for their pensions to be upgraded. I pay particular tribute to Mr John Markham, who is an indefatigable campaigner, especially on behalf of the Canadian pensioners but of pensioners in other countries too. My honourable friend David Laws and I have had meetings and engaged in considerable correspondence with him.
Now that we are moving to earnings linking, it is particularly unfair that the overseas pensioners in countries with these arrangements will see their pensions going up through earnings while under present arrangements the other half a million pensions will be frozen completely. I refer to the gap between those pensioners who live in America who get the uprating and those in Canada who do not. That gap will get even worse.
There is support from other parties for looking at the pensioners’ plight but so far, certainly in the debates in the Commons—we look forward to seeing what happens in this place—only the Liberal Democrat Benches are prepared to put forward any constructive proposal as opposed to just sounding sympathetic.
There are particular problems affecting a small number, which I also ask the Minister to look carefully at. I refer to the small number of pensioners in the British overseas territories such as the Falklands and countries such as the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn and St Helena—dependencies with very close ties to Britain—who get no uprating. As I said, about half a million people are affected. We believe that almost half of those, about 240,000, are in Australia, some 150,000 are in Canada, 46,000 in New Zealand and 37,000 in South Africa. Pensioners in a number of other countries, including Zimbabwe, do not get the uprating. That is the scale of the problem. The amendment seeks to unfreeze those pensions. We believe that that is affordable. I should like to give a flavour of how these people feel by reading from a frozen pensioner in Australia—if I can put it that way—who has just written to me. He writes: "““I am extremely grateful to you for your understanding of the plight [of] my fellow state pensioners … Many are now very old and have been battering their heads against the political brick wall set up in front of them for thirty years””."
He adds that he is planning to come back to Britain. I shall tell the Committee in a minute where he plans to move back to as I think that it is relevant. He writes that he and fellow pensioners in Australia have paid in for many years for, "““future indexed pensions, whether we liked it or not””,"
and that the answers they receive from Ministers are an ““insult to our intelligence””. He adds: "““My apologies. I meant just to say ‘Thank You’ but find my anger taking over. May Lord Jones recover his health””."
I am absolutely delighted to see that my noble friend, who made his maiden speech on this issue and is a worthy champion of these pensioners, is present. I look forward very much to hearing his speech. The letter continues: "““We have very few friends fighting for us! Thank you again for your support””."
This gentleman tells me that he plans to return shortly to Long Hanborough. Unless my Oxfordshire geography is very much mistaken, that is in David Cameron’s constituency. When the gentleman returns, we shall await with interest to see whether he is able to persuade David Cameron to show more sympathy than has been shown so far. I beg to move.
Pensions Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c932-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:24:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400371
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400371
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400371