My Lords, we have the benefit of the Government’s estimate of the cost of uprating those pensions that are not presently uprated,
which is in the region of £700 million, plus of course the possibility of significant backdating. Once payment began then the arguments for backdating would subsequently follow; I do not think that that would be unexpected. We on these Benches agree that at present this is not a priority for our country, and that the cost is important.
That leads me directly to the justification and the reason for Amendment 33B. We promote this review for many of the same reasons that the noble Lord, Lord German, promotes his questions on engagement—to help us to reach a definitive and informed judgment on the costs and benefits of uprating. We are not calling on the Government to uprate. If the analysis that we call for, which we understand is capable of being done on a cross-governmental basis, has been done in whole or in part, then we would welcome the information that is available because it would help our understanding of the necessary information and the calculation of the costs and benefits. By this method we seek to inform the debate, and that is the consistent approach of our amendments calling for a review in different parts of the Bill.
Importantly, this issue is not going to go away; I think that we all appreciate that. In fact, as my honourable friend Sheila Gilmore made clear in the House of Commons, it is impossible to be a Member of that House without being assailed by the impressive campaign consistently being run by those who feel aggrieved because they have not benefited from uprating over a lengthy period. Indeed, many noble Lords have also been assailed by these arguments in correspondence. I remember, at the time when I was in the House of Commons, receiving correspondence regularly and indeed, on occasions, people at my constituency advice surgeries who were home-visiting relatives coming to argue and make the points for uprating in a very forceful fashion.
Those who have campaigned for uprating for these frozen pensions have been encouraged in that campaign at various times by senior politicians. Mischievously, I cannot resist the temptation to remind noble Lords that in 2004, when the Pensions Bill was passing through Parliament, the now Pensions Minister Stephen Webb told campaigners,
“I agree that pensioners who earned their pensions by paying national insurance contributions have a strong case for the value of that pension being maintained in line with inflation, and I am actively seeking such a change. As you may be aware, there is currently a Pension Bill passing through Parliament. I will take this opportunity to table an amendment, seeking to uprate the ‘frozen pensions’ of expatriates”.
My researches have not gone to the extent of trying to find out whether or not he did in fact promote such an amendment, but he certainly indicated his intention to do so. He has clearly changed his mind, and I suspect that he may not be the last Back-Bencher to find his words in the surgery haunting him once he is in ministerial office. It was once famously said by someone that when the facts changed, he changed his mind. Here the facts have not changed—they have been consistently the same—but the mind has changed.
6.15 pm
The issue, as we know, is not ever present in our media, but comes up periodically, and will continue to do so. We need to engage with it in a constructive way. Not unreasonably, in my view, does the International Consortium of British Pensioners seek a proper assessment of the impact of overseas pensioners on the public finances. It asks for consideration to be given to the benefit that the UK economy gets from the expatriate pensioners who reside outside the EU. In moving this amendment, we are seeking just such a review, the purpose of which is to inform this debate and to allow a judgment to be made about the Government’s estimate of the cost—in short, whether it is the true cost.
In the Commons, the Pensions Minister opposed this amendment. In doing so, he left significant questions unanswered and I hope that the Minister will be encouraged to engage with these. Is it the Government’s view that an analysis of this nature would be difficult to undertake? In particular, is it the Government’s view that a review would unfairly raise expectations? In Committee, Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, told the House of Commons that only 2% of British pensioners move overseas as pensioners. He went on to say that a significant number move just before retiring. Do the Government have statistical evidence to support that assertion, or is it based on other information? Any further clarity that the Minister can give to the principle of this matter would be very welcome.
Finally, the Pensions Minister said that he remained sympathetic to the case. Do the Government remain sympathetic to the case? If so, and if financial circumstances allowed, would they be willing to uprate these pensions? With respect, I think that is the most interesting question of the afternoon.