Pensions: Expatriates

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. For over 70 years, successive Governments have upheld the frozen pension policy. The result on those impacted has been not only a severe financial toll, but a heavy emotional burden. These individuals built their lives and careers in the United Kingdom, contributed their share through national insurance, and then, often later in life, moved abroad, in many cases to join family members. In doing so, they found themselves victims of an outdated policy. Most of them first became aware of the policy only after noticing that their state pension was not increasing in line with policies such as the triple lock, proudly founded by the Conservatives.

Let me be clear about what the frozen pension policy entails: British citizens who retire in certain countries—for example, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth, in fact—are denied the annual inflationary increases to their state pension. A person retiring to the USA sees their pension uprated yearly, but if they cross the border into Canada, those increases stop. That can result in elderly pensioners receiving as little as £60 a week on average, despite the current basic state pension being £176.45 a week. As many as four in 10 frozen pensioners report struggling to afford most necessities such as food or medicine.

It may be tempting to dismiss this as a problem “over there”, but British overseas pensioners are citizens who have lived, worked and grown up here. They remain citizens here; they are constituents, and, with the changes to overseas voting rules in 2024, many are now registered to vote in United Kingdom elections again. That means there are up to half a million voices who feel forgotten, neglected and increasingly betrayed by successive Governments.

Geography should not be an excuse for a lack of morality. British overseas pensioners are making their voices heard; over 75% want their representative to commit to ending frozen pensions. In 2016, at an all-party roundtable event, the now Deputy Prime Minister called for a change on frozen pensions and a commitment to finding a solution. I am glad she did so then; I am concerned that the Government are not doing so now. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is still the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, and indeed, the Government.

Since I first raised the issue in the House of Commons last year, I have read and heard many compelling stories—for example, that of Anne Puckridge. Now 100 years old, Anne remains an inspiration to all of us, having served in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force during world war two—I repeat: the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—serving six months in each branch. It is fair to state that she has paid her dues to this country. After the war, she lived and worked for the vast majority of her life in the United Kingdom, until she moved to Canada in 2001. She is one of around 60,000 veterans affected by the policy.

The emotional impact of the policy cannot be overstated. Many of those affected say that they were never informed that their pension would be frozen when they moved. Anne was not told, and the campaign reports that 86% of pensioners affected had no idea the policy even existed before they were impacted. That is too little, too late.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on this timely debate. He just referred to a 100-year-old. Does he agree that the frozen pension issue is not just about the fact that people are seeing a relatively small pension compared with the one they would have had if they were still a UK resident? Because of the policy, in their final years of existence on this earth, they will have a paltry pension to pass away on.

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I will come on to some of that later. He is absolutely right that there is not just a severe financial impact, but a moral impact. Constituents of ours, who have paid their dues—and, in Anne’s case, more than paid their dues given what they have done for this country—will end their days on pretty much nothing when inflation is taken into account.

Last December, I challenged the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions on his decision not to meet Anne during her visit to the UK—a visit that required an 8,500 mile round trip, which is no mean feat at the age of 99. She was not offered a meeting with the Prime Minister.

Anne’s story is sadly emblematic of a much wider injustice that continues to be perpetrated on our elderly. Only this year, we saw continued poor treatment through policies such as the removal of the winter fuel payment and the betrayal of the WASPI women, both causes that were vociferously supported by the Labour party in opposition. Labour is happy to freeze pensioners and happy to freeze their pensions.

The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet Anne is symbolic of a Government who are, I regret to say, unwilling to listen to some of the most elderly and vulnerable among us. That brings me to the crux of today’s debate: the Government do not seem willing to engage in any meaningful way with the overseas electorate affected by the policy. I remind hon. Members that 158 parliamentarians from across the UK and Canada wrote to the Government last October calling for an end to the policy, and more than 140,000 people signed Anne’s petition to meet the Prime Minister in December.

The most concerning aspect of the Government’s current line of response is the estimated cost of ending the policy altogether. Based on calculations made annually, the Government quote the figure of £950 million a year to uprate and backdate all pensions, but that is not the ask. The End Frozen Pensions campaign has made it abundantly clear that it is not calling for retrospective compensation. It is asking simply to receive the same annual increases going forward that are awarded to pensioners living here, and in the USA, France and a host of other countries.

The cost of such a policy change is a mere £55 million a year—a fraction of the overall pensions budget. Will the Minister agree to meet the End Frozen Pensions campaign to accurately assess the cost of what is being requested by pensioners? Will he work with us, in good faith, to find a solution that reflects the modest and realistic nature of the appeal?

Beyond the severe individual hardships, there are important and growing geopolitical consequences to the point where the policy is now creating serious diplomatic tensions with some of our closest allies, as pensions are frozen in 50 out of the 56 Commonwealth nations. How can we speak proudly of our Commonwealth partnerships while refusing full pensions to veterans in the Falkland Islands, British-born nurses in Barbados or former civil servants in Canada? Those are countries with deep and historical ties to the UK, yet they are forced to subsidise our negligence.

Australia and Canada have made their frustrations clear. Canada has been formally requesting a resolution to the issue for more than 40 years. In October, 103 Canadian parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to address the issue. The Canadian and Australian Governments already provide full state pension increases to their citizens living in the UK. Meanwhile, they are left picking up the tab for British citizens residing in their countries.

With Canada and Australia having just held national elections, and with new trade discussions likely on the horizon, what assessment has the Minister made of the policy’s impact on our future ability to trade and meaningfully engage with those countries? Will he look at how reciprocal barriers to the policy may be overcome?

As I draw to a close, let me return to the heart of the matter. The policy causes financial hardship for a large number of affected elderly people. It also causes indignity and isolation; their repeated dismissal by the Government is leading to their political disenfranchisement. Putting an end to this blatant injustice is not only achievable but affordable—£55 million a year is not beyond our means. What is ultimately lacking is not money, but political will.

I have one practical ask of the Minister: will he meet campaigners to more fully understand their demands? If not to resolve the issue outright, will he at least commit to acknowledge the request for uprating on a going-forward basis only? Will he agree to work with me and campaigners to explore how, at a minimum, awareness of the policy might be improved, given the vast majority of impacted pensioners still report having no knowledge of the policy’s existence prior to moving overseas? All that those pensioners are asking for is a level playing field, so that those who have contributed can live out their retirement with dignity and security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I think I have 22 minutes; I usually get about 22 seconds to wind up, so this is a luxury, but I will not test your patience, Mr Dowd, by taking the full time.

We have had a very wide-ranging and helpful debate today. I am especially grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) who brings a significant amount of experience from many years on this issue. It was interesting to hear his historical knowledge and, indeed, the potential solutions that he raised.

This is very much about the social contract, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) suggested. People have paid in, so they should expect to receive an equitable and fair playing field, whether they happen to have moved to somewhere in the European Union, the Philippines, Canada or Australia, or they are still living in this country.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted exactly why this is morally unfair—it is by not just the dint of the policy itself, but its impact on people. There are people living on very small incomes who are having to choose between paying their heating bills in those countries and their medicine and food. That is clearly not appropriate, especially as we have discovered many people who have paid into this country not just financially but in terms of the things they have done, for example, serving in the armed forces.

It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on the Welsh perspective and his interesting idea for a number of MPs for overseas citizens. I am not sure whether that is Lib Dem policy.

[Sarah Olney]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

It is not; the Lib Dem spokesman is shaking her head, but it is an interesting idea. Before entering Parliament, I have to confess that I had no idea this was an issue. People might say that is because I am so young I would not even had to have thought about it—I can see what you are thinking, Mr Dowd. But it has come up time and again. The case of Anne Puckridge really highlights it, but many other Members have mentioned other people who have been affected. I thank the campaigners on this for highlighting it to me and to others. Without them, this issue would really have died a death.

Even after having understood this issue, I did not fully grasp the nature of the problem. I understood that we did not have reciprocal arrangements, and we were not paying uprating in places such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries, which I did not agree with, but I could just about understand because they are foreign nations. I was contacted yesterday by a representative of the Falkland Islands Government—the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory, and is essentially Britain in all but name. There are 80 people there in this situation, many of whom have served in the armed forces. It seems bizarre that even for our overseas territories we do not uprate the pension. I reflect on that, and I hope the Minister does.

I was disappointed but not surprised that the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), decided to get in some political digs, conveniently forgetting that her party had a Pensions Minister for five years in the coalition Government who did absolutely nothing about it. I think that her comments do her, this campaign and the pensioners no service at all.

In contrast, I thought the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), the Conservative spokesman, were measured and sympathetic. I wanted to correct her on one thing: Anne Puckridge is now 100, and I do not think she would want to be known as that. I suppose it was heartening to the campaign, but disappointing overall that my hon. Friend, like so many of us, has had so many people contacting her about this. She was right; we have a new Government and new Ministers, so we could have a fresh look at this.

I do not lay the blame at the feet of the current Minister, or indeed, the current Government. As I said at the start, this is a multi-generational, cross-party problem for which we all should take some responsibility. However, it is in the current Minister’s hands to fix the problem now. As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, given everything else this Government are doing to pensioners—whether that be personal independence payments, WASPI, winter fuel and so on—this issue could be one where people see they are actually on the side of pensioners.

I am afraid I was a little bit disappointed with the Minister’s speech. I accept there will be a cost to the taxpayer, though I think it is disingenuous to say there is a trade-off between this particular policy and cuts to the NHS. It is a more complex situation, and I get that, but I fear he has been captured—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said—by the Treasury solicitors. That is unhelpful.

Finally, I go back to the requests I made. Will the Minister agree to meet with the campaigners so that we can go through the cost-benefit analysis and have a discussion about whether his figures or the campaigners’ figures are accurate? Will he at least commit to looking at some of the reciprocal pensions arrangements that we have with some of the countries that have been mentioned today, including Canada? Will he commit to doing everything in his power to make sure that first, people understand this policy and where they can and cannot get their pensions uprated? Even if he cannot commit today to sorting this out, will he commit to it still being on his radar going forward? If he has the opportunity —if finances allow—will he look to remove this policy so that every person, wherever they live, gets the pension they deserve?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered pensions for people living overseas.