State Pensions: UK Expatriates

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who made a gracious and fine speech about why this House, working cross-party, must deal with this issue. I commend all the other Members who have spoken in this debate, too. Let me say to the Minister that I suspect this is the last time in this Parliament that we will be discussing pensions matters. I have always enjoyed our spats across the Dispatch Box. I know he is an honourable and decent man, and I ask him to reflect carefully on all the speeches made this afternoon and to give us an indication that the Government are prepared, on the basis of affordability, to deal with this very real injustice that too many people are facing.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on a motion standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I am also grateful but saddened by the fact that we have to be here today debating this issue, which is fundamentally about fairness and which should, as has been said, have been resolved many decades ago.

The motion addresses the rights of just over 1 million UK pensioners who live overseas. We are talking about those who have paid national insurance on the basis that the payments made to the UK Exchequer entitle an individual to a UK state pension. When someone makes national insurance contributions, building up their entitlement, there is nothing that suggests that their right to a full pension will be determined by where they choose to live in future. Each individual has earned that entitlement, and it should be honoured. It is a simple matter of entitlement in what ought to be a contractual arrangement.

The Government repeatedly call the state pension a benefit, but that argument is undermined by the basic principle that entitlement is earned by making contributions. To achieve a full UK state pension, a person needs to have accrued 35 years of payments. In such a regime, why should someone’s place of domicile affect their rights? The UK is the only member state of the OECD that does not confer full pension rights, including the annual uprating of pensions, to those who have made contributions. It is simply not right that we discriminate against pensioners because of where they live; and let us make no mistake: that is what it is—discrimination. It is a failure of the United Kingdom to accept its responsibility to give full pension entitlement to those who have earned that right.

A person’s entitlement to the annual uprating of the state pension is determined by what country they live in. Some 679,000 UK pensioners who live in other countries do get the annual uprating, but there are 551,000 whose pensions are frozen at the level at which they first received their state pension when living abroad. Someone who is now aged 90 who had retired aged 65 in April 1991 would, had they qualified for pension uprating, now be receiving £119.31 per week; if their pension was frozen at the 1991 level, their weekly pension would be £52 per week. That is without justification. Such an individual would have lost out on £39,489 of pension income over a 25-year period as a consequence of their being in receipt of a frozen pension and denied their full rights. Think about what that means: by refusing to grant uprating, we are impoverishing our pensioners.

The average amount received by a pensioner with a frozen pension is just £2,258 per year, whereas the average for a pensioner living in the UK is £7,198 per year. We are denying pensioners income that rightfully ought to be theirs. Many will have to receive support from relatives, or perhaps they will have to return to the UK, where the cost of supporting such elderly residents is invariably higher when health and other social costs are taken into account. We also have to think about the fact that many people came to this country to work, often for many decades, and want to return to their country of origin in retirement. Such folk are put off by the reality of potentially being penalised through the receipt of a frozen pension. Where is the humanity in this? Where is the dignity in stopping people who have given long service to this country and paid their way retiring as they wish? They want to know that they will receive their full pension rights. This is a wrong that we must deal with. People who come to this country should not be penalised when they choose to go home.

Other countries see the current situation as a diplomatic grievance, and that will no doubt be a factor when the UK discusses trade deals. Other countries are going to turn around and say, “You want a decent relationship with us, but you are not prepared to treat your pensioners who live in our country fairly.” The fact that we are unique in the OECD in not accepting our obligations does not go down well with other Governments. We need to show leadership, and that we will stand by those who have earned a pension entitlement.

The International Consortium of British Pensioners has been mentioned by many speakers. I commend the consortium for the work it has been doing with the all-party group and the research it has conducted, which shows that because of the lower health and social care costs of somebody not living in this country, there is a saving of £1,575 for every pensioner who moves abroad. Such savings would partly offset the costs of annual uprating.

The House debated frozen pensions on 11 May last year. This debate follows other debates on this matter going back over the past few decades. The hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned Winston Churchill at the turn of the century; indeed, his grandson, also Winston Churchill, was involved in this matter, too. I have been sent a copy of a letter sent in 1993 by the younger Winston Churchill, the then Member for Davyhulme, to a retired pensioner living in Australia called Victor Humphries. Churchill stated in his letter that he hoped the

“Government may be shamed into taking steps to honour its commitment to expatriate pensioners”.

He went on:

“I have no doubt that if sufficient weight of Parliamentary support can be demonstrated for redressing this clear injustice, the Government will have no alternative but to back down.”

Winston Churchill was right in 1993, and all the Members who have spoken in this debate are right in 2017. It is shameful that, collectively, we have not yet dealt with this issue.

There is, of course, a topical aspect to the debate. Brexit hangs like a black cloud over this issue. Of the 679,000 UK pensioners who do receive an annual uprating, 492,000 are currently protected by the social security provisions of the EU single market. What is going to happen to the rights of those 492,000 UK pensioners post-Brexit? Will the Minister commit today to the continuation of the annual uprating for those living in EU member states? We often hear from the Government how they want to protect the rights of UK citizens living in Europe. Many of those citizens will be listening to or will hear about this debate. They will be concerned about their pension rights to the extent that, in the absence of any guarantees, many will consider whether they might not be able to afford to continue to live in an EU member state. The Minister can deal with that uncertainty today.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is inconceivable that this Government, or the Government after the election, would not guarantee uprating to British pensioners who live in the EU 27? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, it is therefore inconceivable that justice would not come at the same time for the people who have been denied it for so long. That would be discrimination of the worst sort.

[Ian Blackford]

I concur 100% with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. We have the opportunity today to deal with this matter and with the uncertainty facing UK citizens who live in Europe. That would be the right thing to do. As has been demonstrated, the cost of doing this for other British citizens would not be all that great. We can actually deal with this matter today if the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of good faith. As we go into the election campaign, I implore us all to make the commitment, collectively, to deal with the injustices we are discussing. If he so chooses, the Minister can remove the uncertainty today, or he can at least give us an indication that the Government are prepared to do something about this issue.

A further 186,000 UK pensioners live in countries with which the UK has a historical bilateral agreement on social security, including the US. A total of 551,000 UK citizens live in countries in which their pensions are frozen, with the largest numbers being in Australia where there are 246,000, and Canada where there are 144,000. The all-party group has met members of the Canadian diplomatic community, and I can tell the House that they are less than impressed with the behaviour of the UK Government on this matter. We are offending our international friends with our failure to take action.

We often hear about a postcode lottery; this is a national lottery, but one in which 551,000 British pensioners are paying the price. I am glad that the motion has cross-party support, and hope that the Minister will recognise the nature of that support and that we are all appealing to the Government to signal that there is an obligation on them to see sense on this matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope we will hear from him that the Government are prepared to take action. It is about doing the right thing, and standing up and recognising that all pensioners, irrespective of where they live, deserve to be treated equally.

When we consider that the Government are lifting the limit on the period that UK citizens may live abroad but vote here from 15 years to their entire lifetime, we have to ask why the Government would want to confer voting rights on UK pensioners but deny them full pension rights? Perhaps the Government should reflect on the fact that more than 1 million UK pensioners live overseas. Those pensioners may have a reason to want to register to vote in this coming election campaign, given the infringement of their pension rights. As the hon. Member for Worthing West mentioned, there are 264,000 registered overseas voters—400 per constituency. Can Members imagine the threat to MPs up and down this country if frozen pensioners and others decided that they were going to exercise their franchise? With an election coming, a rise in registrations may just help focus the mind of the Government. What drives the decision-making process of the Government? Is it cost saving, or is it about accepting our obligations to meet a commitment to paying pensions regardless of country of residence?

I appreciate that the Minister will have been told by the Treasury not to offer anything. I know that he is a loyal Government servant and I understand his position. Let me, if I may, try to help him by strengthening his arguments with the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during a debate on the Pensions Bill in the 2003-04 session, when acting as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury:

“If the system worked in the way that most people think, it would not matter where a person lived.”––[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2004; c. 256.]

I have to say that, on this occasion, I agree with him; it should not matter where a person lives. I appeal to the Minister to reflect on the words of his friend, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those words were spoken when the right hon. Gentleman was in opposition, but each and everyone one of us should be judged by our deeds in government. It is not good enough to say the right thing when in opposition and then, when in government, claim that it is all about cost. We should be judged by our deeds, and today we have that opportunity. I implore the Minister to do the right thing on this issue today.

I have faith that the Minister will listen to reasoned argument and recognise that this is an injustice that needs to be corrected. Let me deal with the issue of affordability. The Government like to claim that the cost of unfreezing pensions is unaffordable. Ministers have sometimes cited numbers in the billions, but any such claim is highly misleading. The motion for debate proposes the withdrawal of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations. That would include previously frozen pensions in this year’s 2.5% increase, which would cost £30 million. Assuming that this inclusion continued in subsequent years, the total cost would rise by around £30 million extra each year.

The ICBP has historically campaigned for pension parity, bringing currently frozen pensions up to UK levels immediately, which would cost £580 million, but that is not what is being proposed today. Any higher number cited by the Government involves looking at the cumulative cost over a longer period, which is not how new policies are usually assessed and is therefore misleading. The additional cost of uprating at 2.5% over the next five years would have a cost in year one of £30 million, rising to £33 million by year five, by which time it would have a cumulative cost of £158 million. Let me put that in context: the bill for UK state pensions is currently £86.8 billion. Partial uprating is equivalent to 0.03% of current pension spending.

Let me assist the Minister again. We are all aware that there is a separate national insurance fund, and we know from the Government Actuary’s Department that it is anticipated that that fund will have a surplus of £30.7 billion this year. Clearly, the cost of doing this can be met from the surplus that currently sits in the national insurance fund. Of course this is affordable. This is about our obligation to our pensioners and the human cost of not meeting those obligations. We need to listen to the voices of those who are discriminated against by our failure to pay full pension entitlement.

I will close now with some quotes. I know that the hon. Member for North Thanet has eloquently presented us with some human experiences, but let me just add to them, because at the end of the day it is the cost for the individuals that should concern us. Abhik Bonnerjee is 72 years old and now lives in Kolkata, India. After contributing to the British economy for 38 years, he is now scared of losing his home as he is struggling to survive on his frozen pension. He is considering moving to an unfrozen country. He said:

“The Government should be doing more, especially for Commonwealth countries, and MPs can’t explain why they are not.”

Bernard Jackson, 91, moved to Canada, but was forced to return to the UK in order to obtain his full pension. He said:

“I was brought up to believe that Britain was a fair country. It’s a disgrace, it has to end. It’s terrible to meet pensioners over here who say they have to come back to Britain because they can’t manage.”

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

This is an opportunity for the Minister to say today that Britain is still a fair country, so that the people can get social justice in other countries.

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful for that intervention. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is up to us to demonstrate that fairness. Why should people who have emigrated from the UK be put in this position? They have a pension entitlement, but they have to return here to get what is theirs. That cannot be right. That is not something that we should support.

Joe Lewis, 90, lives in Canada and has recently lost his wife. He will be moving back to the UK as he can no longer cope with his frozen pension. After suffering a severe fall, Joe is increasingly struggling to afford living and medical costs. The only way he can make ends meet is to use up all his savings. Joe says:

“All I want is my full state pension, which I have paid into my entire life.”

Why should Joe not get something for which he has paid? That is the salient point. Joe and everyone else we are talking about have paid national insurance. This is an entitlement.

George Gray, 77, now lives in South Africa. He paid national insurance for 48 years until reaching retirement at 65. He was completely unaware of frozen pensions until it came to applying for one. He states:

“I was even told that getting our state pension was not a right, but merely a benefit from the British Government that could be amended at any time - but I’ve paid for it all of my working life.”

Anne Puckridge, 90, now lives in Canada. She worked in the UK up to the age of 76, paying mandatory national insurance contributions, and now has a frozen pension. She says:

“The Government should be doing more, especially for Commonwealth countries, and MPs cannot explain why they are not.”

Jane Davies, 70, now lives in British Columbia, Canada. She worked in the NHS for more than 20 years, helping hundreds as she worked in rehabilitation and elderly care. She was unaware that pensions could be frozen. She has said:

“It’s outrageous when you think that it’s mainly Commonwealth countries that are affected, especially when Canadian pensioners living in the UK receive a full pension.”

That is why the Canadian Government are so exercised about this. They pay a full pension to their citizens living here, and yet we fail to reciprocate.

Wendy Moss now lives in Australia. She moved there in 2002 and was completely unaware that her pension would be frozen. She says:

“I am looking into a potential return to the United Kingdom, but need to ensure that my family can make the journey back with me.”

In conclusion, these stories are heartbreaking. Let this House show that we can deliver compassion and recognise injustice. Let the Government commit to fixing this issue before we go out and campaign. Let us show that we are prepared to do the right thing. When we are back, I will look forward to legislation being passed to fix this and to fix the injustices for the WASPI women as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

Well, it is about the subjectivity of those words, if I may say so. I will try to address some of the points he made, but I cannot successfully answer his cricket team question. However, given that our civil servants will probably have less to do over the next few weeks than they have had to do over the last few weeks, I will formally write to him. As a child, with “Wisden” and everything else, I would probably have been able to answer his question myself, but I am afraid I cannot do that now.

As I was about to say before I was hit for six by that intervention, the United Kingdom state pension is payable worldwide, regardless of the recipient’s country of residence or their nationality. I say that formally on the record because were I a member of the public watching the broadcast of this debate or reading it in Hansard, I could quite easily get the impression, when we talk about scandals and things like that, that people were leaving the country and not getting their pension at all. The state pension is paid to people who are entitled to it when they leave the country, but increased—“uprated” is the expression in this context—abroad every year only when the recipient is in certain areas: in the European economic area, Switzerland, or a country with which the UK has a specific reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating. This is a long-standing policy that has remained consistent for about 70 years, and, as has been said, it has been the policy of consecutive Governments of all persuasions.

I recognise that this subject arouses strong opinions, and some of the language used is very concerning. Please do not think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think that the language used has been improper in any way, but it is very strong language about people suffering hardship and so on.

[Ian Blackford]

Does the Minister appreciate that there is clear evidence that people who have gone to live abroad have come back because they do not feel they can manage on a frozen pension? There is clear evidence that people feel that they have been affected quite significantly by that situation.

[Richard Harrington]

I do not disagree with that, but people also return for many other reasons. When people decide to emigrate and live abroad, they do it for a number of reasons. They take into consideration the cost of living generally and the cost of property, or food, drink and entertainment—whatever it may be—and the pension is part of that. Similarly, when they decide to return, part of the reason might be whether their pension increases by the rate of inflation, but I suspect that there are many other reasons as well—for example, ill health, getting older, and family issues. I could not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said—in fact, I would never try to dispute what he says—but it is part of the picture and it is not right just to pick out that particular point.

I felt it my duty when taking on this portfolio to speak to as many people as possible. In November last year, I attended a meeting at Lancaster House—a very grand venue—where there were leaders from the overseas territories. It was a big Joint Ministerial Council. I met many of the people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, from Montserrat, the Falkland Islands and elsewhere. They were very impassioned people who gave a series of speeches that were basically saying the same thing. That has been reflected in what has been said today. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, referred to people not having parliamentary representation. That point was made strongly by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I was born and brought up in that constituency, so I accept what he said about its minority communities; I was a descendant of one of them. I could only say to the people at the conference that I was there to listen. It seemed from what they told me that Ministers of all persuasions have politely declined such an invitation before. I know that this is a very impassioned debate. People do feel very strongly about it, and it is not something that I take lightly.

Several contributors, including my hon. Friend, said that because all workers pay their national insurance contributions towards their state pension there is a moral right that they should receive an uprated state pension wherever they live. Moral rights are very subjective, but I know exactly what was meant. However, the rate of contribution paid has never earned entitlement to the indexation of pensions payable abroad. That reflects the fact that the scheme overall is primarily designed for those living in the UK, and it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. Contributions paid into the fund in any one year contribute to the expenditure in that year. That is the way that public finance works. The contributions provide a foundation for calculating the benefits, but they do not pay for those benefits.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned the national insurance fund. It is convenient to bring this up in debates, but in reality there is no surplus in the national insurance fund because it is all used to pay contributory benefits. It is basically a system of public accounting. The £16 billion that was mentioned is two months’ expenditure. It is just an advisory level for the fund suggested by the Government Actuary because it is a prudent working balance. It is not like having a bank account where we can say, “Oh, we’ve got a surplus—let’s use it.”

[Ian Blackford]

We all understand and accept that it is a pay-as-you-go system, but that does not detract from the fact that when someone pays national insurance, it is on that basis that they are earning entitlement from that mechanism. As for the national insurance fund, the surplus is actually £30 billion, and it needs to have—the Minister is right—two months’ cashflow within it, which is £16 billion. So the point remains the same—the money is there to do this.

[Richard Harrington]

I think, as we do on many things, the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that, but we both fully understand each other’s arguments, I am sure.

The point about cost has been made very coherently. The Government generally take the view, of course, that the first priority is to ensure that older people in this country have an adequate income in retirement. Uprating all state pension payments in full to the rate currently paid in the UK, regardless of the recipient’s country of residence, would cost about an extra £500 million a year, increasing significantly over time. While that may not have been specifically argued for in this debate, people in favour of the motion are talking about a moral argument, not a legal argument. Many of us are here because we believe in moral arguments generally in our political lives, and I hope in our personal lives as well. That is why many of us do the job, so please do not think that I am pooh-poohing the idea of a moral argument. However, both systems of calculating this could be seen as being based on a moral argument.

This debate has been predominantly about so-called partial uprating. I understand this to mean not to uprate fully but to uprate the current level of state pension that the person is receiving through the triple lock or equivalent from a future date, and only pay uprating going forward with no arrears. I had to look at that very carefully when I saw that we were having this debate, because partial uprating can mean different things in different contexts. It is superficially a very attractive argument to say, “We could do this because it’s a few million pounds a year—tens of millions, not hundreds or billions.” It is not like the cost involved in the case of the WASPI women; the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber correctly mentioned that some independent research has been done on that, which I have read very carefully. That would cost billions of pounds, but this is about tens of millions of pounds, which, on the face of it, sounds like small change within the full scale of Government expenditure.