Pensions: Expatriates

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate and for putting his case so well on a subject that has been brought to the House’s attention on numerous occasions, both in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. There are several people in the Public Gallery today who have been involved in the campaign; we thank them for all their correspondence to ensure that we can follow the campaign on behalf of so many British people. Just last week, I was working on some cases in my office. These issues occur regularly, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said.

As we are all aware, the Government’s policy on freezing state pensions for British pensioners living overseas affects some half a million pensioners and is fundamentally unfair. I believe that it is morally unfair, because it penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. They have done the same as everybody else and have paid national insurance contributions and tax. They made a contribution to the society that they lived in. Today they are being penalised, and it is grossly unfair.

People who have worked for their entire life in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being denied the annual pension increases granted to UK residents simply because they chose to retire abroad, often to be closer to family. As they get older, they want to support their family, but their family also want to support them, so there is a physical necessity. People want to make the most of their savings elsewhere, as anyone is entitled to do. For example, a pensioner in Australia or Canada, where pensions are frozen, might receive some £7,000 annually, while UK-based pensioners get more than £11,000 annually as a result of triple-lock upgrading.

There is a real differential and a real problem to be addressed. Over time, inflation diminishes the value of frozen pensions, pushing some expat pensioners into poverty. That has an impact not just on them, but on the countries in which they now live. In extreme cases, pensioners have reported surviving on pensions worth less than £20 a week in real terms. Nobody could survive on that—it is impossible. We ask the Minister to give us some support and give us something to tell our constituents and their families.

The freeze is fundamentally unjust. It penalises pensioners who have earned their state pension through decades of national insurance contributions. I think of Anne Puckridge, a 100-year-old world war two veteran who served in all three branches of our armed forces decoding messages during the war. After working in the UK until the age of 76, way beyond her pension years, and paying all her taxes and national insurance, she moved to Canada in 2001 to be near her daughter. Her daughter wanted her to be there, and she wanted to support her daughter. Her pension was frozen at £72.50 per week, rather than the £169.50 she would receive in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has resulted in an estimated loss of £60,000 over 23 years.

When Mrs Puckridge notified the Department for Work and Pensions of her move, she was not informed that her pension would be frozen. At no stage was it intimated to her, “Look, if you go there, this is going to happen.” Because of that false pretence—because it did not disclose the full facts of the case—I believe that the DWP stands accused in the moral court of law for how it treated this lady. She only discovered the situation when her first expected increase did not arrive. She stated:

“It’s the injustice of it that is so unfair, the fact that we were never warned.”

They were never told. That is disgraceful.

As other hon. Members have said, the widespread lack of transparency is reminiscent of the lack of transparency with WASPI women. The all-party parliamentary group on frozen British pensions has reported that nearly 90% of all affected pensioners were unaware of the policy before moving. Given that those half a million British pensioners have paid into the national insurance system throughout their working life, does the Minister consider it fair to deny them the annual pension increases that residents of the United Kingdom receive?

An especially important factor is that the affected pensioners are not adding to the pressures on public services such as the NHS on their retirement. When people get to 79 or 80, their impact on the national health service will be greater. They may have complex needs. Their age is agin them. Very clearly, their dependence on the NHS at that stage is much greater. If we take that out of the equation and they go to Canada, America or Australia, there is a real saving to the NHS. There will be no prescriptions either. I speak as someone who takes 14 tablets a day just to stay alive; most of them have to do with diabetes, but that is by the way. If someone is saving the NHS all that money, is only right that that be considered in the financial equation.

The findings in the 2020 inquiry report of the APPG on frozen British pensions indicate that the policy affects war veterans and even some members of the Windrush generation, who have returned to their country of birth but now face economic hardship as a result of this policy. The Windrush generation caught the imagination of this great nation. I became aware of their case through being an MP, and it is a really justifiable one. They are now being penalised if they decide to go back home to be close to their families, having come here, worked all their days and paid their national insurance contributions and taxes.

As the current policy is leaving expat British pensioners having to return to the UK, I ask again whether the Minister will conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether ending the freeze might reduce long-term costs by preventing the need to repatriate. The cost factor is of such magnitude that a review might persuade the Government to ensure that expatriates get their pension.

The freeze is also morally indefensible. It punishes a perfectly valid legal choice to live abroad, and it ignores the contributions that these pensioners made to the economy and to our society. Many moved abroad with a reasonable expectation that their pension, a right earned through years of work, would retain its value. The arbitrary distinction between countries with and without an operating agreement lacks logics and smacks of red tape and bureaucracy gone mad: pensions increase in the US but not in Canada or Australia, for example. We always used to blame the EU for bureaucracy. We might blame it again, of course; later today I presume that we will have a statement in the Chamber on the UK-EU deal, so we will have a chance to go over the past once again.

I support the APPG’s recommendations. It is time to end the frozen pension policy and provide full uprated pensions to British expat pensioners as soon as possible. I believe that that stance is supported by evidence from the Governments of Australia and Canada, with which we have a good working relationship. Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to the relevant Ministers in those Governments? It is not that they are telling the UK what to do, but I understand that they have suggested that we may need reform. If the Minister has had the opportunity to talk to them, what has come out of those talks?

It is unjust to penalise pensioners for living abroad when they have paid into the system like everyone else. By uprating pensioners globally, the UK would honour its moral and economic obligations and ensure that members of the post-war generation that rebuilt Britain can retire with the security that they deserve, wherever they choose to live. Today is an opportunity to make that request and that plea again, and to ask our new Minister to look at the issue in a positive way and consider all the cost factors. There are many things in the pot that should be looked at once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

There must be a legal basis for making payments. However, the hon. Member is right to say that under the specific policy I am setting out, payments are made only when there is a legal requirement to do so. As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon set out right at the beginning, that is a long-standing policy that has lasted for 70 years. For many years, the priority for successive Governments of all parties has been to prioritise those living in the UK when making difficult spending decisions on pensioner benefits. That was true of the coalition Government, when a Lib Dem Pensions Minister chose for five years not to make any progress on this issue. He did that under a Conservative Government and a Conservative Prime Minister all the way through.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—my constituency neighbour—mentioned Lloyd George, who introduced a state pension with no uprating whatever. The first uprating of the contributory state pension in 1946, under the Attlee Government—again, I am making a point about the cross-party basis of some of these decisions—was not paid to pensioners living abroad. So since the beginning, policy on pension uprating has been consistent.

As we have discussed, people move abroad for many reasons—to be with their family, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) set out, enjoy a particular climate or return to their country of birth. It is for individuals, not the Government, to make those decisions, but when they make them, they will of course consider the impact on their finances, alongside a wide range of other factors. As the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) set out, our duty is to ensure that information regarding the effect of living abroad on the state pension entitlement is available. These days, that is on gov.uk, and includes information on where the uprating does and does not occur.

Pensioners who have retired to other countries will obviously take into account the UK state pension position, but they will also look at the wider provision for pensioners in those countries. Many countries will have a means-tested provision that is similar to the UK pension credit. It is true that the real-terms value of some people’s state pension will fall over time, but in most cases, particularly in the countries that have been mentioned today, that will be compensated for by higher means-tested payments when they are living abroad.

It is also important that further advice can be obtained from the International Pension Centre or the Pension Service. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked whether there is more we can do, and I want to be clear that I am always open to new ideas about what more we can do to communicate what happens to the state pension if people choose to retire abroad. More generally, I am happy to meet with any hon. Members who have suggestions in that area.

[Jim Shannon]

I gave the example—others will have similar examples—of a constituent who had moved to Canada. She phoned the DWP to ascertain her pension obligations and responsibilities, and was assured that her pension would follow her, but quite clearly it did not. The Minister outlined a system whereby it should be able to follow her, but that lady went a stage further—she actually phoned the Department, which told her that it would not matter and she would still receive her pension—and quite clearly it did not.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that story. I have not heard of specific cases like that, and he might like to write to me about it. The position with respect to Canada is clear: somebody can take their state pension with them, but the uprating will not be paid once they are living in Canada. That is what the gov.uk website spells out. However, I am open to talking about individual cases and to hearing suggestions about what more we can do to communicate clearly, because this is an important issue.

Of the 1.1 million state pension recipients overseas, 652,000 live in countries where pensions are uprated. However, I do not want to hide from what that means, because that is why we are here today; as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, it means there are more than 400,000 pensioners living in countries where uprating is not paid. By volume, those are in the countries that have been mentioned most today: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Many hon. Members have spoken eloquently of the impact of living in a country where that uprating is not paid, and I have heard about it myself in correspondence from those affected, as I have said.

That does not mean that we can wish away the real trade-offs that are involved. There would be significant additional costs to be borne by current taxpayers if uprating were extended to everybody living overseas, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North calls for. The cost of increasing all state pensions in payment to current UK levels would be approximately £0.9 billion a year, as has been mentioned. If there were any above-inflation uprating, it would then increase gradually over time.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

Let me get through the discussion of the costs, and then I will take any interventions on that issue.

I recognise that many campaigners are asking for indexation in future, not for retrospective indexation, although there are obviously disagreements among campaigners about the exact ask to prioritise. However, arguing that we can simply put in place indexation going forward does not escape the need to recognise the real trade-offs involved. The long-term impact would be the same, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) explained. In the end, moving to forward-looking indexation would take us to the same increase in spending levels as would immediately lifting people up to the current level of the basic and new state pension. It is the same effect in the long-run, and we owe it to everyone to make financial decisions based on the long-run effects of the policies that we call for.

There are wider considerations about the net financial effects of these decisions. The hon. Member for Strangford and others raised the issue of health expenditure. To get to a wider understanding of the net effects, we have also to take into account where income is taxed and where it is spent. That does not get us away from the underlying point, which is that, focusing narrowly on the question of uprating, the costs are as I have set out.