| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Jones of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak for the first time in this House after spending the past 13 years in another place, and I hope that noble Lords will be tolerant as I learn the ropes. I particularly want to thank all those who have been so kind and helped me during the first few tentative weeks that I have spent here. In the short time that I have been here, I have admired the extraordinary array of talent and experience on these Benches—per head, probably one of the finest gatherings of brain power in the world.
I do not believe that I was regarded as something of a rebel in the other place, but I regard it as suspicious that two of my former Chief Whips joined the House at the same time as I did, no doubt to keep an eye on my activities. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Tyler, dealt cautiously with me in the other place, and I hope to receive the same sort of treatment from my new Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and his assistants—although I am deeply suspicious of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, who shares an office with me.
A couple of years ago, my cardiologist, who was Welsh, told me that if I carried on with what he called, "This 80-hour week lark", I would be taken out in a box. He suggested, "Something more gentle". I do not know whether he had this House in mind or whether he used his influence with the powers that be, who decide who enters this House; but I must say that things seem to be more gentle at this end of the corridor so far.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on securing the debate, and I particularly wanted to contribute because, over the years, I have come across a number of cases showing the effects of this injustice. Surely, it cannot be right that people who have made the same pension contributions should be treated differently because of where they choose to live during their retirement.
I want to use the example of a lady called June, who used to be one of my constituents in Cheltenham. June's son went to Canada and made his life there; when she retired from work, latterly in the probation service, she had intended to move to Canada to be near
25 Oct 2005 : Column 1143
to, but not to live with or to be dependent on, her son and his family. Then she found out about the frozen pensions rule. She imagined that it was an administrative glitch and that Parliament would soon sort it out—so she waited. The rule did not change, so after almost a decade of frustration she went to Canada anyway because, as she told me, "I shall be dead if I do not go". She is now nearly 80 and tells me that she rarely eats meat. She does not want to be a burden on her son and his family and, like many other British citizens in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, she is angry about being cheated out of what she sees as her proper pension. As she points out, if her son had made his life in the USA or the Costa Brava, she would not be penalised by such improper treatment. Instead of being good ambassadors for Britain, those people are bitter at being let down by financial discrimination that they find hard to understand.
I shall make two further points. First, with regard to pensioners living in overseas British territories it seems bizarre that, except for those living in Bermuda, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas on Cyprus, pensioners entitled to a British state pension who live in British overseas territories fall foul of the frozen pension rule. When I was in the other place, I tabled a Parliamentary Question asking how many pensioners living in British Overseas Territories were victims of that regulation. The answers, given in a Written Answer on 23 February 2004 were:
"Anguilla 148 . . . British Virgin Islands 42 . . . Cayman Islands 95 . . . Falkland Islands (including South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) 37 . . . Montserrat 154 . . . St. Helena and Dependencies 71"—
that is, including Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, and,
There are currently none in the British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory or Pitcairn Island, although last week I met the commissioner from Pitcairn Island, who tells me that he will be caught by the regulations. That makes a total of 562 people. In the two other British Overseas Territories where the pension is not frozen, in Bermuda and Gibraltar, a total of 1,454 received the annual uprating of their pensions. So almost three-quarters of those who qualify living in overseas territories are treated properly.
I also asked what it would cost to unfreeze those pensions without paying arrears; the estimate for the year 2003–04 was less than £500,000. So I suggest that the Government consider unfreezing pensions for all those living in British Overseas Territories as soon as possible. They are British, they live on British soil, and the cost in Treasury terms would be the equivalent of loose change.
Finally, I want to make a suggestion to the Government that, I believe, will help with their proper desire to make poverty history, and in particular to help the people of Africa. There are pensioners in this country who have skills that would be valuable to countries in Africa and to all developing countries, if
25 Oct 2005 : Column 1144
only they could be persuaded to spend their active retirement in those developing countries. Unfortunately, the prospect of their state pension being frozen will deter many people who might otherwise choose to do that. Importantly, there are some countries that are facing population loss, mainly because of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Botswana, for example, according to a population projection in the latest update to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, may lose a quarter of its population in the next 15 years. President Mogae of Botswana is actively encouraging experienced citizens from the UK and elsewhere to go and help his country and, incidentally, to live in a civilised environment with lovely people. Abolishing the frozen pensions rule would give British citizens the choice of spending their retirement making a real difference.
I believe that the Government should produce up-to-date estimates of how much it would cost to put right the injustice of all frozen pensions. There is a prize awaiting the government who sort out the problem. As British citizens, those who suffer from frozen pensions have votes in British parliamentary elections. Those votes could swing the result of tight elections. The great civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King once said:
I urge the Government to look carefully at this injustice and take steps to eradicate it.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, this is a first for me. Never before have I risen to speak immediately after the delivery of a maiden speech. It is a real pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, despite his misgivings, on a speech most fluently delivered, which showed a real knowledge, sympathy and understanding of the plight of expatriates, coupled with some constructive suggestions about how these things may be put right. We shall look forward to his further contributions in this House. I offer him, on behalf of us all, a very warm welcome.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who introduced this debate—we are deeply grateful to her for this opportunity—I have deep regrets. I am not sure that "regrets" really covers how I feel. For many years, both in the other place and here, I have felt strongly and keenly the sheer injustice that is done to those expatriate citizens who happen to live in the wrong country. That is what it amounts to. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, the arbitrariness of it which is so infuriating. I do not believe that there is any justification, and I hope that no government Minister will seek to take refuge in the judgment against Annette Carson. As was so rightly said, this was on whether human rights had been infringed, and nothing whatever to do with government policy. It is high time that, after many years, the Government put right this injustice. I do not pretend that the Government whom I supported when they were in office were any better on this matter. They can share equal opprobrium on the subject as far as I am concerned.
25 Oct 2005 : Column 1145
It seems to me extraordinary that if some people who go abroad are not to enjoy these rights, others should do so simply because they are members of the European Union, or where there is a reciprocal arrangement. There is no logic in that whatever. It would be harsh, but at least logical, if anyone living abroad was not entitled to an uprating of the pension—not that I am advocating that for one moment. To have some who are and some who are not, however, is quite unjustifiable. The illustration of the Canadian/USA border is extremely apt, and shows to the full the sheer folly of this particular arrangement.
Of course, it falls far more heavily on those who retired many years ago, when the pension was much less than it is now. Indeed, there was a case—recently, I think—of somebody who died in their 90s, who was receiving a pension of some miserable £6.95 a week. Almost unbelievable. Therefore, those who are very elderly are in a far worse plight than anyone else.
It is my understanding that this arrangement was intended to be temporary when the government of the day dealt with the uprating of the pensions. I am emboldened in this because, back in 2000 when I had a Question on the subject, there was an intervention by the late Lord Shore of Stepney. It is worth while quoting what he said:
this was addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, who then had responsibility for these matters—
"at least think very hard about this issue? I remember dealing with this matter in Cabinet some years ago. There was never any question but that, morally, our fellow citizens who worked for us here in Britain and who then migrated overseas were entitled to a pension by virtue of their paid-in contributions. We did not update the pension because of the chronic shortage of foreign exchange, but morally the case was clear. When we were controlling capital movement, when tourists could spend only £50 a year abroad, and when all kinds of restrictions faced us, we could not do it, but morally these people have a right to a pension. Will the Government fulfil that obligation at the earliest moment?".—[Official Report, 3/4/00; col. 1082.]
The reference to the £50 travel restriction takes us back many years. This is a long-standing grievance which needs to be put right.
I am aware, of course, of the cost. Let us make no mistake about it—it is a matter of cost. This is what has influenced every administration from that time to the present day. I make an alternative suggestion to that of the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham. Would it not at least be possible to uprate—not backdate—the pensions from whatever point in time the decision was made, for those aged 80 or over? They are the ones most at risk. I would seriously ask the Government at least to think about this, if they cannot go, as I would wish them to, for total uprating. Then, at least, we would know that those who get frailer and older, who may well be of the war generation, would have some comfort in the last years of their life. I urge at least this compromise upon the Minister tonight.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |