They cite other priorities for spending. Yet:

It would cost Britain less than 3/4 of one percent (£300 million/year) of the UK pensions budget to end this discriminatory practice.

Fraud in the Social Security system was recently estimated by the Government to cost them as much as £7 billion every year.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having again allocated funds to increase the rates and uprate all except frozen pensions, has announced the allocation of a further £2.5bn to be used so that "...thousands of pensioners will be relieved from poverty." This follows earlier words by the Chancellor in the same speech (HoC, 98 07 14), "At the heart of our review has been a determination that we fulfil our duty to the oldest members of our society."

Though obviously trying to minimize social security expenses, Britain has the strongest EU economy and has proved to have by far the best funded pension plan of any EU country.

This strength to some significant degree is being accomplished on the backs of 460,000 of their expatriates and the taxpayers of 150 other countries throughout the Commonwealth and around the world.

The UK Government says it cannot afford to treat all pensioners equally. Thus, sadly,it chooses to ignore the moral argument, clearly raised in the Select Committee Hearings, and repeatedly on the floor of the House.

It says those countries where pensions are uprated have a reciprocal agreement with Britain. But Britain does not need a reciprocal agreement to end pension discrimination. It can be achieved with a simple change in domestic regulation*. Furthermore for twenty years Britain has refused to sit down with the leading Commonwealth countries to discuss a reciprocal agreement on this issue.

* Confirmed again by the Pension Minister - Hansard 99 03 10

In the conclusion of their report (January 29, 1997), following the recent Select Committee Hearings, the Committee conceded that:

It would clearly be impractical to negotiate individual bilateral agreements with each of the other countries in the world where people draw British state retirement pensions, and, in any case unnecessary; a simple change in British law could enable upratings to be paid in any or all overseas countries, provided the political will was there to do so.

Quotable Quotes

"You deserve the nation's thanks. May we, your fellow countrymen, be worthy of what you did for us."

(H.M. the Queen on Normandy beach during the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the end of World War II to the hero generation (of whom many are the very pensioners seeking parity).

The Social Security Committee recommended in December 1997:

"that there should be a free vote at prime time to allow Members (of the House of Commons) to express their opinion on the principle of whether the Government should pay upratings to some or all of those pensioners living in countries where upratings are not paid at present."

"Surely no one would have deliberately designed a policy of paying pensions to people living abroad intending to end up in the position we are in today It is impossible to discern any pattern behind the selection of countries"

(Extract from the Conclusion to Third Report of the Social Security Committee obtainable from The Publications Centre, P.O. Box 276, London,SW8 5DT - telephone +44 (0)171 873 9090 - fax +44 (0)171 873 8200)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood, M.P., on 8th March, 1991, wrote to the Secretary-General of WABEP as follows:

"The Liberal Democrats support the case for the payment of cost of living pension increases to British pensioners living abroad. The All Party Parliamentary Group for Pensioners, of which I am an office bearer, has played some active part in the campaign which is taking place to press the Government to pay these increases."

Rt. Hon. Frank Field, now Social Security Minister, in 1996 said during the course of a BBC phone-in hosted by Mr. Nick Ross that

"it would be outrageous, indefensible and even criminal if a private insurance company failed to meet its obligations".

In 1988, Mr. Nicholas Scott, M.P., then Secretary-of-State agreed that

"reciprocal agreements are NOT necessary to pay pensions to all beneficiaries living abroad at the same rates as those paid in the United Kingdom."

Sir Norman Fowler when Secretary of State for Social Services made it abundantly clear in his 1983 Green Paper that inter alia:

"in return for contributions, benefits would be given as of right, all insured people, rich or poor, would pay the same contribution for the same security."

When Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1986, Mr. John Major said: "...... we are keen to continue the technical preparatory discussions that are going on at the moment so that when we have the financial resources, we shall be able to proceed with the minimum delay". (Hansard page 403: 23 April 1986)

The following is an extract from the British Government Green Paper published in early 1999 entitled:

"Partnership in Pensions "A new contract in welfare"

"Everyone entitled to a UK pension should be able to get access to good quality welfare services, wherever in the world they happen to be. Increasingly, many people who build up their pension entitlement in the UK move abroad when they retire. We mean to ensure that these customers also get the best possible service. We will improve liaison with foreign authorities. We will make better use of new technology".

Rt. Hon. Jeff Rooker MP said in the house on 13^th of November 2000 that he was not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it.

Early day motions has had as many as 300? Signatures of British MPÕs.   

Courtesy Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners