|
as personally known to Richard Corner (updated June 2003)
1. 43% of British State pensioners outside the United Kingdom receive the annual increase as paid in the UK whilst 57% do not. 333,000 living in 30 countries receive it whilst 433,000 in 189 do not. This discrimination is based solely on country of residence. The deprived claim no more than contribution-related pensions in line with their contemporaries elsewhere in the world. 2. In Dick's experience from 25th March 1981 to date none, whether inside or outside Parliament, have denied the existence of the inequity. It is acknowledged in the Third Report of the Social Security Committee published on 29 January 1997. 3. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ("Ombudsman") indicated his sympathy but is unable to apply a remedy as the injustice does not amount to maladministration and is thus not within his terms of reference. (1982) 4. The European Commission of Human Rights accepted the British Government argument at the time (of the need for reciprocal agreements), noted that it had not signed relevant Protocols and ruled that the remedy lay in a change in British legislation. On these grounds Dick's personal application (No.11271/84) was declared inadmissible. 5. Four years later however, in 1988, the then Minister-of-State agreed with Dick "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". This change in Government stance is of especial significance in countries where parity between social security schemes of host governments and that in the UK is unlikely ever to be achieved.Understandably, the British Government make parity an essential prerequisite for such bilateral agreements. It also relevant to note that, extant reciprocal agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand have produced no remedy. 6. When Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1986, Mr. John Major advanced the excuse of cost to reject a case made in the House of Commons for an end to the discrimination. On that same day (St. George's Day), he also 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 implied promise has yet to be fulfilled. 7. However, whilst Mr. Major was still in office there was a surplus in 1989 of £2 BILLION in the Fund against a then estimated cost of £205 MILLION (described by one Minister as "a modest sum"). A surplus of £3 billion in the Fund was also an expected at the end of 1993. The 1994/95 cost was first estimated by Government at £275 million but was later revised by computerised calculation to £230 million (less than 0.3% of the National Insurance Fund budget). 8. The Government had the resources but not the will to act and it persisted with "cost" as an obstacle to payment. Eleven years earlier in September 1982, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had agreed to the contrary that it was not a simple matter of cost; he wrote: "it is a question of competing priorities to available funds".It has been pointed out time and again to the British Government that there can be no moral justification for giving this long standing injustice less than top priority. There is ample evidence of lesser claims being met. 9. The importance of reducing the British deficit was applauded by pensioners but they maintain that this must be at the expense of the rogues and vagabonds who abuse the social security system and not of pensioners who have paid their contributions. Savings, of which the Minister was rightly proud at the time, arising from his anti-abuse campaign far exceed the "cost" of "unfreezing" pensions. It could be held that failure to pay equitable pensions is also an abuse; an abuse of power by the British Government, our Paymaster. 10. On the grounds that they cannot be quantified, the Minister dismissed as irrelevant factual savings in the Social Security and Health budgets arising from residence overseas of aggrieved pensioners.At least he tacitly admitted them to be real. There is no doubt that they are substantial with an estimate of £250 million per annum (based on figures quoted in Hansard (27 November 1992 Pages 876/878) in respect of the over-75's alone. They certainly significantly exceed the cost of redress of the inequity. 11. For years many pensioners throughout the world were ignorant of the fact that their contemporaries in some countries outside Britain were receiving annual increments whilst they were not. In a letter published in Issue No.31 of THE INTERNATIONAL in September, 1990 Dick wrote: "In terms of fair play, natural justice, logic, humanity or indeed on any other account, this discrimination cannot in all conscience be acceptable". The response was such as to persuade this Financial Times publication to run full-page articles the following November and again in February 1991. The latter bore the apt headline "Twilight robbery". The movement gained impetus worldwide from then on and in October 1992 Dick established an informal international communications centre. 12. The only remedy appeared to lie in a change in UK legislation whilst well supported Early Day Motions serve to encourage the Cabinet to pay attention. Dick therefore invited Mr. Churchill on 28th August, 1992, to table the following: THAT this House requests and requires that discrimination as between British State pensioners be removed without delay so that all no matter where they live are paid at the same rate according to their contributions. 13. After an exchange of correspondence, Mr. Churchill kindly introduced his own version in the form of EDM 915 during the 1992/93 Session of Parliament. It was endorsed by 229 British M.Ps. 14. In April, 1993 increases in the rate of National Insurance contributions paid by employees and their employers were suspended but the subject pensions remained frozen. 15. Her Majesty the Queen, as a Constitutional Monarch cannot become involved. (1993) 16. In the following Parliamentary Session (1993/94) Mr. Churchill tabled a further pertinent EDM (No.205).Co-ordinated from the "one man" international communications centre in the Wilderness, national pensioner organisations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe organised a massive onslaught of supportive letters from their members to arrive in London mid April, 1994. 17. Mr. Churchill and others presented our cause with conviction during a 27 minute adjournment debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6th July, 1994 but the Minister predictably responded with long since discredited excuses and ended the debate with: " I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of our being able to increase our expenditure by adding to spending on pensions overseas." 18. 14 days later in the House of Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie asked the Government:"Whether they will now cease the practice of freezing the pensions of British nationals living overseas at their level on departure from the United Kingdom" (Hansard 20 July 1994 - Pensions: UK Nationals Overseas - p.230 et al.) The replies of Viscount Astor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Social Security in the ensuing debate, again predictably reiterated Government's arguments. 19. In a letter to Mr. Winston S. Churchill, M.P., (Sept. 1994) the Prime Minister John Major referred to "competing demands for IMPROVEMENTS to our S.S. scheme". WABEP reminded the PM that aggrieved pensioners seek NOT IMPROVEMENTS but contribution-related rates in line with their contemporaries. 20. BAPA, Australia proposed and it was agreed that w.e.f. 5th September, 1994, Dick's informal international communications centre would be named the World Alliance of British Expatriate Pensioners and his title be Secretary-General.Simultaneously the British Retirement Pensions Society in Durban and 1,850 pensioners in South Africa on Dick's books were absorbed by the newly formed South African Alliance of British Pensioners. 21. The opportunity was taken to introduce an amendment to the Pensions Bill (HL) at its second reading in the House of Lords on 24 January, 1995.Others were put during the Committee stage on 20th February and again on 14th March but they did not succeed. Lords Braine of Wheatley (Con), Lord Stallard (Lab) and a former Solicitor General were among our champions. 22. A little after midnight on 5th July, 1995, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, M.P., moved an appropriate Amendment to the same Bill at the Report stage in the House of Commons. The late hour and Whips of both Parties ensured that it would not succeed. 23. There could have been none more disappointed than BAPA which had employed the greater part of their resources to appoint professional parliamentary lobbyists in London during the proceding months. 24. In June 1995 the Department of Social Security presented the HOC Social Security Committee with a Memorandum entitled "The Uprating of State Retirement Pensions payable to people resident abroad". It made the case for Government intransigence BUT completely ignored entirely valid counter arguments of WABEP and others well known to the Department. 25. The Secretary-General of WABEP immediately submitted a paper to the Social Security Committee correcting the errors and omissions. The response from the Committee on 31st July, 1995 was that it "has no present plans to inquire into this subject". 26. The terms of reference of the International Court of Justice at The Hague are so limited as to authorise it to receive requests for advisory opinions from only 22 organisations in the world and the World Alliance of British Expatriate Pensioners (WABEP), by its nature, is not one. (1995) 27. There has been ever increasing all Party Parliamentary support for Mr. Churchill's EDMs of 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995/96 & 1996/97. More than half the House have signed them in recent years and in addition, there are those MPs., who are sympathetic but, being in office, are unable to do so.Sadly Mr. Churchill is no longer a Member of Parliament. Long time supporter, Mr. Michael Colvin, M.P., succeeded him as our principal champion in the House. 28. In October 1995 the Secretary-General realised that the key figure in the fight for justice at that time was Mr. Frank Field, M.P., Chairman of the all-Party Social Security Select Committee. With the Pension Bill behind them he recommended that Members of WABEP concentrate their efforts in that quarter. 29. By fax on 17th July, 1996 the Secretary-General of WABEP drew Mr. Field's attention to his words (not in the context of "frozen pensions") in 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". WABEP's conclusion was "that he (Field) had a duty to set up an enquiry without delay into the 'frozen' pension issue from which a recommendation to redress this indisputable inequity would surely ensue". 30. In reply dated 22 July, 1996, the Clerk of the Social Security Committee in the House of Commons reported that the Committee planned to hold oral hearings in December and invited Dick to "consider with Mr. Douglas Ross of Canada and Mr. Brian Havard of Australia how the interests of British expatriate pensioners might best be represented in evidence to the Select Committee". 31. The Committee at its meeting on 16th October, 1996 agreed to take evidence from a four man WABEP delegation comprising Dick Corner WABEP, Brian Havard (BAPA), John Robinson (SAABP) and Douglas Ross (CABP) on Wednesday 4th December in the Palace of Westminster. With Mr. Frank Field, M.P., (Labour) in the chair, the 11 Members questioned delegates for a half an hour or so.Media coverage of this session, arranged by Douglas Ross (CABP), was extensive and supportive. Two weeks later, on the 18th December, 1996, Mr. Oliver Heald, M.P., Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security, supported by two officials from the DSS were likewise questioned by the Committee. 32. Delegates received verbatim reports of both sessions promptly (House of Commons Stationery Office £13.60) which together with pre- and post-hearing written submissions and a televised record now form part of British Government archives. 33. The Committee may or may not opt to make a recommendation to the House of Commons. It made the following: "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." 34. One of the rules governing applications to the European Commission of Human Rights precludes applications until the highest authority in the land has rejected appeals for justice. Thus the Committee's recommendation in effect postpones action in that quarter. 35. Action was further delayed by the announcement that elections would take place in May 1997.WABEP therefore marked time pending the next Session of Parliament. 36. As soon as relevant ministerial appointments in the New Labour government had been announced WABEP and its constituents moved back into action to urge an early amendment to the Regulations to permit payment of increments world-wide. 37. Principal but not only target became the Minister of State in the Department of Social Security. The Rt. Hon. Frank Field, M.P., was Chairman of the very Committee to which the WABEP had submitted oral evidence the previous December. The current need is to engender political will and to this end, the Secretariat emphasised savings to British taxpayers arising from absence overseas of disadvantaged pensioners. 38. On 7th September, 1997, WABEP responded to an invitation from Mr. John Denham, M.P., Chairman of the Government Pensions Review Team, by submitting a case for an early thaw of frozen pensions. In response he forecast that frozen pensions would not be an issue to be considered by the Team.The Green Paper confirmed this in due course. 39. Government continued its stone walling tactic throughout based on their assertion that there were more worthy claims to available funds. We rejected this view but the Minister ignored our invitation to list them. 40. An Application (No. 38882/97) submitted in his own name by Brian Havard (President of the British Australian Pensioners' Association) was rejected by the European Commission of Human Rights early in 1999.(Note: Submissions to this Commission can be made only by individuals.) 41. Whereupon Mr. Michael Colvin, M.P., thought it important to raise the matter in a Plenary Session of the Council of Europe (of which he is a Member) in that same month (February 1999). 42. However officials directed him to the European Commission for Human Rights but their lawyers were of the view that the Commission is not the right body to whom appeals might be launched. (Our experience seems to confirm this!)They felt that a better bet is the European Court of Justice because it could be argued that the British Government has practised discrimination and an appeal might be attempted under Article 177 of the European Charter. 43 Mr. Colvin is exploring this with experts in the House of Commons Library and will also consider whether to table yet another EDM in the next Session of Parliament. 44. A debate on the Welfare Reform & Pensions Bill in the House of Lords on 13 July 1999 proved more than disappointing in that the noble Lords appeared ill informed and/or ill advised. Our cause was not strengthened by one urging Government to negotiate reciprocal agreements with host governments of disadvantaged pensioners. This is not an option. 45. At the end of February 2000, Mr. Michael Colvin MP., our champion in the House of Commons, and his wife died when fire destroyed their country house in Hampshire. 46. Whilst by WABEP and its Member Organisations have continued to be active over the years, there have been peaks and lows of obvious progress. The New Millennium brought with it a peak. 47 In March 2000, Australian Minister Jocelyn Newman gave 12 months notice to the British Government of her Government's intention to withdraw from its Reciprocal Agreement with Britain because it continued to refuse to index the pensions of British State pensioners in her country.This decision was effective 1 March 2001. 48 On 24 October, 2000 the European Court of Human Rights noted Dick Corner's intention to apply for his Application No. 11271/84 to be reopened. The initiative had been prompted by the introduction that month of the Human Rights Act in Britain. In the meantime the South African Alliance of British Pensioners (SAABP)had instructed its lawyer in London. It was agreed that simultaneous legal action by both parties (in Strasbourg & in the UK) could be mutually prejudicial. On balance the Secretary-General decided therefore that as the SAABP action could be sufficient to cause the British Government to redress the inequity, our objective would be achieved.He therefore undertook to assist their solicitor to the best of his ability and to inform Strasbourg in due course that he did not intend to proceed. 49 There is little doubt that the current frenzy of activity stems from the Australian Government decision.The media generally has long since been supportive but perhaps a highpoint was the broadcast at prime time, just before the the 0900 News, on BBC Radio 4 on 16 October, 2000. Backed with recordings made by journalist Andrew Verity with Brian Havard, James Watt Tayler and the Secretary-General, Presenter Sue MacGregor did a fine job of exposing the shear nonsense of Minster Jeff RookersÍ replies. The impression most listeners must surely have had was of a Government with its back against the wall. 50 Baroness Amos did no better during a debate in the House of Lords on 22 January, 2001. Her disingenuous answers served greatly to arouse the wrath of pensioners from whom, it appears, she received a large number of letters of protest. Others appeared in Letters to the Editor of national newspapers that and following weeks. 51 The Canadian Alliance of British Expatriate Pensioners (CABP) made the most of a recent visit by British PM Tony Blair to Canada. At a Press conference in the House of Commons, Ottawa Mr. Sean Durkan said: "Mr. Blair, there are 140.000 British pensioners in Canada receiving frozen benefits. Britain is the only OECD country that does this. How do you justify somebody who has worked all their life in Britain coming to Canada and receiving 3 pounds a week as their full pension entitlement because you have frozen their pension for years? How does the fourth largest economy justify that? And I wonder, Mr. Chretien, did you raise the issue of British pensioners in Canada having their pensions cut back by the British government?." Mr. Chretien replied "Yes." and then turned to PM Blair who agreed that it had been discussed. His elaboration, punctuated throughout by Uhms and Ers, concluded: ".. and we will carry on discussing it but I cannot make any announcement on it this morning ....." 52 Arising out of legal advice sought in November 2000, the South African Alliance of British Pensioners (SAABP) applied for Judicial Review on 6th July 2001. Charles Poole, their President, has received from their solicitor Graham Chrystie of VSB a copy of British High Court papers which state that permission for Judicial review is granted. It adds: "the developments in the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 1 protocol No 1 make this application an arguable one. Furthermore the matter is of some public importance." 53 The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting that was first scheduled to take place from the 2nd to the 8th of October and will now take place In Queensland, Australia from 2nd to 5th March 2002. 54 Case No O/2704/2001 - The Queen on application of Carsen v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was heard in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Administrative Court No.10 before Justice Stanley Burnton on Monday, 15th and 16th April, 2002 and 8th May 2002. The 18 page Judgement was handed down on 22nd May, 2002. The Conclusion (paragraphs 76 & 77) reads)
55 The Appeal against this judgement was dismissed in the Supreme Court of Appeal in London on 17th June 2003. |