State Retirement Pensions

Department for Work and Pensions written question – answered at on 3 March 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Jones of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the regulations relating to frozen state pensions.

Photo of Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Jones of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people living in each of the Overseas Territories are in receipt of a UK state pension which is (1) frozen, or (2) uprated annually.

Photo of Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Jones of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people living in each of the countries of the Commonwealth are in receipt of a UK state pension which is (1) frozen, or (2) uprated annually.

Photo of Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Jones of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people living in each country of the EU are in receipt of the UK state pension which is currently uprated annually under EU regulations and reciprocal agreements, and what assessment they have made of what will happen to those pensions if the UK leaves the EU.

Photo of Lord Jones of Cheltenham Lord Jones of Cheltenham Liberal Democrat

To ask Her Majesty’s Government in which countries, excluding the Commonwealth, EU, or Overseas Territories, do people in receipt of the UK state pension receive annual uprating of their pension.

Photo of Baroness Altmann Baroness Altmann The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions

The Government has a clear position, which has remained consistent for around 70 years: UK state pensions are payable worldwide and uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement to do so for example in the European Economic Area or countries where we have a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating. There are no plans to change this.

Details of the numbers of people in receipt of the state pension, and whether they live in countries where the state pension is frozen or uprated, is included at Annex A. Countries where the UK state pension is up-rated are identified by an asterisk by the name of the country.

The Government’s view is that the UK will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed EU. Of course there is uncertainty about how a vote to leave the EU could impact on access to pensioner benefits for UK pensioners living in other parts of Europe. These questions would need to be answered as part of the process of negotiating the UK’s exit if there is a vote to leave. We could only consider the detail of access to pensions and benefits for people in receipt of UK state pensions who are resident in Europe as part of the process for leaving the EU.

Annex A (PDF Document, 86.85 KB)

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No28 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

Andy Robertson-Fox
Posted on 5 Mar 2016 8:45 am (Report this annotation)

LORD JONES, thank you for raising the frozen pensions issue yet again with the Minister and sadly the first paragraph of her reply is nothing more than the steriotype response her Deprtment have been churning out for years - although Baroness Altmann did quantify the length of time this disgraceful policy has remained consistent as opposed to calling it "long standing policy of successive governments".

Either way, of course, rather than make it sound as if it is some positive achievement to be boasted about this is an indictment of not only her government but all previous ones.

Yes, the government has a clear position on this - it is the discrimination against 4% of all UK pensioners and will continue but the legal requirement in the EEA countries and the reciprocal agreements - known to be totally unnecessary, as her own Department has confirmed in an FOI in March 2013, - are not justification for the frozen pension policy. These instruments are just vehicles of convenience on which to hang this illogical and irrational discriminative anomaly.

May I suggest, Lord Jones, that you go back to the minister and, in thanking her for her reply, ask if she would now give the justification for not paying index linked pensions rather than simply repeating the excuses on where it is paid and reminding her that "it must be realised that budgetary constraints are not justification for objective discrimination" (Juliane Kokott ECJ Judge Advocate General) and acknowledged in the UK Supreme Court ?

May I also suggest the BARONESS ALTMANN takes notice of this annotation and arranges for her department to, in future, supply her and the public with meaningful responses to questions rather than the boiler plate replies for which they are notorious.

George Morley
Posted on 5 Mar 2016 1:48 pm (Report this annotation)

Lord Jones, thank you for posing these questions as those that receive no indexation have done no wrong but are being treated unfairly and penalised like a criminal for having moved to a retirement place of their choice for reasons that are many and varied but certainly not a reason to be punished.
Andy Robertson-Fox has made the position very clear and there is little one could add except that having raised the comment by Julian Kokott , I would add the case of part time judges a while ago in the UK where they were awarded a pension that it was said could cost £2 billion.
Paul Epstein QC representing the plaintiff said,"The court decided in the end that all those reasons came down to cost, and that cost can never objectively justify discrimination".
So a second example which should back up the frozen pensioner's claim for pension parity unless the government have one rule for judges and another because we are only a few pensioners and do not deserve equality with the other 96% of pensioners around the world who get uprated.
Trotting out well worn phrases for years does not make them any more valid than they were on day one but brings the whole government into disrepute in my view which reflects on your good self and many other like minded Members if Parliament who can see the injustice of this inconsciable policy which must conflict with the Code of Conduct of Members

Jane Davies
Posted on 5 Mar 2016 4:11 pm (Report this annotation)

Ms Altmann's parroted response from the DWP must stick in her throat because for many years she was a supporter of the frozen pensioners and expressed many times the injustice suffered by the 4% who are victims of this scandal. Part of the stock reply from the DWP includes this misleading statement...." or countries where we have a reciprocal agreement that allows for uprating" this implies it is the fault of the other countries without the mythical reciprocal agreement (RA's) in place that pensions cannot be uprated, shame on you DWP. The UK does not need a foreign governments permission to uprate their own citizens pensions, this is purely a domestic matter and these excuses are just that, excuses.
For the DWP to continually trot out the need for RA's is disingenuous to say the least, who do they think they are kidding? In answer to FOI requests the DWP admits no RA's are needed, anywhere in the world, to uprate UK citizens pensions, so please stop saying this.
Thank you to Lord Jones for raising this injustice, but could I remind him that Steve Webb a fellow Lib Dem was, like Ms Altmann, a supporter for the ending of the blatant discrimination suffered by the most vulnerable of seniors who, because of this disgraceful treatment, are living below the poverty line through no fault of their own, but Webb too became a puppet of the DWP once he became pensions minister and abandoned the frozen ones. History does indeed repeat itself and shame on all of those complicit in this scandal.

clive walford
Posted on 6 Mar 2016 10:38 am (Report this annotation)

Like the authors of the other annotations here, I add my sincere thanks to Lord Jones for raising the frozen pension issue.
Those authors have politely made the point that the two main DWP arguments for not uprating the pension of those 560,000 frozen pensioners are totally unjustifiable. (RAs and we can’t afford it).
The first indication I had that RAs were not required was in 2011 when we had just started our PPiI, (Pension Parity in Indonesia) group. The then Pension Minister in an official DWP letter to my MP and another MP stated that “your constituent C - - W - - - is correct in saying that RAs are not required. Uprating can be done by domestic legislation.” Straight from the horse’s mouth as it were. (At times I get a bit sarcastic when referring to certain government officials and here I can only suggest that in this case that saying should be “straight from the ass’s mouth”).
How can a Government Minister, a man “elected” to help in running the country say: “we don’t need RAs to uprate frozen pensioners, so they are given equality to 660,000 other overseas pensioners, but we will still use it to withhold the uprating”.
To state that uprating will only be given where there is an RA, when RAs are not, by their own admittance, actually a legal requirement surely is unjustifiable discrimination. Perhaps the lawyers might consider if that is fraud and illegal. It is immoral, unfair and goes against the governments supposed “equality for all” policy.
Certainly it is intended to mislead the public into thinking that RAs are a legal requirement. Surely in a court of law any judgement would be that it is misleading and should not be accepted.

We can’t afford it!
£590 million is to most of us a lot of money. That’s the sum quoted by the DWP required to uprate those frozen pensioners. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is about 0.7% of the total pension budget. I think again that its about the same percentage of the £11.4 billion , (to be ring fenced), for overseas aid.

The audit guys confirm that the NIS fund for this year is calculated to be just under £30 billion. The government, employers and employees are contracted to mandatory contribute to that fund.
All contribution were and are now supposed to be paid into a secure fund, (an insurance if you like), The “secured” NIS Fund was set up for the collection of contributions, payment of pensions, and some associated payments, AND FOR EXCEPTIONAL SITUTIONS. I think the claim for equality and getting rid of the discriminatory frozen pension policy comes well in that last category.

So where is that £30 billion? Why will it not be used for the exceptional situation of the unjustifiable discrimination against half of overseas pensioners?

“Ms Altmann was for many years a supporter of the frozen pensioners and expressed many times the injustice suffered by the 4% who are victims of this scandal”.
On taking office she did the same as Mr Webb. He was a supporter before election but after? When he left office and she moved in did they have a brain transplant as they passed through the office door?

There are references to judicial statements saying budgetary constraints are not justification for objective discrimination. ignored by the DWP and the Minister.
Also mentioned is the code of practice for MPs. It seems some MPs have never read it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/188...
After the war in the courts those being charged with war crimes often hid behind the answer “we were only following out party orders”.
When MPs are challenged on their support of the outdated, discriminatory frozen pension policy will they come up with the same answer? Do we really have true democracy or are we heading for a ministerial dictatorship?

Lord Jones, you have done us proud, we sincerely hope that you will continue to do so and will also try to attract more support within the House of Lords and in “the other place”. However, do not be put off by the Prime Ministers threats to cut the power of the House of Lords every time they criticise him or his proposals.

clive walford
Posted on 6 Mar 2016 10:38 am (Report this annotation)

Like the authors of the other annotations here, I add my sincere thanks to Lord Jones for raising the frozen pension issue.
Those authors have politely made the point that the two main DWP arguments for not uprating the pension of those 560,000 frozen pensioners are totally unjustifiable. (RAs and we can’t afford it).
The first indication I had that RAs were not required was in 2011 when we had just started our PPiI, (Pension Parity in Indonesia) group. The then Pension Minister in an official DWP letter to my MP and another MP stated that “your constituent C - - W - - - is correct in saying that RAs are not required. Uprating can be done by domestic legislation.” Straight from the horse’s mouth as it were. (At times I get a bit sarcastic when referring to certain government officials and here I can only suggest that in this case that saying should be “straight from the ass’s mouth”).
How can a Government Minister, a man “elected” to help in running the country say: “we don’t need RAs to uprate frozen pensioners, so they are given equality to 660,000 other overseas pensioners, but we will still use it to withhold the uprating”.
To state that uprating will only be given where there is an RA, when RAs are not, by their own admittance, actually a legal requirement surely is unjustifiable discrimination. Perhaps the lawyers might consider if that is fraud and illegal. It is immoral, unfair and goes against the governments supposed “equality for all” policy.
Certainly it is intended to mislead the public into thinking that RAs are a legal requirement. Surely in a court of law any judgement would be that it is misleading and should not be accepted.

We can’t afford it!
£590 million is to most of us a lot of money. That’s the sum quoted by the DWP required to uprate those frozen pensioners. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is about 0.7% of the total pension budget. I think again that its about the same percentage of the £11.4 billion , (to be ring fenced), for overseas aid.

The audit guys confirm that the NIS fund for this year is calculated to be just under £30 billion. The government, employers and employees are contracted to mandatorily contribute to that fund.
All contribution were and are now supposed to be paid into a secure fund, (an insurance if you like), The “secured” NIS Fund was set up for the collection of contributions, payment of pensions, and some associated payments, AND FOR EXCEPTIONAL SITUTIONS. I think the claim for equality and getting rid of the discriminatory frozen pension policy comes well in that last category.

So where is that £30 billion? Why will it not be used for the exceptional situation of the unjustifiable discrimination against half of overseas pensioners?

“Ms Altmann was for many years a supporter of the frozen pensioners and expressed many times the injustice suffered by the 4% who are victims of this scandal”.
On taking office she did the same as Mr Webb. He was a supporter before election but after? When he left office and she moved in did they have a brain transplant as they passed through the office door?

There are references to judicial statements saying budgetary constraints are not justification for objective discrimination. ignored by the DWP and the Minister.
Also mentioned is the code of practice for MPs. It seems some MPs have never read it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmcode/188...
After the war in the courts those being charged with war crimes often hid behind the answer “we were only following out party orders”.
When MPs are challenged on their support of the outdated, discriminatory frozen pension policy will they come up with the same answer? Do we really have true democracy or are we heading for a ministerial dictatorship?

Lord Jones, you have done us proud, we sincerely hope that you will continue to do so and will also try to attract more support within the House of Lords and in “the other place”. However, do not be put off by the Prime Ministers threats to cut the power of the House of Lords every time they criticise him or his proposals.

clive walford
Posted on 6 Mar 2016 12:36 pm (Report this annotation)

"We could only consider the detail of access to pensions and benefits for people in receipt of UK state pensions who are resident in Europe as part of the process for leaving the EU".

it has been well established that the payment of the UK state Pension is provided in the Pension Act. i.e. domestic legislation. It has also been established that RAs are not required to pay or uprate pensions. Other agreements are also not required. The Pension Act is the only legislation required for paying or uprating the UK state Pension.
The process of leaving the EU has no effect on the payment of the State Pension.
It will of course be a good excuse for the DWP and the Treasury to further hammer pensioners by freezing pensioners living in the EU countries.
Where will it stop? Euthanasia at 95?