WHEN DAVID L GEORGE, BACK IN THE EARLY 1900'S, CONCEIVED THE IDEA OF AN INSURANCE TO PROVIDE AN INCOME FOR RETIREES AND THOSE UNABLE TO WORK LITTLE DID HE KNOW HOW MODERN DAY POLITICIANS WOULD DESTROY IT
PARTIAL UPRATING COULD BE REVIVED ?
Partial uprating going forward has disapppeare! Or has it? the gov't could in theory reinstall it at any time. However, it seems the likely outcome would be to probably change the policy so that unfrozen expat pensions
may well also have to lose uprating one way or another. It is less liikely though at this time.
at one time "uprating by age" was a viable solution. (over 90's uorated in year one.Over 80's in year two and over
70's in year three). it was not over enthusiastically received by FP's. it may be the govt could use it to get out of the net during this current financial state the country is in. should we try it?
PARTIAL UPRATING GOING FORWARD
Is Partial Uprating a Solution?
The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Frozen British Pensions
exists “to bring together parliamentary supporters of the case to unfreeze frozen British State Pensions Overseas and to campaign for reform on this issue”. APPG had suggested that partial uprating could be “a solution”. Let’s
look at APPG’s suggestions … and the facts:
ICBP is just one organisation only for Canadians; Australians and the carabbean. Why is APPG concentrating on ICBP when there are many more of us campaigning around the world? Is there some sort of deal going on here. After all this time one does wonder!
? Successive governments have refused to act to end the current policy on the grounds of cost, fear of legal claims for back payment and the fact that however strong the moral case, there is no legal obligation on them to do so
In the debate on ring-fencing 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid ( MPs said that Britain is a rich country and that the 7% in overseas aid is justified and made them ‘proud’. They should be ashamed of stealing the NIS fund money rather than pay uprating, the fund is maintained by the workers and employees contributions and is always in balence of £ billions. HOWEVER THE GOV'T STATED THEY ILL CHANGE CONTRIBTIONS TO EARNING TAX!! THE FUND WOULD GO INTO THEGOV'T GENERAL FUND!! There are no cost grounds for not paying pension parity. The threat of legal claims is a red herring. No pensioner group has the resources for legal claims and frozen pensioners just want the pensions they paid for, payable now! There is a legal obligation through the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Articles 9-12) this may not apply due to the change in the EU status or rejectionof the legality ofthe UN culture rights; THE GOVT USE SECONDARY DOMESTIC LEGISLATION TO WITHHOLD UPRATINF The APPG on Frozen British Pensions recognise that financial times are tough, so we are committed to promoting solutions to the frozen pension policy that are both affordable and deliverable now. bloody fools that has always been possible.
Partial Uprating could be introduced quite easily in realityby using the DSS annual uprating act
partial uprating dos increase discrimination as it is based on a %age of the frozen pensions
Partial uprating would benefit all currently frozen pensioners immediately by ending the real terms year-on-year decline of their state pensions
This is a typical Conservative answer to everything – give more to those who have more, and take more from those who have little. As shown above, the pensioners with the highest existing pensions would get even more while those with the lowest existing pensions would get almost nothing. Clearly some would benefit a great deal more than others.
It would remove the problem completely for future retirees, removing a significant barrier to pensioner emigration from the UK, including for a significant number ethnic minorities now approaching retirement
This is a cynical attempt to divide frozen pensions in the fight for parity. Currently retiring pensioners would get pension parity and therefore have no need to join in the fight. It is also an attempt to harness the savings to be made from emigration (£3,800 per head) while ignoring that same saving already benefiting the government from existing retirees. It is also immoral, unethical and un-Christian to adopt a policy which aims to solve the problem by awarding parity to currently retiring pensioners while waiting for present frozen pensioners to die. This is a disgrace!
At an estimated upfront cost of just £37 million – miniscule in government spending terms – Partial Uprating option offers an affordable and expeditious policy alternative that could be implemented in the current financial climate
the worry of cost is the govn't own doing because they illegaly drained the fund! the cost of up rating is £590 million. the fund has a balence of billions. so???
Partial Uprating would actually generate immediate net savings for the Treasury through consequent savings, including those made through increased pensioner emigration. The Government currently estimates that there is a £3,800 a year saving for each pensioner who moves abroad in retirement
So, the Treasury wants the benefit of emigration savings while ignoring the benefit it already receives from past emigration? The £3,800 a year also applies to frozen pensions having to return to UK – that (plus an immediately uprated pension) is the cost of every pensioner who comes to the point of not being able to manage on a non-uprated pension and has to return to the UK. Those people then put pressure on an already overloaded NHS and on already shaky housing availability.
There is a clear precedent for the implementation of Partial Uprating. It is the approach that was taken when the UK signed historic reciprocal agreements with countries such as the USA and Barbados
A statement in the House of Commons and a Freedom of Information response has clearly ascertained that a reciprocal agreement is not legally necessary for the payment of uprated pensions. (the chair of the DSS comittee made that clear in 1966 Continually repeating this falsehood is merely DWP obfuscation – it matters nothing what is contained in ‘historic’ reciprocal agreements because their presence is not required to pay pension parity.
There should be no legal risk of back payment claims (as with full uprating) as there is no implied recognition of historic entitlement. Partial Uprating is simply a forward policy change. Again, the precedent would support this
Full uprating is also simply a forward policy change – there is no difference between the two. The suggestion of legal risk is a red herring and an excuse for non-action; no pensioner or pensioner organisation has the means or the intent to pursue any legal claim once full uprating is achieved
There is no need for bilateral agreements to be negotiated to move things forward … the UK is free to make unilateral changes to meet what are now international norms regarding overseas pensioners
A statement in the House of Commons and a Freedom of Information response has clearly ascertained that a reciprocal agreement is not legally necessary for the payment of uprated pensions. Bilateral agreements are not a reason for paying uprates - they are merely an excuse for not paying. Continually repeating this falsehood is merely DWP obfuscation There is a legal obligation (giving standards for international norms) through the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Articles 9-12); Britain is failing to comply with the requirements of this international covenant it signed
Partial Uprating would be very straightforward to deliver
The most straightforward policy to deliver would be to delete the offending clause from the next Budget statement and pay pension parity from April 2017. Every other option is less straightforward
Partial uprating as described by the APPG website is NOT a solution.
It is a cop-out and a cover up. It hits hardest the oldest and longest-suffering pensioners, many of whom fought in WW2 and then returned to help rebuild a shattered Britain, paying into the NI Fund all their working lives. That is a disgrace!
It is an extremely cynical, callous, immoral, unethical and un-Christian proposal which aims at solving the problem by waiting for pensioners to die. That is not acceptable to any decent, caring, Christian
It is also a typical Conservative option: give to those who have more and keep from those who have little – bear in mind that private pension schemes were few and far between
when many of our older pensioners retired many years ago. And let us not overlook its real intention - to divide those of us who have suffered years of frozen pensions from the currently retiring who would never experience frozen pensions – more discrimination
piled on top of existing discrimination!
Worse than all the above is that it is betrayal of Biblical proportions; those who have contributed over the years to the fight for parity will be sidelined
for a pittance of pennies while the currently-retiring will walk away with full pensions from the start and contribute to nothing.