Significant news
BAPA has teamed-up with all the world expatriate
pensioner associations with the objective of the final extinction of
the frozen pension regime.
We have now become part of a team of British
expatriate pensioner groups who have combined forces to take our case to
the European Court of Human Rights in the Hague.
The members of the consortium, led by the Canadian Alliance of
British Pensioners are: The British Pensioners' Association - Western Canada - The
South African Alliance of British Pensioners - The British
Australian Pensioner Association & British Pensions in Australia.
The methods used by the team will be a combination of
new litigation before the European Court of Human Rights, buttressed by
continuing legal research, political lobbying & impacting on public
opinion in the UK.
The litigation team is being led by the Canadian
Alliance, who have retained the services of Phil Tunley of McCarthy
T?rault, (Toronto and London). The Barrister is Tim Otty of Essex
Chambers in London, who has extensive experience in the field of Human
Rights before the European Court. Whilst Phil Tunley is acting pro bono,
Tim Otty will need to be paid for his services. It is inevitable that
taking the case to culmination will incur considerable expense which
will have to be met. However we are reliably informed that, whatever the
outcome, the British Government costs in opposing the case cannot be
awarded against the Consortium.
With regard to the legal funding, it is not our
intention to change our role by undertaking intensive recruiting and
fund-raising. In our case, both functions will continue to be carried
out through our existing membership. In addition to making financial
contributions our major role will, as previously, be in the fields of
research and lobbying with which we have year-by-year steadily advanced
the cause.
Our research team is already working on the papers
supplied to us by the Court. These include witness statements and the
arguments advanced by the 12 named pensioner applicants, selected by the
Consortium to be the principal complainants. We are also scrutinising
the response of the UK Government to the Consortium's complaint. In
July, Counsel for the Consortium will be required to file the
counter-response to the Government's justification for their stance.
Where individuals or groups of members wish to do
more active recruiting or fund-raising toward reaching our goal in these
new circumstances, please let us know what kind of support and
facilities you may need.
Where individuals or groups of members wish to do
more active recruiting or fund-raising toward reaching our goal in these
new circumstances, please let us know what kind of support and
facilities you may need.
Now that we have finally completed taking the case for parity through
the whole of the British legal system, a requirement forced upon us by
the UK before we could approach Europe, it is possible that some of you,
our members, with friends or past associates in high places might be
able to encourage financial sponsorship for our cause.
We know you will all share the re-invigoration this new move gives us.
On behalf of the CABP, and the new Consortium of
associations supporting the frozen pensioner discrimination case in the
European Court of Human Rights, I would like to express a big
?THANK-YOU? to BAPA for its decision to join.
We now have five associations in the Consortium, two in Australia, BAPA
and BPiA, one in South Africa, SAABP and two in Canada, BPAWC and CABP.
Together, these five organisations identify almost 25,000 members openly
supporting the case in Strasbourg and while this represents only 5% or
so of those affected by the UK Government's discriminatory policy, it
demonstrates the collective support of these organisations towards
bringing an end to this outrageous and inhumane disparity that has been
suffered for decades by almost half a million frozen pensioners around
the world.
Each association brings its particular areas of expertise. BAPA has long
been recognised for its research capabilities on the frozen pensions
issue and it is good to see that it can now share that area of expertise
with the other Consortium Partners. In fact, two ?senior applicants?,
who indeed have their own cases on the books of the Court, can now be
counted in the membership lists of the Consortium, BAPA's own Brian
Havard and CABP's John Larke.
In the House of Lords debate, Lord Goodhart said, ?I do not know whether
there is any possibility that this case might be taken from your
Lordships' House to Strasbourg. If there is any possibility, I certainly
believe that there would be a real chance of victory ??. Yes my friends,
the tide may well be turning in our favour. We have an excellent legal
team in place as well as a growing Consortium. Welcome once again to
BAPA. Together we ARE stronger. Tony Bockman, Chairman of CABP
Joining the Consortium has given BAPA two new ways to
help the cause for equal treatment.
1. Helping to finance the case
2. Making observations on the government submission to help the
barrister sharpen his tools.
We will still, of course, pursue the other ways we have been using since
BAPA first started: political lobbying, publicity, liaison with other
pensioner organisations. In this issue you will see short reports on
some of these activities. I have submitted a paper to the Works &
Pension Committee on the subject of Pension Reform, mentioning pension
freezing, of course. Following that I was invited to submit a short
paper on the government White Paper. In this case it was not appropriate
to deal with pension freezing. Instead I tried to make some wise
observations on aspects of the proposed reforms, from an actuary's
perspective.
Thanks are due to our hard-working committee, all of whom have different
responsibilities. When a committee member, or any supporter, comes
forward with an idea that seems to have legs, they are entitled to "own"
the project and run with it using whatever help they need. So if you
have a good idea, let me know and we will see if we can use it in our
campaign. James Nelson, President BAPA
CABP has provided BAPA with copies of the Consortium
submission to the European Court of Human Rights together with HMG?s
response, and has invited our comments based on our 15 years of research
and campaigning.
HMG clearly plans to rely on their long submission to the House of
Lords, containing all the usual arguments, to which CABP lawyers can
respond without difficulty. We are suggesting several enhancements to
the Consortium submission: International Practice, setting
out the very supportive findings of the German Constitutional Court in a
case almost identical to ours. Age Discrimination, because
HMG had included 'age' in its Study Guide to HRA as one of the grounds
protected by Article 14.
A 97 y.o. friend is being deprived of 85% of his
pension entitlement, yet the saving is less than 1% of the pensions'
budget. HMG uses the Mueller precedent, but omits para 32:
'It is true that, in some cases, a substantial
reduction of the amount of the pension could be regarded as affecting
the very substance of the right to retain the benefit of the old age
insurance system'. Article 6 of the Convention requires: 'In the
determination of his civil rights and obligations ?, everyone is
entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an
independent and impartial tribunal established by law?' But the
common feature of all the judgments save Lord Carswell's was an abject
deference to Parliament, calling into question the courts' impartiality.
Finally I have proposed to the Consortium lawyers that every effort
should be made to use my two personal applications to Strasbourg,
the first of which is dated July 1997, eight years earlier than Carson
and deserving of a much higher priority. I believe that a determined
application to the ECourtHR by an experienced barrister to have my
application restored to the lists could be successful, resulting not
just in a much earlier hearing date, thus benefiting all frozen
pensioners, but giving the frozen pensioner case a moral ascendancy. Brian Havard BAPA
After several years of
correspondence with a number of Pension Ministers (there have been many
during this governments reign in office) I finally persuaded Stephen
Timms to be interviewed by Peter Morris (our vice president living in
England) and myself while I was on holiday in Europe.
The interview was set
for 11.10 am on the 18th April and Peter called for me in
Uxbridge where I was staying, and with Peter at the wheel we navigated
our way across North London to arrive at our rendezvous in good time.
This proved to be not
the carpeted splendour of the House of Commons where I had hoped to
discuss the future of thousands of frozen pensioners, but a row of lock
up shops most of which were shuttered and locked and due for demolition.
Stephens office was situated in the middle, still locked and
shuttered?.An already chilly morning suddenly grew colder, and if it was
intended to demonstrate Stephen?s insistence that the Government would
not change its mind over pensions no matter what, then it partially
succeeded. Inside was no better. Two wooden chairs and a table behind
which eventually sat Mr Timms with his laptop already opened.
Unbelievably Stephen
had prohibited the media to be present, and with the threat of
cancellation of the meeting held over us if they were present we had
reluctantly agreed to his terms. Not the sort of democratic demand I had
expected from any Party, least of all Labour
As our meeting was to
be fairly brief I had previously prepared a list of questions on paper
that I gave Stephen to read, requesting that I should receive his
written replies in due course.
My own personal
grievance was that I had never been notified that the SERP I had
contributed towards for a number of years, that given the opportunity to
opt out and into the private sector would be frozen.
The DWP had claimed
that information regarding the SERP was freely available by way of
leaflets/pamphlets held in various public offices throughout the UK. To
test this claim I had called (just prior to meeting with Minister Timms)
on the Town Hall, Civic Centre, Library and Post Office all situated in
Uxbridge. All of who gave me a blank look. They held no information at
all on the subject!
The DWP in a recent
letter directed to me, finally admitted that neither Employers nor
Employees were informed that their SERP would be frozen in the event of
moving abroad. They argue that it was not necessary to do so as the SERP
was regarded as a Class A pension similar to the Aged State Pension.
This is of course
absolute rubbish, they are clutching at straws. Last ditch effort!
And I tell you why.
SERPS was sold to us as
an addition to the State Pension
SERP, unlike a Class A
Pension was not mandatory enrolment.
SERP, unlike a Class A
Pension could be opted out of.
SERP, unlike a Class A
Pension was based as the name implies on earnings.
SERP, unlike a Class A
pension enjoyed compensation if you opted out finding it was not
financially viable
SERPS as the name
implies was so misleading the DWP later changed the name to SP2 in an
attempt to remove the misunderstanding that arose from the term
?Earnings Related?
Even media experts
claimed it should not be confused with the State Pension.
(Far to late for those
of us already in the throes of immigrating.
There are more aspects
about SERPS that disprove the DWP reasons for freezing. If you write to
me I will tell you how to use them to your advantage.
The final outcome of
our visit to Timms is that he has been elevated First Secretary to the
Treasury and refuses to give me the written replies that I asked for.
Telling me in fact to go back to square one and contact my own MP which
I have done. My MP has promised to look into the matter and will attempt
to arrange a meeting for me to meet the current pensions minister. But
it doesn?t end there. I called upon the Parliamentary Ombudsman in
Millbank and presented her with fresh evidence that hopefully will lead
to those mislead over the SERP being compensated over their loss.
One of the last things
we asked of Timms was whether he considered he had the moral right to
refuse us our rightful pension. He said yes! We asked him a second time
and he replied yes! I shall now be responding to an article in the press
the same day as our meeting with Timms (the same press who were barred
from our meeting) that some of those he refuses up-rated pensions to
once stood up to their chests in water at Dunkirk, rifles held above
their heads being shot at and dive bombed by the Germans. Or those who
survived Dunkirk working the Burma Railroad suffering diarrhoea and
Malaria and appalling conditions, appearing like skeletons when
liberation arrived. The Bomber pilots and aircrew shot down in flames
and taken prisoner. Not forgetting Men of the Merchant navy in convey 23
in Arctic conditions steaming through U-Boat infested waters in a race
to supply the Russian war effort. And of course the Royal Navy who
pulled many MN survivors from the icy waters suffering from frostbite
after a few minutes in the sea. Finally the North African, Sicilian and
Italian campaigns and the storming of the Normandy beaches, on to Arnhem
and the horrors of Belsen.
If you, like me,
consider it an insult for Timms to say we have no moral right to
up-rated pensions then write to me and I will ensure that someone in
authority reads them.
Since the last newsletter many of our members took part in a campaign to
persuade British MPs to sign one or more Early Day Motions. An EDM is
not likely to be debated and passed in Parliament, but it gives MPs an
opportunity to support a point of view.
There were three of these put forward by different MPs, and we managed
to persuade a good many of them to sign. The last one was an annulment
motion, that might have resulted in the ending of the freezing regime.
Well it did not turn out that way, but there was a good
debate in one of the House standing
committees. Only one person spoke against us - the government man - and
he, of course, trotted out the usual excuses.
But it was not a futile exercise. In some cases we were able to unearth
facile excuses and deal with them. As a result we put a list of fictions
and facts on our web. You will find some of them later in this
newsletter.
In
the lead-up to the visit by Tony Blair during the Commonwealth Games, we
organised a letter-writing campaign. We tried to contact every MHR and
every Senator, asking them to take any opportunity that arose to mention
pension freezing to Tony.
As expected, not many of them had the opportunity, but we got a good
response from Kim Beazley. Several MHRs referred the matter to Malcolm
Brough. Bruce Baird (Cook) wrote to the British High Commission with the
expected result. But he did report that: Both the Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs raised the issue with the British Prime
Minister, The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, whilst he was in the country ?earlier
this week?.
The Australian Government will continue to pursue this matter with the
UK Government to try and achieve a better outcome for all UK pensioners
in Australia.
One surprising result of our campaign was that some members of our own
federal parliament actually did not know. Nobody had ever told them
before.
Forty members responded to the call to action to write to members of
Federal Parliament to ask that the ?frozen pension? issue be raised with
Tony Blair whilst he was visiting for the Commonwealth Games and also
addressed Parliament. The efforts of these members resulted in at least
120 letters being sent to members of the House of Reps and the Senate.
The letters were of the highest quality and set out clearly the personal
issues involved. Many members received sympathetic replies and again our
cause got very good coverage amongst Federal Parliamentarians.
What happened on the day ? we heard from the British High Commissioner
in Canberra that the issue was raised by both the Prime Minister Mr
Howard and the Foreign Minister Mr Downer when they met Tony Blair. If
you wrote to your MP or Senators you can still write again or perhaps
visit them and ask what happened on the day ? this will again raise the
profile of this issue that is important to all of us.
Our President has also received an invitation to arrange a meeting with
the responsible Minister of Family and Community Services ? Mal Brough
and we will be doing so when an opportunity arises.
Thanks to all the people who got involved and spent so much time writing
letters. Thank you for including your personal stories in those letters
? it makes them that much more effective.
Last March BPiA organised a demonstration outside
Parliament House in Canberra on the occasion of Tony Blair?s visit. In
the lead up to the occasion members of both BAPA and BPiA had carried
out a mailing campaign to Australian MPs asking them to ensure that the
British PM was made well aware of our objection to Britain?s Frozen
Pension regime, and its effect on Australian taxpayers.
Dian Elvin attended on behalf of BAPA. Our small group of pensioners was
sandwiched between demonstrators representing Falun Gong, under a large
Chinese banner, and an Anti Iraq War group with loud speakers.
Jim Tilley, of BPiA, spoke up for our cause to reporters on the scene.
ABC TV filmed the demonstration for the news, interviewed Jim, and then
gave Jim and Dian a lift to the British High Commission in order to
deliver the 700 letters, from British expatriate pensioners all over the
world, to be presented to Tony Blair.
The official who accepted the letters promised to make sure they would
be presented to him. Over the following weeks all letter writers
received identical replies, not from Tony Blair but from a secretary at
the British High Commission in Australia.
They were unintelligent and uninformed, but we had made our mark and
must never stop trying.
In advance of Tony Blair?s visit this is what Kim
Beazley, as Federal Opposition Leader had to say: ?The Australian Government must act on UK Pension indexation and take
a stronger stand on Britain?s refusal to index pensions paid to
expatriates living in Australia.? He said that more than 21,000 of
his constituents were former UK residents and a lot were of pension age.
Mr Beazley said he would raise the plight of his constituents who were
being disadvantaged by Britain?s refusal to index their pensions.
During the 2005/06 financial
year we received contributions from new and current members totalling
close to $16,000. At the time of going to press we have not yet
completed our audited accounts for the period but under the present
circumstances we should give you a resume of our finances as we join the
new Consortium in its approach to the European Court.
Our operating expenses during the year came to $4,984. This included
printing and posting newsletters, PO Box costs and modest Bank fees and
State taxes (about $130).
In addition we transferred ?250 ($617) to our Vice President, Peter
Morris, in Britain, as a float for meeting minor costs in the UK. Legal
costs for the year came to ?4,000 ($9,689).
Taking all the above into
account we expect our year end audit to leave us a total reserve of
about $60,000.
Of this we will make an immediate contribution to Consortium funds of
?10,000 (about $25,000). There will, of course, be more to follow but,
how much more will depend on how dedicated you, our members, are taking
advantage of this great opportunity to take our case into Europe. It is
going to cost a lot of money but, thank goodness, we, the appellants,
will not have to meet defence costs - even if we were to lose.
However, let?s not even think about losing. This approach to Europe is
what we have been waiting for, and fighting for, for the last 20 years.
Be positive.
The petition was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday
27th, just before we closed the present issue for printing.
Peter Morris had worked on David Laws and his assistant tirelessly, and
was finally rewarded. David Laws truncated our wording a bit, but he
explained it all properly in his speech tabling the petition.
The petition was "laid on the table", which is the usual procedure.
Mr. David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): I am delighted to present a petition on
behalf of 2,333 individuals who are concerned about the existing
arrangements for uprating the basic state pension for people who live
abroad. At present, something like half of the individuals who live
abroad do not receive any uprating of the basic state pension at all.
That injustice could get considerably worse if the Government link the
basic state pension to earnings without dealing with the existing
injustice for those pensioners who live abroad.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore call on the House of Commons to urge the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to establish forthwith absolute
parity in the payment of fully uprated pensions to all state pensioners.
Here is an argument you might find useful
when talking to friends, or writing to MPs and rellies. B...
retired in 1991 and moved to Australia just before the 1991
increase. As a result his basic pension is ?46.90. D.... is just
about the same age as B.... He retired the same year with the
same payment history, but did not move to Australia until after
the 1997 increase. As a result, his pension is ?62.45, which is
about 1/3rd more than B... Gets.
Whatever else may be argued about the legitimacy of pension
freezing it is irrational, to the point of absurdity, that
pension freezing should depend not only on where you moved to,
but when you moved.
