|
|
NEWS Etc. |
|
|||||||||
| Home | Consortium | Fact Sheets | Courts | News | Information | Stories | How to Help | Lists of links | Contacts | ||
|
An
article from IPE A response to a Times article on the Budget Sir, Alastair Darling’s boast that Labour has a better record of looking after our elderly and vulnerable, and that pensioners are now entitled to £132.60 per week, is hypocrisy. There are more than half a million British pensioners around the world who have been resigned to poverty by this Government. Pensioners retiring abroad will find their pension frozen, with no increases in line with the cost of living. These are pensioners who paid their national insurance contributions like everyone else but who are being robbed in their old age, veterans who fought for this country and are now being forced to live on as little as £6 per week in some cases. How can this or any government claim to be caring for our older generations while this injustice continues? John Markham
Media Release by Rosalind Tosh, Editor of Justice. CABP Newsletter A nticipating the Grand Chamber’s judgment is like finally catching a glimpse in the distance of a longed-for oasis after three whole decades of thirsting in the desert. But with every court in the kingdom previously declaring that the UK Government has the prerogative to discriminate against us frozen pensioners, why would Westminster give a hang when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) says differently and rules in our favour?Fortunately, there are measures in place to ensure it happens. First and foremost, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK has committed to abide by the final judgments of the ECHR. This obliges Her Majesty’s Government to, on the one hand, take measures in favour of successful applicants – in this case, that would be us – in order to put an end to the human rights violations we have suffered, and as far as possible to erase their consequences; and on the other hand to take measures to prevent new, similar violations from occurring. Who makes sure the UK follows through? Once the Grand Chamber has rendered judgment, responsibility for ensuring compliance passes to the Council of Europe, specifically the Committee of Ministers, a body composed of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the 47 member states or their permanent representatives. These are the officers tasked with supervising execution of ECHR judgments. This committee will promptly invite the UK Government to detail the steps taken to pay any just satisfaction (compensation and/or costs and expenses) awarded by the court, and to detail the individual and general measures taken to fulfil any other terms of the judgment. If necessary, the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights can assist by working with UK authorities to determine how to achieve compliance. The Committee of Ministers will review the situation until Her Majesty’s Government has provided evidence that adequate remedial measures have indeed been implemented and payment has been made of any just satisfaction awarded. If compliance is not forthcoming, diplomatic pressure – which can include heavy political sanctions – is imposed. The Committee of Ministers will not ‘sign off ’ on the case, thus marking the UK as being in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. A signatory refusing to honour the Convention is not welcome at the table of the Council of Europe and thus will lose its influence there. Such action has seldom been found to be necessary, and indeed the UK has a good record of compliance with judgments. Respect for ECHR judgments is a crucial element of the Council of Europe’s system for the protection of human rights and democracy in Europe and for the stability of European unification. CABP will continue to do its bit to ensure the UK Government does not fail to manifest that respect. With information from the Council of Europe & the European Court of Human Rights web sites.
Extract from a letter from the
Liberal Democrats
I can assure you that Liberal Democrats firmly
believe that pensioners that have paid taxes and contributed towards
National Insurance should not be penalised for choosing to live abroad in
retirement. We believe that the government should meet with groups
representing pensioners to discuss how provision of a pension can be secured
for those living overseas. We are very concerned that an estimated 524,730
British pensioners who live overseas have had their pensions "frozen" at the
rate that they were first paid when they moved abroad. As you know, under
this system in some countries, Britons living abroad become financially
worse off each year despite the fact they may have a full contribution
record their pension is not increased with inflation as it is for those
pensioners living in Britain. We continue to believe that there is a
pressing issue of injustice surrounding frozen pensions. From the Office of Nick Clegg MP
Transcription of Peter
Bottomley's video "The key issue is that, by total chance - no-one designed it - [it affects] people who retired, essentially to the old dominions, as you wrote, [where] a lot of people have gone. Half our overseas pensioners are in places like Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand - some of the Caribbean Islands as well. They don't get uplifts in their state pensions, whereas people who live in the United States of America do (thus if you are below the 49th parallel you do and if you are above it, you don't). "If you are in some of the Caribbean islands: if they were British originally, you don't [get the uplifting]; if they were French or Dutch you do. If you are in the European Union you do. It's absolutely crazy! "The cost
wouldn't be a great deal to change that, but, because priorities are
different, the campaign has been unsuccessful. I have been associated
with this campaign for many parliaments. My recommendation to people
is that when they're in this country, ask to see a member of parliament and
say 'Can you please put this in your manifesto for the next election and, if
possible do it within three years time'. To do it instantly is, I think,
improbable. That it needs to be done is clear. And it's becoming
a greater unfairness as each year goes by.
|
|||||||||||
| Home | Consortium | Fact Sheets | Courts | News | Information | Stories | How to Help | Lists of links | Contacts | ||