Acknowledges an anomaly exists but questions how it started, suggesting no intention of injustice originally.

Reiterates the issue's complexity and cross-party support, pointing out that 550,000 pensioners are affected by frozen pensions due to living in certain countries. Emphasises the moral injustice of denying full pension rights based on residence.

Succinctly states that if people pay into a pension, they should receive it regardless of their address.

Calls for the government to clarify the impact of Brexit on UK pensioners in EU countries. Urges the Minister to assure that pensions will be protected irrespective of a vote to leave the EU.

Mentions Ian Blackford's election as vice-chair of an all-party group on women against state pension inequality and discusses broader issues of pension injustice across UK government policies.

The debate focuses on the issue of frozen pensions for British citizens living abroad. It is argued that unfreezing pensions would not only address a moral obligation but also potentially save money by reducing the number of pensioners returning to the UK due to financial pressures.

The speaker agrees with Ian Blackford and points out that if individuals return to the UK, there would also be additional costs for health and social care. This highlights the paradox of a pensioner having to come back to the UK just to receive full benefits.

The speaker responds that individuals would indeed receive their full pension while in the UK for short visits but emphasises the overall injustice of the current system. He also provides the example of Rita Young, a widow who desires to live with her family in Australia but feels unable due to frozen pensions.

The speaker agrees that unfreezing pensions would be particularly important for those who served the country and the Commonwealth, highlighting this year's commemorations as a suitable time to address these issues.

The speaker agrees with the sentiment that pensioners should be treated fairly regardless of domicile. He provides an example of Anne Puckridge who struggles to live on a frozen pension in Canada.

The speaker congratulates the hon. Member for securing the debate and points out that the policy has been consistent since 1948, not something introduced by this Government alone.

The speaker acknowledges that the policy has existed for over 70 years but reiterates the call to address it now. He highlights the cost implications of unfreezing pensions.

The speaker points out that each year, statutory instruments are brought before Parliament regarding this policy and calls for more support in changing it.

Asked the Minister to provide details on when the Government last negotiated a reciprocal agreement with another nation or territory for state pension uprating and inquired about other countries that have been included in uprating agreements since then.

Responded to the question by stating that no new commitments allowing for uprating have been made since the 1980s. He emphasised that the decision to move abroad is a voluntary choice and noted that pensioners living in countries with largely means-tested systems might not benefit significantly from an increase in their UK state pension.

Asked the Minister to explain why the UK is unique in its restriction on uprating pensions for those who live abroad compared to other OECD countries. He argued that individuals have contributed to the national insurance system and should be entitled to receive their full pension regardless of where they reside.

Explained that reciprocal social security agreements vary from country to country. He reiterated that the decision to live abroad is an individual choice and that people who have contributed to the UK state pension scheme are free to draw their entitlements wherever they choose.

Congratulated the lead MPs on securing the debate. She highlighted the importance of reviewing current arrangements, given that they have been made with some countries and not others. She urged for a full equalities and impact assessment of the freeze in overseas state pensions.

Mr. Gale congratulates the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber on securing this debate and acknowledges the technical flaw in the motion. He emphasises that it is unjust for pensioners living in Canada to have frozen pensions while those in the US receive full pensions despite being similarly situated geographically. He argues that many of these individuals paid national insurance contributions and taxes throughout their working lives, yet they are denied access to their pensions when retiring abroad. Mr. Gale also points out a restriction on movement for Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin due to pension fears. He warns that leaving the European Union could result in a loss of pension uprating for expatriates and suggests a solution proposed by John Markham, involving incremental uprating based on receipt of today's pensions, to address the issue gradually.

Pensioners abroad are entitled to pension uprating as it is a right earned through contributions. The lack of reciprocal agreements with Canada, New Zealand and Australia means over half a million UK pensioners do not benefit from uprating. This exemplifies the government's priorities, which focus on protecting tax havens for elites while ignoring their own pensioners. Oxford University’s figures estimate that £4,300 is saved each year per expatriate due to decreased pressure on public services. Despite this, the government claims universal uprating is too costly and refuses to negotiate reciprocal agreements or conduct a review.

Pensioners have a contractual right to pension uprating regardless of where they choose to live. It is shameful that successive governments fail to meet this obligation, especially given the contributions made by these individuals through national insurance and tax payments.

Agrees with Charles Walker's statement regarding pensioners' right to uprated pensions regardless of their place of residence.

Kate Hoey congratulated Members who have spoken in the debate and paid tribute to John Markham for his persistent campaigning. She highlighted concerns regarding Afro-Caribbean pensioners wanting to return home but fearing they will lose their pensions. She questioned why reciprocal agreements could not be established with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and islands in the Caribbean. Hoey emphasised that this issue is about justice and fairness rather than cost, and suggested a partial uprating as a start. She called for continued pressure on the Government to change its stance.

Peter Bottomley agreed with previous speakers but disagreed with the Government's position. He suggested changing the pension fund for Members of Parliament if they move to frozen list countries, so their pensions are not uprated in line with inflation.

Charles Walker interjected during Peter Bottomley's speech to correct him on the name of an island, mentioning 'Isle of Thanet'.

Indeed—I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him, to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and to others who have fought this battle. The issue is that pensioners in countries like Zimbabwe face significant financial difficulties due to economic instability there. This is not fair or right. We need the Chancellor to understand that voting rights for overseas pensioners will bring political power necessary to address these issues. Currently, 1.2 million British pensioners live abroad and this number could double in future, meaning more people with frozen pensions. The Government must act now rather than wait until public pressure grows. The arguments given by the Minister are weak and insubstantial; they fail to provide a resolution and continue an unfair practice that began in 1981.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and highlight the bizarre world of pensions, especially given that legal advice from Blackstone Chambers contradicts claims by the Government about back payments. The vast majority of pensioners would benefit greatly from full uprating of their frozen pensions. Anne Puckridge, a former college lecturer who served in WWII, now struggles on her frozen pension and fears being forced to move back to Britain due to poverty. She is not asking for millions but the £20-30 she is entitled to after paying into the system all her life. Instead of giving this money, we force people into poverty and illness abroad only to pay more when they return to use NHS services.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. Another nonsense cost-related argument concerns reciprocal arrangements; Canadians living in the UK receive their full state pension from Canada, while British pensioners do not get theirs in Canada despite similar conditions. This is not about protecting social security but rather an unfair practice given that the argument about costs does not hold water when other countries can afford to pay for their citizens.

She argues against the Government's stance on frozen pensions, citing a study by Oxford Economics which indicates that pensioners leaving the UK save the NHS £4,300 annually. She mentions legal challenges and inconsistencies in bilateral agreements with countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, where 80% of overseas residents do not receive uprated pensions despite no reciprocal deals.

He suggests that if countries like New Zealand and Australia applied to join the EU, pensioners would get their upratings in those countries too. He also highlights inconsistencies within the pension system and criticises the Government's stance.

He explains that bilateral agreements for uprating pensions are based on reciprocity, which is not achieved with countries like Canada. He acknowledges the work of his colleagues and expresses hope that more proposals from organisations like ICBP will be developed.

He thanks all Members who contributed to the debate and emphasises the importance of fairness in pension adjustments. He urges the Government to acknowledge partial uprating and take moral responsibility for pensioners worldwide.