Many thanks for your prompt response. I am disappointed that you find a factually based email to be offensive - perhaps I can elaborate. Why do you feel I have jumped to any conclusion? I merely quoted what was said on the BBC web site - the most popularly read web site in the UK. This was NOT a personal view and I refer you to the article, on the hyperlink below, which has since been removed. (Convenient or more important news to hand - I wonder?) If you are now saying that the article was "incomplete" I suspect you cannot blame me, or the hundreds of thousands of viewers who will have read it, for any such omissions. In your reply your say "...than a brief read to the full report.." Why was it not made clear there was a fuller report to hand?. Or is it the case that it not yet been written, in which case it makes my intrusion even more timely and pertinent. 

 

The article can be found at

 

 

Many ExPats have good reason to believe that the UK Government, along with Germany, have a hidden agenda for the future payment of ExPat pensions. That agenda is simply to REMOVE National State pension availability from those non resident in the UK in the future. (This of course applies equally to Germans)

 

Frankly Ms O´Connell I do not see my role as developing a fan club, but rather fighting for what is right. The UK Government have demonstrably circumnavigated the EU laws on Pensions which clearly prohibit the discrimination of pension payments on the basis that you have re-located within the E.U. I hope shortly to send you a verbatim script of the ruling for your records and inclusion in any future debate or reports on National State pension provision.

 

Before I wrote to you I at least had the decency to visit your web site and I looked at your "About us" page where you effectively tabulate your "terms of reference". Here I found reference to the term "all" which is of course means totally inclusive. (That is of course, unless you are a certain Gordon Brown, - who used the term in his 2003 Budget and then promptly introduced the Pension Credit payment which excluded ExPats. He did this by classifying Pension Credit as a not an exportable benefit - i.e classed it as Income Support.  

 

The reference to your "personal" payments seems to have touched a raw nerve, but the fact remains, we have many ExPats over here that are/were Millionaires, Chief Executives, very Senior Directors of Multi National Companies etc, so I believe my statement to be factually correct. I therefore find it quite incredible that you could be offended by my stating a fact. If you said to me "I have probably paid more N.I. Contributions that you" - so what? I would not have taken offence. That said neither of us, I suspect, are Millionaires or ran, or will run Multi National Companies.

 

If your body has actually considered, and indeed believe that ExPats, should be a part of any Pension reforms then we welcome that most warmly - please advise your specific Policy views so they can be aired on our web site. During In my brief visit to your web site I found absolutely no specific reference to the plights of ExPats - perhaps you would be kind enough to send me hyperlinks to the appropriate sections on this topic - as clearly I missed them. Our Association's role is to ensure that all ExPats get fair treatment - do you find this objective to be wrong? If that is the case then I very am disappointed if you cannot comprehend our position. Wasn´t a certain Mr Blair, only yesterday in Brighton, recommending that individuals join Unions should they so wish. Where Ms O´Connell would we be if we were not allowed to have effective pressure groups? Pressure groups that pressure organisations like yours that can influence Government thinking?

 

I apologise again if you took offence and suggest we start again and have a reasoned and constructive discussion. The preservation of future pensions for ExPats is extremely important to all ExPats. ExPats have all made their State N.I. contributions and now expect an appropriate and equitable pension akin to those who have paid similar amounts to the State kitty when working. No more no less.  A principle, I suggest Ms O´Connell, which is difficult to oppose with any reasoned argument. If you are genuinely a body which can influence Government thinking in this arena, and indeed believe in justice for all pensioners, then we ought to be in detailed communication as a matter of urgency. We really do have people living in poverty because of the vicious and totally discriminatory treatment the UK Government dispenses to ExPats whom they see as easy prey. 

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Fondest regards

 

Peter

(Peter Woodall)