Most of us are British and we are enraged by the silent acceptance of our stolen pensions. Many of us served in the British Forces in the second world war, our fathers fought in the first one. Some of us were encouraged by the British Government to go to Rhodesia and help in it's post-war development. We then became victims of "The Winds of Change" and the blunders of inept or deceitful politicians.

WHERE DOES DEMOCRACY BEGIN AND END?

Britain cut off our roots, then left us in the hands of an educated savage with jungle instincts, who would rule with traditional despotism. So far, only the politicians involved know the full story. Rhodesian citizens were ignorant of the settlement details, and they still are. They were asked to vote on what the politicians told them, but there were no solid guarantees; we had good and valid reasons to resist. We knew that our pensions would be in jeopardy; now, even the guarantees given on the selected group of civil servants, have not been honored, If pensions are not honoured, we are all dishonoured and Human Rights, Justice and Morality are in the garbage bin. This is a grievous wrong begging for redress.

Recently, the G8 countries cancelled 3.5 billion dollars of African debt, now they are discussing more billions to be given as aid; a fraction of this money would settle all Zimbabwe pension entitlements. Payment of pensions and arrears at the historic rate of Z$2 to one pound Sterling should be made a condition of any future aid procedures.

WHO ARE OUR POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE TO?

Many Zimbabweans are descendants of Rhodesian Pioneers, who were heroes of Britain's Colonial Empire. They turned bush land into the breadbasket of Central Africa and made Rhodesia the Pearl of Africa. Now, the breadbasket has become a basket case and these people are surviving on handouts from charitable foundations.

Many pensioners cannot leave Zimbabwe; they are old and frail, their monthly pensions (paid in Zimbabwe) will buy no more than a loaf of bread. They were born there, they have no other citizenship, their British stock is not recognized. They are dying Britain, dying. Please help us in any way you can.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE USED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES - THEN SIMPLY ABANDONED - TOSSED ASIDE YES, EVEN AS SPENT MEAT!!

LEST WE FORGET AS COULD WELL BE YOUR GRANDPARENTS ALSO SUFFERING!!

GO TO THE LINK BELOW FOR FURTHER EXAMPLES OF A TOTALLY INJUST WORLD AT LARGE

http://www.lulu.com/Nextagemission

1. Introduction

This petition was set up in early 2006 by one of the few surviving Zimbabwean pensioners, Raymond Billington, an 84 year-old of British descent, whose wife recently passed away and who now lives in Australia. Like many other ex-Zimbabwean pensioners now living abroad, he experienced personally, first the gradual decline in the value of his transmitted pension from Zimbabwe, as the country’s unstable currency was subject to continued spiraling inflation, and then finally, the abrupt cessation of all regular payments. Recognizing that his position was one that was shared by many others, and that this injustice, whilst known by the British Government was also equally being ignored by them, he decided to take affirmative action and lobby for support for all the elderly ex-Zimbabweans who were in a similar situation. The British Government, he believes, needs to be made accountable for the plight of many of these pensioners, and has a moral imperative to right this grievous wrong. For some it may already be too late; for others perhaps some steps can yet be taken to alleviate their financial struggles. The Pensions belong to the ex-Zimbabwean residents, or to their estate, if they are already deceased.

It should be noted that the petition statement addresses all Zimbabwean pension fund employees, not just those who were civil servants in this country.

The subsequent written feedback obtained as a direct result of this petition, either via comments made directly on the petition site, or via emails written direct to the petition originator, painted a vivid picture of the extent of the injustice being experienced, and in some cases, of the anguish and hardship being suffered. The decision was made to collate and summarize all the material received and to make it the basis of this report. Statistics from the petition are also presented, and mention is also made of various organizations which continue to play an important role. Some historical information of discussion in the House of Lords is also outlined, which may be of interest to some readers.

While I do not necessarily support or endorse all of the opinions expressed within this report by others, I feel it necessary to include them in the interests of maintaining impartiality, objectivity and of portraying all the points of view expressed. I leave it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions from comments made by others.

This report will be sent with the Petition to selected British Government officials, to provide them with sufficient evidence to confirm that their inaction has consequences for the elderly, and will continue to do so for as long as this issue remains unresolved.

2. The Status of the Pensioners

For several years now, Zimbabwean pensioners living abroad have received no pension payments at all. Prior to this, sporadic payments seemed to be the norm, with the value of these payments being so low (as a result of the rampant inflationary rate of the Zimbabwe dollar) as to be worthless anyhow. For many therefore, it has been a continuous struggle to make ends meet, and what should have been a secure, peaceful and hard-earned ending to their working life, with sufficient funds to ensure a degree of financial independence from both family and State, has instead become one of either constant worry about where the next meal is going to come from, or of one of humiliation and loss of dignity in relying exclusively upon family for support.

The circumstances of those living abroad generally differ from those who still live in Zimbabwe. Some were unable to emigrate (for various reasons), perhaps because they had no family elsewhere to provide support, or they simply lacked the financial wherewithal to even attempt such a move. Some of the comments received later in this report give testimony to this. They have the additional worry of living in a country where even rising costs of food are so prohibitive that it is a wonder that they are surviving at all. Many simply have to rely on charity.

The aged in our communities have one other thorn in their side to contend with: that of coping with declining health. Who is going to provide assistance to those with infirmities, or who need constant attention to on-going health related medical problems? If, at the very least, they received their pensions at their true value, a degree of financial relief for them would be achievable.

3. The Stance taken by the British Government

The issue being addressed here is a Human Rights Issue: what rightfully and unquestionably belongs to the elderly, through a combination of political machinations and economical circumstances, is being denied to them; and I state this emphatically, it is through no fault of their own.

A community or civilization that does not fully uphold the rights of this minority group, and which forsakes its moral responsibility in taking care of all its elderly citizens, has indeed reached a low point. What merit and justification is there in sending troops abroad in the name of “peace”, when on your very own doorstep serious human rights issues are being ignored and are not being addressed? This is what happens, no doubt, in the name of political expediency!

The British Government’s current stance on this Zimbabwean issue is that while it appears to recognize there is a problem, it also goes to extraordinary lengths to first limit its responsibility, and then manages through carefully crafted arguments to abrogate this responsibility completely. One comes to the logical conclusion that those in power have first decided on their response to the issue (which is to ignore it), and have only then sought the rationale necessary to argue their case.

So far the British Government has only considered the pension rights of its own British civil servants who worked in Zimbabwe. With one stroke they have therefore already eliminated all other pensioners whose rights are equally valid.

Then, in order to finally eliminate even its own British citizens from gaining any recompense, we are provided with the pathetically lame and embarrassingly weak line: “There is no provision in the Zimbabwe constitution to protect externally paid pensions against adverse exchange rate movement.”

I have extracted documented arguments presented in the House of Lords on this issue, limiting it to only the key points of discussion that I consider relevant. The reader will notice that there is indeed support expressed for full pensions to be remitted at a proper conversion rate, but that the official government line is limited to one of sympathy only.

4. Discussion of Zimbabwean Pensioners in the House of Lords (abridged)

Lord Waddington rose to ask what Her Majesty’s Government what their policy is regarding Zimbabwean public pensioners living in Britain. “I have the honour to be honorary president of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association (OSPA)”. “When British colonies became independent, the practice was for the British Government to make what was called a Public Officers Agreement, or POA, with the emerging government to ensure that pensions would be paid by the new government on the same terms as before, and would be remitted to those who had come back home or gone to live elsewhere abroad, at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of independence.

Now of course I recognize that governments often draw lines in order to contain public expenditure. The civil servants in question were recruited by Rhodesia, but they were recruited for the most part by Rhodesia House here in London and the people recruited regarded themselves as going out to a colony as expatriates, just like those going out to serve in any other colony.

On 13th November 1979, the late Lord Gridley, who was then president of OSPA, moved an amendment calling on the government to ensure that the new government of Zimbabwe do right by their public service pensioners. Lord Trefgarne, replying on behalf of the government, said that the independence constitution agreed at Lancaster House specifically preserved public service pension rights, and that the British Government could not undertake to underwrite the liability which the Zimbabwean Government had undertaken, but that prospective pensioners could take comfort from the fact that. a constitutional settlement and the lifting of sanctions will lead to a large inflow of commercial investment into Rhodesia. By inference he was saying that economic growth and prosperity would see that the pensioners were all right.

It is now argued, in particular by Mr Foulkes, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DfID, that a person’s pension has been fully safeguarded and preserved, and, in the words of the Zimbabwe constitution, its payment fully guaranteed to former public servants wherever they reside, even though that pension has been rendered almost completely valueless as a result of the collapse of the currency.

Many Zimbabwean pensioners were in fact recruited here, on what were expatriate-type terms broadly similar to those of HMOCS officers in other dependent territories.

So this is the position that we have reached. Successive governments have moved to assist and make top-up payments to help pensioners from other colonies, using the powers in the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 but, although they know the parlous state the Zimbabwe pensioners are in, the Government flatly refuse to help them.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what has happened to these unfortunate people. It is a major tragedy which I do not believe the wildest optimist thinks is likely to be alleviated by a political change in Zimbabwe over the coming months, or even years. The Zimbabwe dollar, which was originally worth 50p, is now worth rather less that 1.5p. The pensions received by British people recruited here and now retired here have become as good as useless. These people, acknowledged by this and preceding governments to be Crown servants, are reduced to penury.

I am told that in 1998 there were a total of around 1,200 Rhodesia/Zimbabwe pensioners.”

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I was the last person to hold the separate office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I did so at the time of UDI…… I have argued that there is at least a moral obligation on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to deal with this matter in a sympathetic manner. So far I have received nothing but dusty and negative replies.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too have a great deal of sympathy with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about former Zimbabwe public servants who find that their pensions are diminishing in value as the Zimbabwe dollar continues to depreciate against sterling.

With continuing uncertainty about the political process and the power structure there, it is right that the issue of pensions is highlighted.

However this is not a debate about the political process, but about the plight of individuals caught in this process because of inflation and the uncertainty of the government there to meet their obligations. Expressing sympathy alone is not helpful. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to safeguard the pension rights of both retired and serving Zimbabwe public servants which were negotiated under the Zimbabwe constitution during the Lancaster House negotiations.

Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington for initiating this important debate on a subject that has troubled governments since the Lancaster House agreement. However it is more important that we should be talking about the plight of these pensioners today at a time when there are so many question marks hanging over Zimbabwe after its election results.

It could be said by the pensioners that the “preserving” of rights and the “guarantee” of continued payment are meaningless without protection of the value of the pension.

We are talking only of about 1,200 pensioners.

But if this Government stand by the Foreign Secretary’s ethical foreign policy, they surely have a moral duty in this case to try to end happily this sorry tale. I urge the noble Baroness to look sympathetically, in light of the changed circumstances, at the situation of these disadvantaged people in the twilight of their lives.

Baroness Amos: There is no provision in the Zimbabwe constitution to protect externally paid pensions against adverse exchange rate movement, and the pensions awarded by Zimbabwe have not been sufficient to compensate for the shortfall.

This situation has led to repeated representations from the Overseas Service Pensioners Association and indeed from Members in another place on behalf of former Zimbabwe public servants. They have asked the British Government to intervene and extend to Zimbabwe pensioners that pension protection arrangements afforded to overseas public servants for whom the British Government accept a special responsibility. Successive governments have declined to do this because the circumstances of Zimbabwe public service pensioners clearly do not meet the criteria for inclusion in our pension protection arrangements.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me to say something specifically about the criteria. The British Government acknowledge that they have a special responsibility to protect the pensions of certain officers who were employed in the public services of our former dependent territories, but this responsibility extends only to those who were appointed by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for the Colonies to server overseas on expatriate terms in the central government of a colony.

The Overseas Service Pensioners Association, of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is honorary president, recently proposed that the Government should accept responsibility for that group of Zimbabwe pensioners who were originally recruited through Rhodesia House in London to serve in the central government of Southern Rhodesia and who are currently resident in Britain.

We took the view that we could not reasonably do this, as it would be difficult to see how this group could be isolated for pension protection purposes from other groups who were recruited from the UK by other means to work in the colony or those who served in para-stat al organizations.

The pensioners’ associations and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in this debate, accused Her Majesty’s Government of not honouring a pledge to safeguard fully Zimbabwe public service pensions at independence including an undertaking to underwrite the costs of a sterling safeguard to maintain the value of pensions. The Government gave no such undertaken. We insisted on certain safeguards being included in the independence constitution for the continued payment of pensions. But there was never any statement or suggestion that these assurances should include Britain underwriting a sterling safeguard.

In 1955, the Government agreed to take over from India the central administration and payment of all sterling pensions, including a small number of non-Secretary of State appointees. But the Indian Government paid over an actuarially assessed sum to cover the future cost s of all these pensions.

The latest information from Crown Agents is that the value of all Zimbabwe pensions paid outside the country is about 4 million pound a year at the current rate of exchange. If all those pensions were paid at the original exchange rate of two Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, annual expenditure would be in the region of 114 million pounds.