State Pension uprating will not be paid to nearly half a million older people this year
The State Pension is worth up to £921 each month during the 2025/26 financial year.
Pension Credit – Could you or someone you know be eligible?
Around 453,000 pensioners are living in a country which does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK Government resulting in them not receiving the annual State Pension uprating. Following the 4.1 per cent rise last month, the full New Sate Pension will be worth £921 every month during the 2025/26 financial year, while the full Basic State Pension is worth £705.80.
However, campaigners representing nearly half a million State Pensioners who now live abroad are hopeful that the recent election of Mark Carney as Prime Minister of Canada will help end the so-called 'frozen pensions policy'.
Mr Carney worked in the UK for several years, most notably as the Governor of the Bank of England and the End Frozen Pensions Campaign is highlighting how it is likely that the 59-year-old will qualify for a UK State Pension, despite relocating back to Canada. But , much like over 100,000 ex-pats resident in Canada getting the State Pension, it could be frozen at the level it is when he first claims it.
Campaigners explain how this is the result of the UK Government's long-standing policy which sees hundreds of thousands of UK State Pensioners miss out on the annual payment increase as a consequence of retiring overseas to certain countries.
These include mostly Commonwealth countries, including Canada and Australia, which are impacted by this policy, whereas retirees living in the USA or EU countries are eligible for the same considerations related to their State Pension had they remained in the UK.
Edwina Melville-Grey, Chair of End Frozen Pensions Canada, said: 'We don't imagine for a moment that Mr Carney will be reliant on whatever UK State Pension he might be entitled to. However, we know for sure that many thousands of the UK State Pensioners living in affected countries, including those in Canada, see their UK State Pension as a vital lifeline helping them through arduous times.
'We know that he has many immense challenges on his desk right now and wish him well in meeting those. But we hope he will be able, when the time is right, to meet with our lead campaigner on this issue, 100-year-old Anne Puckridge. Her situation embodies the injustice of this scandal.'
Anne travelled to the UK in December 2024 to lobby the UK Government, asking for the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to meet with her on the matter. But he declined the invitation.
For the past 24 years, the 100-year-old Second World War veteran of all three-armed forces has received a State Pension of just £72.50 per week - less than half the £176.45 she would be entitled to in April 2024 had she not left the UK at the age of 76 after having worked her entire life in the UK.
Many of the other affected pensioners are much worse off with half receiving £65 a week or less. Campaigners say that some pensioners are receiving as little as £20.00 a week.
John Duguid, Chair of End Frozen Pensions International, said: 'Simply more needs to be done to address the 'frozen' pensions policy in diplomatic settings, and the election of Mark Carney as Canada's Prime Minister paints the perfect opportunity to do so.
'The current political appetite surrounding trade and negotiations further reinforces the point that the cost to unfreeze pensions is extremely modest and will be an essential lifeline to many affected pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet.'
The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP) advocates on behalf of around 453,000 expats affected by 'frozen pensions' and is behind the 'End Frozen Pensions' campaign, which aims to 'end the injustice' for Brits who have moved abroad whose State Pension does not rise in-line with the Triple Lock every April.
Analysis by the Canadian Alliance of British Pensioners indicates that all these frozen State Pensions could be brought in-line with the current State Pension pay rates by the new Labour Government for £50 million. Its analysis shows that State Pension payments to frozen countries only amounts to 1.3 per cent of the UK Government's total annual expenditure.
You can find out more about the End Frozen Pensions Campaign on their website here.
State Pension payments 2025/26
The DWP has published the full list of State Pension and benefit uprated payments on GOV.UK here, which also includes additional elements such as the deferred rates, which are rising by 1.7 per cent (September Consumer Price Index inflation rate).
Full New State Pension
Weekly payment: £230.25 (from £221.20)
Fortnightly payment: £460.50 (from £442.40)
Four-weekly payment: £921 (from £884.80)
Annual amount: £11,973 (from £11,502)
Full Basic State Pension
Weekly payment: £176.45 (from £169.50)
Fortnightly payment: £352.90 (from £339)
Four-weekly payment: £705.80 (from £678)
Annual amount: £9,175 (from £8,814)
Future State Pension increases
The Labour Government has pledged to honour the Triple Lock or the duration of its term and the latest predictions show the following projected annual increases:
2025/26 - 4.1% (the forecast was 4%)
2026/27 - 2.5%
2027/28 - 2.5%
2028/29 - 2.5%
2029/30 - 2.5%
Article continues below
Recent analysis released by Royal London revealed only around half of people receiving the New State Pension last year were getting the full weekly amount - and around 150,000 were on less than £100 per week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
North Wales Chronicle
30 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Winter fuel U-turn should have come a long time ago, Reeves told
Chancellor Rachel Reeves said on Monday that nine million pensioners will be in receipt of the payment this year after a cut was announced in the first weeks of the Labour Government last summer. The initial decision was met with heavy backlash and forced the Scottish Government to delay the implementation of its own devolved benefit. John Swinney's administration later announced a similar payment for pensioners which would be tapered and see those on the highest incomes receiving £100, compared to £305.10 for those on the least. Monday's announcement will result in cash being sent to the devolved administration at Holyrood, and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to increase its payments. But Scotland's Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the decision was 'a betrayal' of pensioners. 'I welcome any extension of eligibility by the UK Government, but this is a U-turn the Chancellor should have made a long time ago,' she said. 'But there is still no detail about how the Chancellor intends to go about that. Unfortunately, it still sounds as if many pensioners will miss out.' Ms Somerville added that the Scottish Government had not been consulted on the decision and urged UK ministers to 'ensure the Scottish Government is fully appraised of the proposed changes as soon as possible'. 'The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week to urge the UK Government to share its plans with us as quickly as possible, so that we can understand any implications for our own programmes and, crucially, our budget,' she said. Scottish Labour MSP Paul O'Kane said: 'The winter fuel payment is a devolved payment in Scotland and Scottish Labour has long been clear that we want to see it reinstated for the majority of pensioners up here – but despite their loud spin, the SNP voted against our attempts to do so. 'The SNP must not go ahead with plans that would rob poorer pensioners in order to fund payments for millionaires. 'The SNP must re-examine their own proposals in light of this game-changing announcement, ensure payments reach those most in need, and give a cast-iron guarantee that no struggling Scottish pensioners will be left out of pocket under their plans.' The Scottish Government's plans were initially to provide a universal payment to pensioners, but the proposals were scuppered by the Chancellor's announcement of the cut last summer, forcing ministers to create a different system for this winter.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Canada promises to ramp up defense spending, met NATO target much earlier
TORONTO, June 9 (Reuters) - Canada's Liberal government will pour extra billions into its armed forces and hit NATO's 2% military spending target this fiscal year, much earlier than scheduled, Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Monday. Canada has been under heavy pressure from the United States and other NATO allies for years to increase funding for its military. Canada currently spends about 1.4% of GDP on defense. "Now is the time to act with urgency, force, and determination," Carney said in a speech in Toronto. The previous Liberal governent had promised to hit the NATO target by 2032. Canada will boost pay for the armed forces and buy new submarines, aircraft, ships, armed vehicles and artillery, as well as new radar, drones and sensors to monitor the sea floor and the Arctic, Carney said. (Reporting by Wa Lone, writing by David Ljunggren, editing by Promit Mukherjee) ((Reuters Ottawa editorial; opens new tab)) Keywords: CANADA POLITICS/DEFENSE
