Gurkha Opposition Debate (Faversham and Mid Kent Liberal Democrats)

Gurkha Opposition Debate

April 28, 2009 12:00 AM
Originally published by Liberal Democrats on Kent County Council

Trudy Dean Leader of the Lib Dem group at KCC has called on all Kent MPs to support Nick Clegg's opposition debate tomorrow (29 April).

Nick Clegg is calling for full citizenship for all Gurkhas following last week's Government refusal to do so.

Trudy got support for the Gurkha cause last year when her Council question was supported by the Conservative Leader but not the Labour Leader. (Question and answer detailed below)

Nick Clegg said "Are there any moral principles left in this hollowed-out Government? People who are prepared to fight and die for this country should be entitled to live in this country. Yet even this basic principle is broken by a Government desperate to cover its back and wriggle out of its commitments.

He continued, "This is the week Labour lost its last principles: dishonest with the nation about the state of our finances; cheating taxpayers by making MPs' expenses even murkier; and now turning its back on brave and loyal soldiers who simply want to live in the country they love and served."

Trudy Dean's question, asked at County Council Budget meeting 3 April 2008.

Question by Trudy Dean to the Leader of the Conservative Group and the Leader of the Labour Group

Will the Leader of the Conservative Group and the Leader of the Opposition Labour Group join the Liberal Democrats in supporting the Bill in the House of Lords to give Ghurkha soldiers serving before 1997 rights to stay in this country and pensions equal to those of British soldiers?

Answer by the Leader of the Conservative Group

"I wrote to the Prime Minister last week on behalf of KCC's Cabinet pleading with him to urgently rethink his Government's policy to exclude Ghurkha servicemen who retired from service prior to 1997 from applying for British citizenship.

Kent is proud of its association with the Ghurkhas and is proud to be the home for the Brigade following relocation from its main base in Hong Kong in 1997. KCC values and takes pride in their contribution both at home and abroad.

The imposition of the quite arbitrary 1997 cut-off date defies rational justification and it is hard to see how the integrity of immigration policy could be threatened or undermined by such a specific exemption in favour of a small - and dwindling - number of Ghurkha ex-servicemen.

The Ghurkhas occupy a unique and highly-regarded position in British military and social history and I struggle to see how such an exemption from the rules would create any sort of precedent, either for the Armed Forces or the generality of British citizenship.

Answer by the Leader of the Labour Group

We are all grateful to the Gurkhas for what they have done and what they are doing for the defence of this country and that is why the Government has ensured the following for Gurkhas and ex-Gurkhas:

1. Equality of take-home pay with the wider British Army since 1997

2. A change in the immigration rules in 2004 to include post 1 July 1997 retired Gurkhas

3. Married accompanied service after 3 years with the Brigade (previously only one married accompanied tour in the whole service) since 2006

4. The opportunity to transfer to one of the 2 Armed Forces Pension Schemes since 2007

5. The opportunity to serve longer for those transferring to the Armed

Forces Pension schemes (22 years rather than the previous 15 years)

6. The opportunity to transfer to the wider Army after 5 years service with the Brigade allowing for increased opportunities at the end of their service

7. Opportunities to obtain settlement/naturalisation whilst serving in the wider Army since 2007

8. Gurkha pensions were reviewed and substantially increased in 2000 and are also updated annually for inflation in Nepal (by 7.3% in 2007)

9. In 2007 other ranks not on a British Armed Forces Pension Scheme were awarded a 19% rise to reflect changes made in the Indian Army scheme to which the Gurkha Pension Scheme is linked.

Some 2232 retired Gurkhas who were serving on 1 July 1997 or later have been offered the same terms and conditions as the wider Army. Nearly 70% so far have chosen to transfer to an Armed Forces Pension Scheme.

It has been a long-standing policy of governments of all colours not to make retrospective adjustments to pensions. To make a special case for Gurkhas would have far reaching implications for other serving and former servicemen.

Faversham and Mid Kent Liberal Democrats