| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Government’s position on Gurkhas has generated considerable debate and media interest—there is no doubt of that—and that debate has continued for some time. The public wish to know that the Gurkhas, after having served in the British Army for many years, are being treated fairly and honourably by our country. During the Indian rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. A number of noble Lords have referred to that important time. Gurkhas saw active service in many theatres of conflict between 1857 and 1914. They fought on the British side in both the First and the Second World Wars. There is no doubt therefore that the Gurkhas have contributed significantly to the security of the United Kingdom and we should acknowledge and reward, and continue to do so, their loyal service in the British Army in an appropriate and fair manner.
From the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in particular, we have had a very moving address to the House on the history of loyalty and commitment from the Gurkha regiments to the British Army and the British people. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the way in which he set out his arguments and brought to your Lordships’ House his intimate knowledge, understanding and involvement from a family perspective of the Gurkha regiments.
I return to the issue of fairness. I believe that the current arrangements are fair and that the Government have been reasonable in their treatment of former Gurkhas. They have kept faith with the terms on which they were engaged prior to July 1997. A number of noble Lords have congratulated the Government on their moves since that date.
The noble Lord’s Bill seeks to amend the immigration rule which relates to former Gurkhas who apply to settle here on the basis of their past service of at least four years in the British Army. Specifically, the noble Lord seeks to remove the requirement for a former Gurkha to have been discharged from service on or after 1 July 1997 in order for him to be eligible for settlement in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord also seeks to remove the requirement for the discharge to have occurred within the two years of the date of settlement application by a Gurkha.
The Government entirely understand the noble Lord’s wish to do the best for the Gurkhas, but it is essential that the House understands that the 1 July 1997 cut-off is not an arbitrary date in the settlement rules for former Gurkhas. I also ask the House to understand the need to put the Gurkha issue into the context of our wider immigration policy, as I have argued.
From 1947 to 30 June 1997, Gurkhas serving in the Army were based and served almost exclusively in the Far East. They were invariably recruited in Nepal,
4 July 2008 : Column 502
It is important to add that Gurkhas have always served in distinct units, with their own command structure and use of their native language. That was so that they could retain their Nepalese links and return to Nepal after discharge to utilise the skills they had acquired in the Army. That has never been so for other foreign and Commonwealth soldiers, who in addition were recruited and discharged in the United Kingdom and always served alongside British soldiers.
From 1971, Gurkhas began to spend tours of duty in the United Kingdom of up to two years. Then, on 1 July 1997, the Brigade of Gurkhas became UK-based, with headquarters here, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from Hong Kong. This is extremely significant as it is only from this time that membership of the Brigade of Gurkhas would be likely to lead to an extended period of residence in the United Kingdom or to the development of the type of close physical or family ties to the UK which would normally justify a grant of settlement to applicants under the relevant immigration rules.
On the immigration rules and immigration policy in general, the grant of settlement in the United Kingdom is normally linked to an extended period of residence here or to the presence of a close family tie. In October 2004, following a very detailed Home Office and Ministry of Defence policy review, the immigration rules were amended. That change meant that, from 25 October that year, Gurkhas who had completed at least four years’ service in the British Army and who had been discharged in Nepal on or after 1 July 1997 have been able to apply for settlement here within two years of the date of discharge. Since April 2007, Gurkhas have had the option of discharge in Nepal or in the United Kingdom; their dependants are also able to apply for settlement in line with them.
Those arrangements recognise that the pattern of service in the British Army for Gurkhas has changed over the past decade. In addition, Gurkhas who retired before 1 July 1997 can apply for settlement under discretionary arrangements where there are strong reasons why settlement here is appropriate, such as a significant period of residence in this country or the presence of a close family tie.
Following the rule change, there was, as noble Lords have acknowledged today, a two-year transition period, which extended the policy to those Gurkhas who had arrived in the UK after discharge and had remained without permission. Those arrangements have enabled many former Gurkhas to regularise their position in the UK and discretion may continue to be exercised in granting settlement to former Gurkhas on a case-by-case basis.
4 July 2008 : Column 503
I should add, to further inform the House, that a consolidated appeal is due to be heard before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal on 21 July relating to the issues underlying the Bill. A number of Gurkhas have appealed against refusals of entry clearance or indefinite leave to enter or remain and settle in the UK. A number of judicial reviews are outstanding. We argue that those cases will provide an opportunity for the fairness of the policy to be tested and it seems to us eminently reasonable and sensible to await the outcomes of those landmark cases.
Noble Lords made a number of points in the debate and it is right that I should try to respond to some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, questioned the issue of the insufficiency of ties to the United Kingdom and he argued that perhaps only 10,000 of the 25,000 Gurkhas might wish to settle here. The Government fully recognise the service contributed by former members of the Gurkha regiments, but the terms of their service and their pension entitlement have, we argue, been fully honoured by us. We think that the 1997 cut-off is reasonable and fair—noble Lords have credited us for that improvement on former government policy. We believe that it provides consistency with wider immigration policy where, as I have argued throughout, the settlement is normally linked to a period of extended residence in the UK under the Immigration Rules or to the presence of family ties. Any decision to do away with the 1997 cut-off would have to take into account the impact across government departments of the arrival of potentially as many as 40,000 former Gurkhas and their dependants, not least the extensive implications for our already stretched housing sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, referred to a particular case relating to Ministry of Defence pensions. He acknowledged that, earlier this week in the High Court, Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the Government’s application of the July 1997 cut-off date to pension enhancements for service in the Gurkhas after July 1997, after which there had been an expectation of retiring in the United Kingdom, was reasonable, rational and lawful. That is the approach that the Government want to proceed with. We think that Gurkhas, past and present, have benefited from decent terms and conditions, something that is perhaps evidenced by the intense competition that traditionally accompanies annual recruitment for the brigade. It is not uncommon to have 20,000 applicants competing for approximately 200 places. We think that we have the balance about right.
I also want to respond to the important point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, about putting at risk the military covenant, an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. We regard the maintenance of the covenant between the Government, the Armed Forces and the British public as essential not only to those who serve but to the future health and integrity of our Armed Forces. No one should question that important commitment made by the British Government. I cannot accept that the Government’s position on Gurkha pensions or settlement rights suggests in any way that the covenant is being compromised or jeopardised, as may have been suggested this morning.
4 July 2008 : Column 504
As has been acknowledged during the debate, there have been substantial improvements to the pay, conditions and pension entitlements of serving Gurkhas, bringing them into line with their Commonwealth and British counterparts in the Armed Forces generally. We have rightly been congratulated on that. As I explained, the July 1997 cut-off applied to those seeking settlement within the Immigration Rules. We believe that it is fair and rational. As we have made plain, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, recognised, there is scope for those Gurkhas who retired prior to 1 July 1997 to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom under the discretionary arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, gave us some details on numbers for that. However, it must be an evidence-based application.
I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. As I explained at the outset, the Government are not minded to support the Bill. We owe the Gurkhas a debt of gratitude. We believe that they have been treated fairly in the application of the 1 July 1997 cut-off. No doubt the issue will continue to be raised and to exercise legislators. It is not an easy one to resolve—the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, reflected on that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh. It is not simple or straightforward. We must retain the integrity and consistency of our application of immigration policy.
I have a great deal of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who argued his case well, and for all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate with understandable passion and commitment and with a sense of reverence for the Gurkhas. The Government do not demur from any of that. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed and for the opportunity to set out the Government’s case but, all those things being said, I have to oppose the Bill.
12.18 pm
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated in today’s debate. We have had five deeply sincere Back-Bench speeches from all quarters of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly talked about the diminishing number of Gurkhas. I say to the Minister that the 40,000 figure is a red herring and nonsense. We heard the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, with his great reputation and stature, talking about the military covenant and the Gurkhas’ value as citizens.
We had the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, with his considerable admiration for the Gurkhas. He talked with his deep professional knowledge of the pensions issue, which I was not focusing on today, although it is important. I acknowledge some of the improvements that the Government have made in the pensions situation of some. We then had the most moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, with his deep family involvement with the Gurkhas, questioning where the military covenant is when it comes to the Gurkhas. There was also, of course, the contribution of my friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, who served with the Gurkhas in Burma—
Lord Sheikh: He is not that old.
4 July 2008 : Column 505
Lord Lee of Trafford: I am sorry, in Borneo; he is still a youthful man. He talked about the Gurkhas as running the jungle warfare school there and the debt of honour that we owe them. At least the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, speaking for the Official Opposition, promised us a review if the Conservative Party comes to power at the next election. That is some progress, and we are grateful for that.
The Minister’s contribution was somewhat disappointing. He could not have particularly enjoyed his role today. His speech was negative and defensive and had no support at all from any of his colleagues on the Back Benches. However, as he acknowledged, we will return to this issue again. It will not go away. We owe so much to the Gurkhas.
In conclusion, I hope that the Bill will be considered again.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Planning and Energy Bill
12.21 pm
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield apologises that he cannot be here today, so it falls to me to beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved the amendment:
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, after “authority” insert “under or by virtue of any other enactment (including an enactment passed after the day on which this Act is passed)”
4 July 2008 : Column 506
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading, I referred to the need to make a very minor technical amendment to this important and valuable Bill. The amendment is required to improve the clarity of the Bill and has been brought to our attention by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As ever, I am grateful to it for its diligence on matters such as this, and I am confident that the Committee will agree that it is better to amend the Bill now so that it is watertight. It is unfortunate that such a minor amendment is required at this stage, especially when the Bill has cross-party support and no other amendments have been laid, but as ever we are where we are.
We need to amend the Bill for the straightforward reason that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considers that Clause 1(2)(a) could be said to create a new power to make regulations to set energy efficiency standards. There was no intention to create such a power in the Bill. The intention was to rely on regulation-making powers in other legislation. The government amendment therefore inserts,
- “under or by virtue of any other enactment (including an enactment passed after the day on which this Act is passed)”.
That clarifies the intention to refer to regulation-making powers in other legislation. It is the sole purpose of the amendment, which I am grateful for the opportunity to move. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: That is probably the shortest speech that the Minister has made in this House for a very long time. I shall be even briefer and say that we have no objection to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
- House adjourned at 12.25 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |