| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Pensions Green Paper as the first ever statement of government policy to explicitly consider the needs of women; further welcomes the commitment by the Government to report next year on the pensions position of women; supports steps to improve the incomes of women pensioners and enable more women than ever to build up pensions; welcomes in particular the introduction of Pension Credit, benefiting over two million women, and the state second pension, helping millions of the lowest paid women and women with caring responsibilities to build up a second pension; believes that both main Opposition parties' policies are unaffordable, unworkable and do nothing for the very poorest; notes that the Liberal Democrat policies will be financed by scrapping DTI programmes, which boost the wealth of the nation through investment in research and innovation; supports the conclusion of the Pensions Policy Institute that 'the average woman will lose' under proposed Conservative policy; notes that 99 per cent. of NHS trusts provide single-sex sleeping accommodation for planned admissions; and, as there are 10,000 wards in use across the NHS, congratulates the Government on this achievement; applauds the extension of breast screening to women aged 65 to 70, resulting in an additional 200,000 women being invited since April 2001; commends the Government's historic commitment to tackling pensioner poverty, which is continuing to do most for the poorest women pensioners; and welcomes the £10 billion extra that the Government is spending on pensioners this year compared with the 1997 system.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Business Improvement Districts (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 7th September, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Student Fees (Approved Plans) (England) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 7th September, be approved.—[Mr. Watson.]
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union document No. 15820/03, draft Directive on driving licences (Recasting); and endorses the Government's objective to combat driving licence fraud and improve road safety without imposing undue burdens on industry, private individuals or law enforcers.—[Mr. Watson.]
Question agreed to.
PETITIONS
Crossrail Depot
7.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con):
My constituents are gravely concerned at the prospect that Crossrail is to construct a large railway depot in the heart of Romford. It will particularly affect the
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1241
Crowlands and Rush Green areas of Romford, running from St. Edward's school to the Waterloo estates and from Oldchurch hospital to the Dagenham border.
My constituents are fearful that the effects could be devastating for the whole community and for the lives of local people, not to mention the effects on the local environment. The roads that will be particularly affected are Beechfield gardens, Crow lane and the surrounding roads, Ainsley avenue, Sheringham avenue, Jutsums lane, Bridport avenue, Southern way and Stockland road.
I should like to make several key points. The Crossrail depot will cause massive disruption to the whole community. The consultation has taken place—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a speech. He should present the petition. There are words set out for the hon. Gentleman. If he reiterates those words, everyone will be happy, including the Speaker.
Mr. Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petition reads:
The people of the Romford Parliamentary Constituency declare that they are wholly opposed to the construction of a Crossrail Depot within Romford.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all it can to ensure that the depot is not built as it will cause considerable inconvenience and disruption to the people of Romford.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
The petition is signed by no less than 2,199 people and has been collected by the Crossrail action group.
To lie upon the Table.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1242
King's Own Scottish Borderers
7.28 pm
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): The future of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots is a cause of real concern to people in the borders. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have met the Secretary of State for Defence on two occasions to argue for the continuation of these regiments. The strength of feeling in our constituencies is illustrated by the enthusiasm with which people have signed the petition, which reads:
The petition of the constituents of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, the constituents of Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other concerned individuals
Declares that the doubts about the future of the King's Own Scottish Borderers regiment following the announcement on defence spending by the Secretary of State on Wednesday 21 July 2004 are causing growing concern in south-east Scotland. The Petitioners highlight the proud military traditions of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the regiment's successful contributions to historic and recent military conflicts and peace-keeping missions around the world and its strong ties with the communities of the Scottish Borders in particular.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's government to reconsider proposals which would reduce the number of Scottish battalions, to make provision for the retention of all of the Scottish regiments, and in particular to reject any plan to disband or amalgamate the King's Own Scottish Borderers.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1241
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1243
Gurkhas
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]
7.30 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of our treatment of Gurkhas, particularly so far as immigration law is concerned. The matter concerns many hon. Members: I have agreed to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) making a brief intervention at a later stage, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) have campaigned for more equitable treatment for the Gurkhas for a long time.
I shall put the debate in context. On 6 March 2003, I was fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on this subject. During the course of that debate, I raised the treatment of Gurkhas in immigration law. I was particularly concerned that, although a Gurkha can serve 15 years with the British armed forces, which they normally do, and that that time is likely to include deployment on active service, those 15 years are not taken into account if they subsequently apply for leave to remain, leave to re-enter having returned to Nepal or naturalisation.
I followed up my Adjournment debate with a letter to the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), on 10 April 2003. On 1 July 2003, the then Minister replied and, among other assurances, were these words:
"Officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office are in the process of reviewing current policy on naturalisation and settlement of Ghurkhas. A further meeting is being arranged to explore the possibility of immigration or work permit concessions that may enable Ghurkhas to return to the UK after discharge."
I felt hopeful when I received that letter, but I should have known better. Nothing happened.
On 12 January 2004, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary asking what was happening. The then Minister replied on his behalf on 15 January and said that the review would report "shortly". Nothing further happened, so I rather boringly tabled exactly the same written question on 29 March, and the then Minister, doubtless with equal weariness, replied, yet again, that the review would report shortly.
My patience is almost limitless. I did nothing at all until we returned from the summer recess, when I tabled the same question, without great hope that I would receive anything other than the same reply. On that occasion, a slight variation occurred: the Minister said that he would reply as soon as possible, and I look forward to his giving that answer tonight. That is the context in which I sought and obtained this Adjournment debate. I have patiently endured the long process of waiting for the Government to rectify the disgraceful treatment of people who have served us well.
The Minister need not glare when I say that, because that treatment was not invented by him—indeed, it was not invented by any one Government. It has gone on for rather a long time, but that does not make it any less disgraceful.
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1244
The Gurkha regiment has won 26 Victoria crosses, 13 of which were won by Gurkhas themselves. They have fought in nearly every conflict since world war two: in the Falklands, in the first Gulf war, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, and most recently, in Iraq. Yet, as I said in my Adjournment debate of 6 March 2003, we show our gratitude with a P45 and a one-way ticket to Nepal. After 15 years' service, they cannot stay here.
Let us suppose that such a Gurkha has a British child—that is, a child born in this country whom the law recognises as British. Even in those circumstances, the parent cannot remain in this country once his period of service is up. On proof that the parents have returned to Nepal and are settled there, one parent, but only one, can accompany the child to the UK; but when the child reaches the age of 12 that parent must go back. That means that a British citizen is either forcibly returned—by which I mean moral force, not deportation force—or is left alone in this country at the tender age of 12.
That prompts the question: whatever sort of country are we? I would propose that any Gurkha who has completed 15 years' service in this country and who applies to either remain, re-enter or be naturalised should be treated on exactly the same basis as anybody else who had been in this country for 15 years would be treated. I do not ask for them to be treated with special favour, but merely to have equality with others who have been in this country for 15 years.
In case there is any suggestion that this would flood the immigration system beyond its capacity to cope, only some 200 to 250 Gurkhas a year complete 15 years' service. These men are well trained, well disciplined and dutiful, and they would make ideal British citizens.
Let us make the obvious comparison. If somebody comes into this country unlawfully—in the back of a lorry, for example—or enters lawfully then decides to overstay, history shows that after a due period of time that person will benefit from an amnesty. Even if they do not so benefit, if they apply to regularise their position they will ask for the time that they have spent in this country to be taken into account and, as I well know, it is. Yet despite the 15 years' service of Gurkhas, it is as if they do not exist. Not one of them is taken into account. Any member of the NATO armed services can enter this country after discharge and apply for leave to stay here. They could be Frenchmen or Turkish infantrymen: they could be anybody. They are allowed to stay, whereas Gurkhas who have served the British Army directly, and may well have shed blood in that cause, are not.
In the previous debate, I raised other issues that I accept are not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I would nevertheless be very glad if he discussed them with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence. One of those issues is the absolute cruelty of refusing Gurkhas the right to have their families with them for more than three years out of the 15. It is true that those of the rank of colour sergeant or above can have a greater level of family accompaniment, but that is only 10 per cent. of them. Rank-and-file Gurkhas—the other 90 per cent.—can have their families with them for only three out of the 15 years.
Even if one tots up all the long leave that they are allowed in Nepal, they will still spend 10 years out of their 15 without their families. Any British soldier who is posted—not on active service—abroad can take his
14 Sept 2004 : Column 1245
family with him. Why do we assume that Gurkhas are not normal human beings who want their kids and wives with them? What is so different about them that we limit them ferociously to three years? I use the word ferocious because we often have surplus married accommodation but it is not put at the disposal of Gurkhas. The rule is most rigidly enforced.
When I previously raised the issue in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who is a member of the Britain-Nepal group, made a timely intervention to point out that given the amount of time that has passed since the archaic agreements that resulted in such injustices, a fresh look is necessary. As I said, I was delighted when I was told that a fresh look was in process, but nothing has come of it.
I raised the matter in the first place because I have in my constituency a Gurkha unit that is attached to the 36th Engineers, who were in the recent deployment to Iraq. I know how highly esteemed they are. Whenever we have a ceremonial parade in Maidstone, the Gurkha unit always attracts the warmest applause from my constituents. They are highly esteemed, yet poorly treated.
I am assisted somewhat nowadays because a national newspaper has, at long last, taken up the cause. I understand that the Daily Express has received 36,000 positive responses to its campaign to ensure better treatment for Gurkhas. I greatly look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he will take my comments in the spirit that they are intended, which is not party political, but an appeal for the most basic common humanity that a Government should show. I am rather appalled not only at the 18-month delay that I endured but at the fact that we are still discussing the matter in the 21st century and somehow believing that there is still cause to argue about it. There should be no cause; we should right the injustice immediately.
7.42 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |