Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
MR TIMOTHY
HEAVER, MR
MARTIN HOWE,
MR LAXMI
PRASAD SHARMA,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
KEVIN HURLEY
AND MR
GYAN BAHADUR
SHERCHAN
4 NOVEMBER 2008
Q60 Gwyn Prosser: I wonder if I could
first make a personal remark, not on behalf of the Committee.
I think most of us are wholly supportive of improving the lot
of Gurkhas and giving them the rights to which we think they are
entitled, but my own personal view, Mr Howe, is that you are in
danger of over-egging and overplaying the whole issue of valour
and gallantry, important as they are. I think everyone in the
country is very well versed on that and I think we have to look
at more practical issues within the Human Rights boundary, as
Mr Davies commented. That is a personal remark. My question is
to do with the 1997 cut-off date. Do you disagree with that per
se or do you think it too arbitrarily set and should be on a different
date?
Mr Howe: The so-called rationale
for the date is that it is the date on which Hong Kong was handed
back to the Chinese and the headquarters of the Brigade of Gurkhas
moved finally from Hong Kong to the UK. The rationale was that,
therefore, the ties with the UK became stronger after that date.
I would say that service for the country, no matter where and
no matter when is what counts. Whereas the 1997 date may be a
relevant date in respect of other types of matters—and I
have in mind the pension issue here and there have been quite
clear, bright lines drawn on that by the courts—I do not
think it is relevant to what we are talking about. We are talking
about a moral debt of honour and gratitude.
Q61 Mr Winnick: Mr Howe and Mr Heaver,
reference has already been made by Mr Salter to the Home Office
note we have which tells us that the judgment of 30 September
has been accepted by the Home Office and urgent work is being
undertaken to produce revised guidelines. However, in the same
note it says, "Any new proposal that resulted in the removal
of the 1 July 1997 cut-off"—and we come back now to
figures—"would have to consider the wide-ranging social
and financial impacts of granting settlement to up to 40,000 former
Gurkhas and their dependents, not least on the housing sector."
The Home Office note goes on to say, "The majority of the
Gurkha inflow would be over the age of 60 and have difficulty
in finding work and would have implications for the Government's
position on pension provision for former Gurkhas." That is
going to be, if you like, the Home Office position. What would
be your reaction to that?
Mr Howe: Really what I said earlier.
This is simply not borne out by the evidence. The numbers that
have applied are—
Q62 Mr Winnick: They plucked it out
of the air, do you think?
Mr Howe: They have taken a potential
pool, multiplied it by three, added two to it and come up with
a figure. The hard evidence is how many of this group of veterans
have applied. It is in the region of 1,300 to 1,400.
Q63 Mr Winnick: The Home Office would
say, theoretically—unless you dispute the figure given—up
to 40,000 and their dependents.
Mr Howe: Do we think the whole
ageing population of Nepal is about to uproot, come over here
and look for work? I think that is, again, just nonsensical. We
should look at the real numbers and the reasons for them coming.
There may be reasons of health that people will come, but there
are no reasons without connections.
Q64 Mr Winnick: I happen to agree
with you, Mr Howe. It is the Home Office that uses this as an
argument.
Mr Howe: I find it scaremongering.
Q65 Mr Winnick: What do you say to
the Home Office view that really this is just a means of trying
to get over the immigration rules and regulations and it is undesirable?
Mr Heaver: The whole problem was
there were no immigration rules and regulations that dealt with
any members of the Armed Forces prior to October/November 2004.
To suggest that Gurkhas are trying to circumvent the rules is
therefore just a complete misunderstanding of the situation. There
were no rules to circumvent. There was a concession that was applied
for Commonwealth and foreign soldiers in the forces that was not
applied to Gurkhas. Had there been settlement permitted for Gurkhas
on the same basis as was allowed for the foreign and Commonwealth
soldiers, there would not be a problem, there would not be a situation
to circumvent.
Q66 Mr Winnick: Is it your view that
sometimes governments take on causes or cases which they cannot
possibly win because of public opinion?
Mr Howe: In 2004 the Home Office
was acting in a very honourable way, in my view, and I think the
Home Secretary was ready to allow all Gurkhas, irrespective of
the date of retirement, to settle in the country if they had served
for four years. The evidence I have seen showed that the MOD then
put information into the Home Office that there were oppositions
to that from the government in Nepal. The MOD was essentially
saying there ought to be the 1997 date because the government
of Nepal did not want Gurkhas to be discharged back in Nepal.
That proved to be unfounded.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q67 Mrs Dean: Turning back to pension
rights, a question for Mr Sharma and Mr Sherchan. The pension
settlement for Gurkhas was initially set in line with pension
rights for the Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army. Do you consider
it fair for British Gurkhas to receive different terms and conditions
to Indian Gurkhas?
Mr Sherchan: The British Gurkhas
are to receive the pension in what it is at the moment. Is that
what you said?
Q68 Chairman: There is a difference
between the pension of a person serving in India and in the UK.
Mrs Dean would like to know if you think that is fair, that there
should be that difference?
Mr Sherchan: No, it is not fair.
Q69 Chairman: Thank you. Mr Sharma?
Mr Sharma: The service was within
the British Army as Gurkhas, so, as the service of the Gurkhas
within the British Army is recognised as a superb service, the
pension should definitely be different to Indian Gurkhas and equal
to the home soldiers here.
Chairman: We have a split in the campaign.
Q70 Mrs Dean: Are you saying that
if they retire over here the pensions should be higher?
Mr Sharma: Regardless to where
they retire, regardless to prior to 1 July 1997, regardless to
when they joined, where they joined or where they served or retired,
the pensions should be equal. In terms of pay, pension and other
amenities, they should be equal, as far as I know and I realise.
Q71 Mrs Dean: They should be equal
but higher than the Indian Gurkhas pension.
Mr Sharma: Well, definitely it
has to be higher, because that is their part of the world. They
served there. They served that country. Their pension should be
determined by that government, not the British Government.
Q72 Martin Salter: Chief Superintendent
Hurley, I read in The Observer that you are going to be
telling us why the Gurkhas would make great recruits to the British
Police Force. I would like to give you an opportunity to do that
and briefly give us an indication of your view of the Gurkhas,
based on your service with them.
Mr Hurley: Chairman, if I may
very briefly, before I address that question, clarify a fact that
has been lost amongst all this. Up until 2002, Gurkhas were able
to apply for passports, were they to know that they could have
done so. Within British immigration regulations, providing a person
who was doing Crown service got the sponsorship of their commanding
officer, they could apply for a passport. Indeed, the first Gurkha
did it through that route because I sponsored him along that route.
Subsequent to that, a large number of Gurkhas applied for passports.
Once the Ministry of Defence Brigade of Gurkhas became aware,
they then interceded with the Home Office Immigration Department
to prevent other Gurkhas getting their passports. Turning to your
question about why Gurkhas may or may not make good police officers:
it is not the policy of the Metropolitan Police or any other force
specifically to recruit from any ethnic group; however, the fact
is that because Gurkhas possess many of the qualities that make
good police officers—they are loyal, they are intelligent,
they are highly motivated, many of them speak several different
languages from the Indian subcontinent and, of course, they visibly
diversify the workforce—they would be welcome as police
officers. Indeed, the first Gurkha to get a British passport has
now completed four years' service with a UK police force.
Q73 Martin Salter: I want to move
on to ask about the treatment of Gurkhas in comparison with other
foreign and Commonwealth soldiers who served in the British Army.
It s my understanding that from anywhere else in the world, and
the Fiji Islands is a place where the MOD recruit quite aggressively,
which is a pretty poor country, the settlement rights are that
after four years' service in the British Army they have an automatic
right of settlement to this country and, presumably, also enjoy
the same pension rights as a regular British Army soldier. Is
that the case? If it is, do you think it is fair?
Mr Hurley: It is the case. Indeed,
for Gurkhas post-1997 they enjoy a similar right. But really the
issue here is of those Gurkhas who served before 1997 who would
like the opportunity to come here. I think the key thing, to take
up the point, is that, although we have heard of up to 40,000,
perhaps the reality of it is that most of these people are very
old men who are most unlikely now to leave their families and
homes, so we are talking small numbers.
Q74 Martin Salter: To put it bluntly,
the argument that because Nepal is a poor country and the wages
are much lower and, therefore, the Gurkhas should receive a lesser
pension and lesser terms and conditions, is completely inconsistent
with the British Army recruiting from somewhere like Fiji where
wages are also much lower.
Mr Hurley: Yes, you are absolutely
right. Those Fijians who were recruited, shall we say, before
1997, have received full British Army pensions.
Q75 Martin Salter: Lastly, Blake
J in his judgment said in relation to the situation in the Falkland
Islands that he found it inconsistent—I would use stronger
words—that the Government found that the Falkland Islanders
had a tie with Britain which entitled them to settlement rights
but the people who went over there and gave their lives and shed
blood in order to protect their freedom were denied those rights.
What is your reaction to that? Do you share Blake J's criticism
of the current policy?
Mr Hurley: I suspect it is probably
the same reaction as virtually everyone on this Committee. It
is not right and it is not fair.
Q76 Bob Russell: Much of my line
of questioning has already been exhausted in previous interventions,
so you will pleased to know that I am somewhat limited. You are
obviously aware of my oral question to the Immigration Minister
on the floor of the House on 14 July 2008. Would you agree with
me that we received a welcoming answer from Liam Byrne?
Mr Howe: Would you be able to
remind me.
Chairman: Mr Russell, because you do
ask many questions to Mr Byrne, would you like to refresh the
witness's memory roughly of what was said.
Q77 Bob Russell: This was on 14 July
when I asked about leave to remain for former Gurkha soldiers
who left the British Army before 1997. His answer was the usual
standard answer, so I followed up with a supplementary urging
the Government to do pre-1997 what they had done post-1997—and
let us give credit to the Government for at least what they did
post-1997. Mr Byrne's answer, in summary, left me with the impression
that those who applied would be treated very sympathetically.
Indeed, in the statement the Home Secretary issued after the High
Court judgment on 30 September, she said—and this again
gives further comfort—"I have always been clear that
where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families
should be considered for settlement. We will honour our commitment
to the Gurkhas by reviewing all cases by the end of the year."
Are you satisfied that the Home Office will review all cases by
the end of the year?
Mr Howe: I hope so. I cannot say
any more than that. They should do.
Q78 Chairman: There is about six
weeks left.
Mr Howe: They must be working
on it already. I hope so.
Q79 Bob Russell: Allied to that,
you are obviously aware of the 10 minute rule bill I introduced
to the House. I am hoping that in due course this Committee could
persuade the Prime Minister to include the sentiments of that,
along with the High Court hearing judgment, in the next Queen's
Speech. To finalise, how many of the people who would gain settlement
rights under your proposals are currently (a) living in Nepal
and (b) living in the UK?
Mr Howe: The 2001 census showed
that there were just under 6,000 Nepalese people living in the
UK. There are estimates that that number is now up around 50,000.
Of those in Nepal, who wish to take up the rights, I come back
to the answer I have given a number of times: the applicants have
been in the region of 1,300 and there are probably up to 10,000
in total—
| 
