Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-89)
MR TIMOTHY
HEAVER, MR
MARTIN HOWE,
MR LAXMI
PRASAD SHARMA,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
KEVIN HURLEY
AND MR
GYAN BAHADUR
SHERCHAN
4 NOVEMBER 2008
Q80 Bob Russell: The bulk of those
we are talking about are already in the UK and we need to regularise
their situation?
Mr Howe: There are some who have
applied. I do not know what the number is for that, but there
are some. That does need to be regularised.
Q81 Chairman: The 3,714 you mentioned
so precisely, Mr Howe, are they here already?
Mr Howe: The post-1997 applicants
will be here, the 2,000, but the balance are still in Nepal because
their applications were refused.
Q82 Mr Clappison: You have told us
about the situation on pensions, are you able to assist the Committee
with a figure for the cost of the pension changes which you have
been talking about?
Mr Howe: I have not said there
are going to be pension changes. I think the Committee needs to
draw a bright line between the settlement case on one side and
what may become a pension matter. It is not before you now.
Q83 Mr Clappison: One of the things
we have not heard about yet is a right to compensation. I think
it may help the Committee and everybody if I say that the right
to compensation for serving categories of Gurkhas you are asking
for is a special arrangement for compensation or lump-sum one-time
pension to all World War II Victoria Cross holders and other widows.
Mr Howe: I have not said that.
Q84 Mr Clappison: This is issue 3
of the Gurkha campaign. Who would be the right person to ask about
this?
Mr Heaver: I do not think any
of us. I am certainly not aware of any compensation claim. I would
like to make it absolutely clear the courts have ruled on the
pension issue. The courts have held that the current pension regime
is lawful. We are not here today to talk Gurkha pensions and we
are certainly not here today to give estimates or guesstimates
as to what a Gurkha pension may or indeed may not cost. I am not
aware of any compensation claim for Gurkhas. The compensation
Gurkhas seek is probably simply the right to come and work in
this country, and create their own compensation by their own labours.
Mr Clappison: We will look into that
more. I was just detailing the service which they had given, which
was some considerable service to this country, for which they
had not been compensated, and in some cases they have been made
redundant arbitrarily. But we will take better particulars on
that.
Q85 Martin Salter: I would just like
to turn to an argument that the MOD regularly trot out, which
is as similarly ludicrous as are some of their other arguments,
that there would be a massive effect on the Nepalese economy if
we were to open up settlement rights to 10,000, 15,000 ex-Gurkhas.
I understand, Mr Heaver, that up to five million Nepalese workers
work abroad and remit money back into Nepal. That is quite common
practice for underdeveloped countries: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan,
wherever. From that, it would seem to me that the claim of the
MOD that the Nepalese economy would somehow be negatively affected
by a number of Gurkhas seeking settlement rights in this country
is pretty ludicrous in the context of five million people working
abroad. Presumably, also, people working in this country would
continue to remit back into Nepal, therefore boosting the living
standards and the economy of Nepal.
Mr Heaver: None of the statistics
and figures put forward by the Ministry of Defence and the Home
Office bears close scrutiny. There are millions, as you have said,
of Nepalese working outside Nepal and remitting money back to
Nepal. The latest figures I have seen of the size of the Nepalese
economy is that it is US $1.95 billion.
Q86 Chairman: So it will not have
any effect if we grant this leave: the Nepalese economy will still
survive.
Mr Heaver: It will survive. And,
of that US $1.95 billion, US $1 billion is remittances from overseas.
Q87 Chairman: Do you think that will
continue, even though they are allowed settlement here?
Mr Heaver: On the maximum figures
that are being talked about—which are disputed—we
are talking maybe 200,00 but almost certainly very many fewer
than that.
Q88 Chairman: We are not talking
200,000.
Mr Heaver: No. How can remittances
or removals of capital from Nepal by such a few people have any
devastating effect on anything?
Q89 Martin Salter: The MOD also question
whether or not, if settlements rights were granted, the Nepalese
government would allow the continued recruitment of the Gurkhas—a
legitimate question if the numbers were large. We would be interested
in your views on that contention.
Mr Heaver: If we look at the Indian
Army, they still recruit one-third of their Gurkha soldiers in
Nepal. It is a large number—many times that recruited into
the British Army. The Maoist government in Nepal has made an ideological
commitment to ending Gurkha recruitment but they are realists
about it: they know that if they are to end recruitment they have
to replace those jobs with comparably paid jobs. That is not going
to happen in my lifetime or the lifetime of anyone here, I suspect.
They have pragmatically said that they will retain an ideological
commitment but they are not going to do anything about it.
Chairman: Luckily the Select Committee
has no influence of the Maoist government.
Martin Salter: Sadly, I would say.
Chairman: Gentlemen, you have given evidence
for over an hour. All of us on this Committee, irrespective of
what happens in terms of our report, want to pay tribute to the
work you have done. Would you pass on our thanks to Ms Lumley,
who was unable to come today, for her letter. The Committee is
now going to deliberate, as soon as the room is cleared, on a
letter that we will send to the Home Secretary following this
evidence session. Mr Salter, what time is the meeting this afternoon?
Martin Salter: It is at 3.30 in Committee
Room 11.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
