Memorandum submitted by Joanna Lumley
I am very sorry that I shall not be able to
attend the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing on the Gurkhas.
You have kindly invited me to offer a few sentences to be considered
on Tuesday, which now follow.
The situation under debate seems to demand a
two-fold response. The first is this; is it right to bar soldiers
who have served our country for many years from the right to settle
here simply because their country of origin is not within the
Commonwealth: in effect, treating them as mercenaries. I believe
that over the 200 years that they have served with the British
Armed Forces, displaying gallantry and self-sacrifice at the highest
level, that they have earned the right to be treated as least
as fairly as their Commonwealth counterparts.
I understand money has always been deducted
from the Gurkhas' wages at source, presumably as taxes, and yet
the Home Secretary expressed concern to me that old soldiers would
come over here to use the National Health Service. I believe that
these veterans have earned the right many times over to be cured
and nurtured by the country they have protected for so long, as
have their children the right to be educated here if they so choose.
The government insists on compelling reasons
for pre 1997 retirees to be allowed to settle here, citing residential
or family ties. Gurkhas have been barred from living here by a
succession of governments, making "family ties" a ludicrous
and insulting requirement to these most devoted adherents to family
values. As their tour of duty in Britain almost never extends
beyond two years, it is similarly insulting of the government
to offer the chance to apply to Settle only to those who must
have served for three years on these shores.
The complicated reasons and requirements retired
Gurkhas must meet seem to have been made especially difficult
to comply with, like a Catch 22 situation, devised with a strange
kind of small-mindedness and in meanness of spirit. I write this
at a time when the 2012 Olympics are in preparation, and much
is being made of the budget of £9 billion for two weeks entertainment
being a fair, if rather startling, price to pay for putting our
country in a good light on the world's stage. This brings me to
my second part; the honour of Great Britain.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of the letters
the Gurkha Justice Group and I have received express the deepest
shame and anger at the way we treat retired Gurkhas. The most
commonly-held opinions are that we owe the Gurkhas everything
they may need, out of gratitude for their solidarity and sacrifice:
that the Gurkhas should immediately be put at the head of the
queue of people entering this country, even before our newer friends
in the expanding European Union: that people are ashamed of our
indifference to the plight of these retired soldiers, and to ex-servicemen
in general; and that our country's honour is in tatters.
All these letters recommend a complete re-write
of the rules applying to Gurkhas; to do so would remove the feeling
of shame and self-loathing that these existing laws provoke in
the people of the UK. To be candid, people are disgusted with
our country's attitude to our most loyal allies and faithful friends.
I would submit that the fairest thing the Home
Secretary could do is to remove the 1997 cut-off date and amend
the Immigration Rule, so that the position of post-1997 Gurkhas
is applied to pre-1997 Gurkhas: which is that 4 years' service
in the Armed Forces is sufficient, of itself, to allow a Gurkha
to settle in the UK with his family.
Money is not the question here: this country's
behaviour to her truest friends is on trial. Without honour there
is not much else worth having.
Thank you so much, Mr Vaz: I await the outcome
of your deliberations with the keenest interest.
21 November 2008
| 
