|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 430 House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
FOLLOW-UP TO THE GURKHA INQUIRY
MR TIM HEAVER MR KEVAN JONES MP, MS MARGARET GILMOUR MR JONATHAN SEDGWICK and MR LAWRENCE SPRINGALL Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 65
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Home Affairs Committee on Members present Keith Vaz, in the Chair Tom Brake Mrs Ann Cryer David T C Davies Mrs Janet Dean Gwyn Prosser Bob Russell Martin Salter Mr Gary Streeter Mr David Winnick ________________ Witness: Mr Tim Heaver, Solicitor representing Gurkha veterans, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: We are taking a very short look at the Committee's report and inquiry into the Gurkha issue. The report of the Committee, as members will know, was accepted in full by the Government and implemented in full by the Government, and we are looking at the follow-up as to what has happened since. We have as our first witness Mr Heaver. You were going to be accompanied by a Gurkha veteran, I understand. Mr Heaver: Yes, Chair, I was. Unfortunately, because of the nature of some of the things that are going on, the individual ex-Gurkha who had initially agreed to attend with me has declined to do so quite late in the day for fear of what might happen to his son who remains in Kathmandu. Q2 Chair: Let us begin by asking you about reports we have heard of the existence of agents who are advising Gurkhas in Nepal, raising expectations and charging them enormous amounts of money. Are these reports accurate? Is this, in fact, what is happening? Mr Heaver: The reports would appear to have foundation in fact, so yes. Q3 Chair: And how widespread is the issue? Mr Heaver: I would not like to say how widespread, but certainly one particular organisation until very recently was certainly telling people that if they did not make the application through that organisation the application would be refused and they would have to make a donation of £500 in order to see that organisation's solicitors who would make the application on their behalf. Q4 Chair: Is there any indication that those agents are connected to any solicitors or agents in the United Kingdom? Mr Heaver: They were certainly working with Messrs Howe & Co, and I must stress that there is nothing to indicate --- Q5 Chair: Sorry, they were working with whom? Mr Heaver: They were introducing
Ghurkhas to Howe & Co, but I must stress there is nothing to indicate that
Howe & Co have done anything improper.
I was handed copy emails this morning to say that Howe & Co raised
this matter with the Legal Services Commission in June last year and the Legal
Services Commission appear to have given the advice that they do not want
clients paying any organisation for a referral for services that they are or
may be entitled to under the Access to Justice Act. Other than that I do not think there is much
we can do from here in the Q6 Chair: The English Solicitors Regulation Authority? Mr Heaver: An English solicitor is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority --- Q7 Chair: Yes, I am aware of that. Mr Heaver: --- wherever in the world they operate as an English solicitor. Q8 Chair: Oh, I see. Mr Heaver: The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner has no extra territorial jurisdiction, so with any immigration matter there are always local agents charging money for services and those services are not necessarily proper, legitimate or --- Q9 Chair: But do you have some hard evidence from people prepared to say to this Committee, or indeed to the Government, "This is what is happening", or is it just anecdotal? Mr Heaver: I can certainly give what would amount to hearsay evidence from members of my family who are Nepalese ex-Gurkhas who have gone along to GAESO in the understanding that they had to, have paid £500 per applicant to GAESO on the understanding that they had to, and have then been introduced to Howe & Co. Howe & Co have acted within the legal aid --- Chair: That is very helpful. Perhaps you would let the Clerk of the Committee have at the end of this session copies of those emails. That would be very helpful. Q10 Martin Salter: Mr Heaver, I want to personally also put on the record that I have had contact from Howe & Co who have absolutely assured me that they have moved out of the GAESO premises and have at no point taken money unscrupulously. I think we should put that on the record because what we are actually talking about here, are we not, is agents, middlemen operating in Nepal in this kind of unregulated vacuum that appears to exist out there and also in the gaps that fall between the various organisations that seek to represent the wider Gurkha community? Is that not the nub of the problem in that it is almost like Life of Brian, we are trying to deal with five or six different organisations in an unregulated framework with quite a rush of people wanting to take advantage of the Government's belated conversion to the Gurkha rights cause? Mr Heaver: Certainly there are many organisations that exist for former Gurkhas. They are all to some extent rivals and compete. Certainly the organisations do sit down and talk and work together. Others do not. The Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation, who are, from what I am hearing, the main culprits in demanding money will not sit down with anyone. We have a large contingent from BGWS who are to be commended because they have sat down in the past with other Gurkha organisations. Sadly, without GAESO the unity of Gurkha organisations is not possible and GAESO to that extent can be a very disruptive organisation, whether intentionally or otherwise. Q11 Martin Salter: Would it be possible for UKBA not to process applications that have come through middlemen or where people have been exploited? Is it possible to have physical measures that would stop people being conned in this way, into handing over hard-earned cash which in many instances represents a year's salary for a service which is provided free by the MoD in Kathmandu? Is there any mechanism that we could recommend the British Government adopted? Mr Heaver: Realistically I cannot see what can be done. The application form itself has a section towards the end of it asking, "Who has helped you fill in the form?" If that is completed properly that would possibly be the only way you could see if a middleman had helped. Martin Salter: Perhaps that should be at the start of the form. Q12 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Heaver, the MoD have told us that their Resettlement Office in Kathmandu goes to some lengths to explain that they have a free service, in other words there is no need to go outside and pay any fees. Are they doing a sufficiently good job in this respect and what else can they do? Mr Heaver: There are a couple of points. First, there are some ex-Ghurkhas who feel very angry and let down by the MoD and who, quite frankly, whatever the MoD do, will never use an MoD sponsored organisation because they will never believe that they will get proper help. Q13 Gwyn Prosser: Really? Mr Heaver: That, unfortunately, is the basis of the formation of all the ex-Gurkha groups. If the Gurkha Resettlement Office was offering perfect advice and a perfect service there would still be people who did not want to use it. Then there is the issue that simple straightforward applications should really go to the Resettlement Office. There is no need for legal advice or legal assistance; it is a straightforward application. With adult dependants, which is the hard end of the cases, the Gurkha Resettlement Office do not like to even take those cases, so there is an issue there because most Ghurkhas want to settle here, at least in part, for the sake of children and in some cases it is only for the sake of children. With GAESO spreading the word that any adult child can come here there will be a large number of bad applications that with no amount of help, legal or otherwise, will get here. Q14 Gwyn Prosser: Mr Heaver, you might remember that at the round table meeting we had last May, which made great progress, I think, with regard to these issues, our friends from the Gurkha groups indicated that they were more than pleased to set up a Resettlement Board to help with the receiving and integration of families, et cetera. Have any developments taken place here? Mr Heaver: Not really. Because of the Gurkha politics involved a large number of the community Nepali groups have not engaged independently and largely it is the MoD leading the resettlement effort. Q15 Gwyn Prosser: And that is bad, is it? Mr Heaver: Not necessarily. Why would that be bad? Q16 Gwyn Prosser: So how can they make progress? Mr Heaver: The Gurkhas themselves need to sit down within themselves, within their community. They need to decide what is good, what is bad, and then they need to move on, and that is a long time awaited. Q17 Chair: Sorry; did you say that they need to sit down and decide what is good and what is bad? This sounds rather like a discussion on Marx and Engels. This Committee has made a recommendation. The Government has accepted the recommendation in full. What is going wrong is practical implementation, is it not, so what do you think should happen rather than having discussions on good and evil? What is the way forward? That is what this Committee needs to know. Mr Heaver: The Gurkhas themselves need
to agree what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. There needs to be full and proper disclosure
of information to those Gurkhas in Q18 Tom Brake: Mr Heaver, first of all could I put a difficult question to you? It has been suggested to us that on the Law Society's records you are not down as a registered solicitor. Can you explain that? Mr Heaver: I retired as a solicitor some years ago through ill health. I work for a firm of solicitors. I do not exercise any of the functions that you need a practising certificate for. Tom Brake: Okay. Can I also ask you, as far as it is possible, to say what particular Gurkha faction you represent, because you cannot see the body language of some of the people sitting behind you, but I can, which indicates that the responses you are giving to lots of these questions are not necessarily terribly representative of the Gurkha community, so which particular group do you represent? Chair: Before you answer that question, unfortunately, Mr Brake, the body language of people in the public gallery is not evidence. Tom Brake: It is anecdotal perhaps. Q19 Chair: Mr Brake, this is to get evidence. Mr Heaver, perhaps you could answer Mr Brake's question not in relation to the body language of people in the public gallery, who do not exist for the purposes of this discussion, but in terms of the intonation behind what Mr Brake is saying. Mr Heaver: My background with the Gurkha organisations is that I was one of the founders of the British Gurkha Welfare Society. I was its founding secretary. I was formerly a committee member of the Gurkha United Forum, which was a group that was aiming to unite everybody. I have been legal adviser to the United British-Gurkha Ex-Servicemen's Association. I represent a large number of Gurkha and Gurkha family member applicants for settlement, and my wife's family going back several generations are Nepali Gurkhas. Chair: Yes, Mr Heaver, I think we accept that is why you are a witness. Tom Brake: I will come on to my specific
question. Obviously, at the point where
discussions were taking place about Gurkha rights and how many Gurkhas would
come to the Q20 Chair: Before you answer, can you remind us, in answer to Mr Brake, what was the estimate? Mr Heaver: The estimates varied. I think I said up to 250,000. In the end I think we settled on --- Q21 Chair: So what did the Government say? Mr Heaver: I think we settled on about 15,000. From what I can make out there are possibly 5,000 Ghurkhas who retired after July 1997 and not many more than 2,000 who retired before whose applications were pending, and a very modest number in addition to that. Q22 Chair: So it is about a third of what we expected? Mr Heaver: We are certainly talking about well under 10,000 that I am aware of. Q23 Tom Brake: Is there any evidence that perhaps the bulk of applications has now happened and the flow has reduced, or is this the first wave of future waves? How do you assess what is likely to happen in the near future? Mr Heaver: Given the saturation of Q24 David Davies: Mr Heaver, you will be reassured to know that the body language of Monmouth Comprehensive is of entire interest in the Committee's proceedings. Can I suggest to you that there have been a lot of good intentions here, lots of celebrities involved in this campaign and many people have gone along with this, but the reality has been that Nepalese citizens, some of whom have not even been in the Gurkhas themselves, many of whom do not speak English properly or have any transferable skills, have come to Britain thinking that the streets are paved with gold and ended up in rotten, mildewed flats trying to eke out a living on benefits, and they have had to borrow money in order to do so. They are the victims in this, and the only people who seem to be making money are, with the exception of yourself perhaps, solicitors in both Nepal and Britain. Mr Heaver: I have certainly seen newspaper reports stating that there are former Gurkhas living in abject conditions. There is certainly an issue that the older Gurkha, who does not necessarily speak English particularly well, will come here and will have difficulty finding work. The answer to that is possibly education both in letting them know before they make the decision to come here that work is not guaranteed, quite the opposite, and education inasmuch as teach them English so that when they arrive here they are in a better position to get work. Q25 Chair: In answer to what Mr Davies has put to you, we did suggest as a Committee that there ought to be something equivalent to the Uganda Resettlement Board. If you will recall when the Ugandan Asians came in 1970 there was a group here. Forget about the disputes in Nepal. There was a group here that could help them resettle. Did this ever happen? Mr Heaver: It has not, no. Q26 Chair: Because Ms Lumley, I think we suggested, might like to be taking the lead on this. Mr Heaver: It has not happened. Q27 Chair: What has become of Ms Lumley in terms of your campaign? Mr Heaver: You talk of my campaign. Q28 Chair: The general campaign. Mr Heaver: Ms Lumley currently is maintaining a dignified silence. I think she is very embarrassed by the revelations and does not really know what to say. Q29 Bob Russell: Mr Heaver, the victory for the pre-1997 Gurkhas was one of those great parliamentary occasions, and it was in tune with the mood of the country at large. Therefore, as somebody who was heavily involved in that parliamentary campaign, with the Ten-Minute Rule Bill and the rest of it, I have to tell you and others who may be reading the proceedings that I am dismayed to hear of the disunity amongst the former Gurkha community. If anything comes out of today's proceedings I trust there will be a healing of wounds and there will be a coming together so that everybody is singing from the same song sheet because I do not think this is what I envisaged, nor indeed what the British public envisaged, when we won this great parliamentary campaign, that there would then be this disunity subsequently. Mr Heaver: There are always political differences. However, we are talking about fundamental basics and one would hope that there is something good in terms of unity that could come from this. Q30 Bob Russell: I sincerely hope so because that does not please me. To your knowledge, how long are applications for settlement under the new rules taking to decide? Mr Heaver: Because of the backlog applications made overseas can take several months. I certainly have a gentleman that I deal with on a daily basis whose wife and two children applied in August last year and they are still waiting in the queue, so it can take a considerable length of time overseas. I have to say the Home Office here, UKBA, are bending over backwards. They are phoning to check. It is difficult to heap enough praise on them. Q31 Bob Russell: So, other than the sheer volume, have there been any problems that have emerged with the application process? Mr Heaver: Not really. It is just volume related. There will always be the odd hiccup, but that is in the nature of things. Chair: Mr Heaver, thank you very much for giving evidence to us. If you have any further information that you think will be helpful please do let us know because the Committee will be, I am sure, very keen to follow up on these matters. Witnesses: Mr Kevan Jones MP, Minister of State for Veterans, Ms Margaret Gilmour, Assistant Head Land Forces Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, Mr Jonathan Sedgwick, Deputy Chief Executive, and Mr Lawrence Springall, UKBA, gave evidence. Q32 Chair: Minister, thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us today. This is a very short inquiry and I would like at the outset to thank you and your officials for the courteous way in which you and they have always dealt with this Committee over this issue. We are very grateful for all that you have done. We are very concerned, however, with the evidence that we have received so far, not just from Mr Heaver but also in your very helpful letter of today's date to Lord Bach and copied to me, which the Committee have just had an opportunity to read, about the situation following a report in the Daily Mail concerning these matters. Are you disappointed with what has happened since the Government accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee on this issue? Mr Jones: Having visited Q33 Chair: We will explore each of those points with questions but I wanted to get an overall feel. The Government obviously made a very tough decision in accepting the recommendations of this Committee and faced embarrassment at the time in the House of Commons with the vote that went against it. Given the whole nature of the campaign and the way in which governments work, it must be a concern to you that it has not gone precisely as envisaged, not because of the Government, on this occasion the Committee is not blaming the Government. Mr Jones: I think I can be justly proud
of my own Department. Margaret and her
colleagues have worked very hard in terms of making sure that we have put in
place the support for Gurkhas, but I have also got to pay credit to colleagues
across government who have worked very closely on this, and also in this
country local councils who have stepped up to the mark. I would like to put on record Q34 Mr Winnick: It might be said, Minister, that it is not so much an embarrassment to you or your ministerial colleagues but to those who fought a very honourable campaign on behalf of the Gurkhas and then found the situation which the Chair has just been speaking about, and he has also referred to the letter which you wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice about the unscrupulous agents, these shysters, and there is no other word to describe them, who are exploiting the Gurkhas in the way we have been hearing about. How many of the Ghurkhas would you say have been adversely affected by these people? Mr Jones: It is difficult to put a number on it, and I will look to Margaret in a minute, but I met the Gurkha charities last week to talk through some of their cases, the more horrendous ones, with people, for example, turning up at Veterans Aid with no support whatsoever, which, frankly, appals me. I think officials are also quite appalled because the system is in place. The system is there. If people use it, it will actually work. Ms Gilmour: I agree. I think it is very difficult to say how many have been affected by using unscrupulous agents. Certainly the numbers that are coming through in terms of destitute or welfare cases are quite small, around 120 so far, and, indeed, quite a lot of those will have been people who got their visas in the early stages, after May, before the Gurkha Settlement Office was set up, and were not prepared, and it is very clear from talking to them all that the vast majority, apart from a dozen or so, have not been through the Gurkha Settlement Office and we have got evidence that they have paid money to agents who gave them misinformation. They have told us that. Q35 Mr Winnick: The important point, Minister, Ms Gilmour, is that the Government has set up the Settlement Office in Nepal and, as you say - I quote your letter, Minister, to your ministerial colleague - "It is, therefore, not clear to me why public money, in the form of legal aid, is being drawn by third parties when a publicly owned MoD service is already available and is free at the point of use." That does seem to make the position perfectly clear that there is an office, funded by British taxpayers, to help the Gurkhas in getting advice, and the rest of it, about coming to the UK. Mr Jones: I had a telephone
conversation this morning with Lord Bach, who has actually said he has now
started an investigation into the operation of any Q36 Mr Winnick: He started this week? Mr Jones: He started that in response to the letter. He will obviously report to you once he has more information. Q37 Chair: On what basis does a minister start an investigation into a firm of solicitors? Mr Jones: It is not a firm of solicitors. He has asked his officials to look at the practice, not any specific firm of solicitors but actually what is going on, what is happening. I will be blunt on this point. I think you have heard from Mr Heaver, there are certain organisations. He has referred to GAESO as an example of one which allegedly is asking for money. We have got to try and get the message across to people to use the Settlement Office. Q38 Chair: We will come on to the Settlement Office in a minute. This is specifically on the agents. Mr Jones: I think this is a point
worth making. I actually made it to the Gurkha
Welfare Trust last week. The high
profile visit of Joanna Lumley actually has given that organisation credibility
in Q39 Mr Winnick: It is not a matter for the UK, but are the local police in any way involved, as far as you know? Ms Gilmour: We understand from a disclaimer put out by GAESO that an investigation is taking place, and we have made some inquiries with the Defence Attaché to ask what is happening with that investigation. Q40 Mr Winnick: It is co-ordinated so far as is possible? Ms Gilmour: Yes. Mr Winnick: To stop the practice. Chair: Thank you. Tom Brake. Q41 Tom Brake: Minister, you have used a number of times the word "allegedly". Are you personally aware of any cases where you could go on record saying that a particular firm has extracted money in a way that you think is completely unacceptable? Mr Jones: I had a meeting with the service charities who have got actual cases of people who have been asked for money by various organisations. I think there are two separate issues. There is one issue about charging for advice, which frankly is free anyway. There is another issue which concerns me, which is the management of expectations. There are, for example, I think, organisations suggesting that Gurkhas can apply for settlement here and bring in over-18 dependents and that they will fight their case. That is actually about getting over to the Gurkhas what the actual settlement deal was. At the time the campaign was to be treated just like any other Commonwealth soldiers, and that is exactly what they would have been. I think raising expectations amongst certain sectors that you can actually bring family members in over 18 is something that also concerns me. Ms Gilmour: I agree with what the Minister has said. We have got specific cases with names of people who have made allegations who are on our welfare books. For confidentiality reasons we clearly would not make those names available, but I can go on record to say I have transcripted evidence from welfare officers that allegations have been made by these people that they have had to pay money. Q42 Tom Brake: Minister, if subsequently it is proven that are UK lawyers were, in fact, charging for advice that is free, what do you expect those UK lawyers to do: pay the money back? Mr Jones: As people know from my great campaign on miners' compensation and the dim view I take of lawyers taking money from people that do not need to, yes, they should and, frankly, they should stop the practice forthwith. Obviously, Lord Bach's investigation into those practices, if it does find cases, I think it would be a case for the new Legal Complaints Service. Tom Brake: That is very clear. Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Brake. Martin Salter. Q43 Martin Salter: Minister, there are two members of this Committee who are officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gurkha Rights, myself and Mr Russell, and neither of us are going to fight shy of dealing with the difficult issues that have, unfortunately, arisen as a result of the change in settlement guidelines for the Gurkhas. We are pleased to be part of trying to find a solution and not just running away from it. This issue that you raised of the definition of "dependents", 18, I think, under current UK legislation but interpreted certainly in Nepalese culture as almost any member of the extended family: the fact that applications are being put through shows that not only is it wrong when people take money for advice but the quality of the advice is deeply suspect. Do you not think there is now a role for perhaps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have some bilateral discussions with the Nepalese Government over the whole issue of the accuracy of advice and also the regulation of immigration advisers in Nepal: because, as we heard from Mr Heaver, the British system of supervising solicitors cannot reach into another nation state but it is causing problems for both the Gurkha families and for us back here? Mr Jones: I will let UK Borders deal with variants round the 18, but one thing I will say, and I said it earlier, and I do not like to say I told you so--- Q44 Martin Salter: I think you do. Mr Jones: I do actually. --- is that on this issue last year when I visited Nepal one of the biggest issues which a lot of the older Gurkhas wanted was not actually settlement rights for themselves but for their families, and I think that is still in people's minds. We changed the policy, quite rightly, as you say, as the Chairman said, in response to the vote in Parliament. There are mixed messages that are being sent in terms of what this actual settlement is. I have got to say, that is the history of this entire subject, and I have got to say that, if some of the strong advocates of it actually understood not only Nepalese society and how it operates but also this issue in depth, it would have helped. Mr Sedgwick: The Minister is absolutely
right in relation to over-age dependents.
Those over 18 do not have an automatic right of settlement in the way
that, obviously, Gurkhas themselves do, but the complexity is that some over-age
dependents could be successful in their applications. It would depend on whether they are genuinely
dependent and have been living in a way that is genuinely dependent on the main
applicant, and we will take into account factors like whether they have
independent income, whether they have worked, an independent family life,
whether they have lived separately, and so on, but there will be some, indeed,
we have granted a number of over-age dependents settlement. We have also refused rather more, and it is
obviously important that people begin to see, as the decisions are taken, a
kind of pattern in that. We will be
shortly revising the information leaflet that we have provided on life in the Q45 Martin Salter: Can I come back on the Minister. Would you take up our suggestion of making some representations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? There is clearly a need to open up some direct negotiations with the Government in Nepal on this issue. Do you not agree? Mr Jones: I think that is important,
but the other issue is: is there an area of distrust in Q46 Bob Russell: Minister, following that up, do you think it would be absolutely fabulous if the Minister of Defence did more to publicise the existence of the Gurkha Settlement Office in Kathmandu? Mr Jones: We are doing that, and we have also, with the Gurkha Welfare Trust, been out to both the East and the West, because I think what we have to recognise is the difficulty putting the messages out through those organisations over long distances. But if you want a direct answer to your question, "Would be helpful if Ms Lumley now quite clearly explained the system?", yes, it would. Q47 Bob Russell: The reason I ask that is because if we could get the veterans advised of their rights in the way that you and I are subtly suggesting, and also involving the Gurkha welfare organisations as well so that everybody is on board - and we have had some quite distressing evidence earlier on about the disharmony, shall I say, in the Gurkha community - would that not be helpful? Could we get everybody to take a step back and say, "Where can we unite?", with the office in Kathmandu being the central point for that? Mr Jones: We are actually doing that. I will let Margaret explain exactly what we are doing in country, which is important. You have got copies of the leaflets, and things like that, but when I met the Gurkha welfare organisations last week, there is a strong determination to ensure that we explain it and a clear determination that people should use the system. I think one of the key problems is that if people use the system, they can get the National Insurance number and when they arrive the process, I think, is working very well, and that is the important point, but Margaret referred to the fact that to date it is perhaps small numbers. We do not know, but I have got to say, when I hear some of the distressing cases from, for example, Hugh Milroy from Veterans Aid, when you have elderly mentally ill veterans turning up expecting that a house and everything else will be available, whoever advised them or took money off them to do that, frankly, it is a disgrace. Ms Gilmour: In terms of communications,
when we opened the office up in the summer of last year we did a big
communications exercise and, indeed, in the five months that it has been open
we have had nearly 4,000 visits. As a
result, some people have decided not to fill out a visa application, and so the
benchmark of our success is not necessarily how many visas there are. We have put out an awful lot of
information. We have had three visits
and the Borders Agency have been to Q48 Bob Russell: Despite the fragmentation we are hearing about within the Gurkha community, when it comes to the Kathmandu Ministry of Defence Office there is a unity of purpose? Ms Gilmour: I would say that the
fragmentation is inter-Mycenaean rivalry between the associations. When it comes to settlement, they all want
the same thing. They want Gurkhas to be
given the right information at the right time on settlement, and I would say
that does not just apply in Bob Russell: That is reassuring. Thank you. Q49 Gwyn Prosser: Minister, can you give us a feel of the extent, the number of agencies or solicitors, some people call them rogue solicitors, or alleged rogue solicitors, who are acting in this way? Is it half a dozen or is it much more than that? Mr Jones: The one example that I have
referred to, as Margaret said it is not just solicitors, it is actually other
people taking money, but I think it is referred to in the pack we sent you in
advance, is Howe & Co, for example.
As I understand how the system works, you go to GAESO, a voluntary
donation is made of about £500 before you then get passed on to Howe &
Co. I am not sure what the relationship
is between Howe & Co and GAESO or whether there is any financial regulation
- I do not know - but I think you have also got to take a step back to last
year and it is about credibility, and that is where people, I am sorry, cannot
just walk away once the headlines die down.
Howe & Co were the solicitors arguing for the campaign, along with
Joanna Lumley, and, I think, in terms of their position, any advice they are
giving or relationships with GAESO are important. GAESO, I understood, organised the victory
tour for Joanna Lumley to Q50 Gwyn Prosser: Ms Gilmour gave the impression, "We know who you are." In other words, you know who has been involved in these practices, but they cannot be revealed for obvious reasons. Is anyone in a position to actually publicise a list of what you would describe as reputable agents, or solicitors, to give some confidence to people? Ms Gilmour: I am afraid I could not comment, because I would not know if there is a list of reputable agents. Q51 Gwyn Prosser: You could not make your own judgment using your agents in Nepal? Mr Jones: The point I would make is that you do not need a solicitor to take up a refused settlement issue. There are two issues. We have a system in place there which does not need anybody to charge anything, and that is the main point. The other point, which I think is perhaps a growing area, is this issue Mr Sedgwick referred to about over-18s. I think there are people suggesting to people, "Sign up with us and we will help get the rest of your family in." We have made those messages quite clear, and certainly the UK Borders Agency have when they have been out there, what the actual settlement means. It does not mean that the entire extended family is going to come with you, except, obviously in exceptional circumstances such as carers. I do not know whether Mr Sedgwick wants to say, but there are going to be some applications that will be refused soon. Chair: Mr Sedgwick, you have
been sitting very patiently. It is your
turn. We had your chief executive here last
week, and perhaps you could remind her, we asked for some information by David Davies: Can I ask one other question to Mr Jones a minute on this topic? Chair: Yes, so long as it is quick. Q52 David Davies: The question is, roughly does it cost about the same to maintain a brigade of Gurkhas as a brigade of other infantry men in the British Army? If it is about the same, or possibly even slightly more now, are there not going to be a lot of calls following this, given the shortages of money that there always are in Government, for us to actually stop recruiting Gurkhas and perhaps use the money that we are currently now going to be spending on pensions for people who may or may not have been in the Gurkhas to train British troops? Mr Jones: I think I answered this question last time I came before you. The fact of the matter is that we have no current plans to change or disband the brigade of Gurkhas, but, clearly, in terms of this Government or any future government, the costs of the Gurkha or any other are always going to be taken into consideration. Q53 David Davies: Is it still a bargain for us? Mr Jones: It never was a bargain. Ms Gilmour: The cost of maintaining the Gurkhas is largely the same as the wider Army. Although they are trained longer, there will be tension in their --- Chair: If we could have something in writing, it would be very helpful. Mr Davies on applications for settlement. Q54 David Davies: How many applications including dependents have been received from the group affected by the policy change since last May, and is it about the rate that you would have expected? Mr Sedgwick: At the time of your hearing and the new policy announcement last May, we had got about 1,900 applications either stayed or in the appeal system. Since then we have had 5,000 new applications. Around a thousand of those are Gurkhas themselves and the remainder are dependents. Although we have not obviously had a full year, it is perhaps a little lower than some of the estimates that were being discussed. Q55 David Davies: Is it possible to say roughly how many of those dependents, if I can use that phrase, are under-18 year old direct children of Gurkhas and how many are actually nephews, second cousins three times removed or other people who have got no real connection with the Gurkhas whatsoever? Mr Sedgwick: Of the applications we have had, around 1,000 are from under-18 year old children and just over 1,000 are other dependents. I have seen quite a number of cases. The vast majority I have seen have been over-age dependent children, not any other form of dependents. Q56 David Davies: Have there been thorough checks on birth certificates
and possibly with Mr Sedgwick: Part of our process is
always now around biometric visas before individuals are resettled from
overseas or come on visas overseas to the Q57 Mrs Cryer: Further to the reply you have just given to Mr Davies, how do you determine whether a child or an offspring is 18 or over, or under, or whatever? Mr Sedgwick: The Kindred Roll would be the primary source of evidence that we would use. That is the main way of testing. Q58 Mrs Cryer: Would I be right in saying, according to my experiences on immigration cases in Keighley, that more or less the only people who are going to get through this net other than dependent children under 18 are going to be perhaps mums and dads of Gurkhas who have been bereaved? If that is the case, this is a very simple message. It is not rocket science. You should be able to get this sort of message out to them, that it is either kids under 18 or, possibly, if you have a mum or dad who has been bereaved and is alone, they may be regarded as a dependent relative. Is that the sort of message that we are getting out to the people in Kathmandu? Mr Sedgwick: As I said a moment ago, I think we obviously do see the need in our next edition of the leaflet to get some clearer messages out there about over-age dependents. There are some occasions when we will grant, and we have granted a small number of over-age dependents who plainly are part of family unit and dependent. For example, you might have a 12 year old, a 14 year old and a 19 year old who are all part of a family unit, the 19 year old in education, where it seems entirely proper to keep the family together; so there will be a number of cases. I do not think we could give a blanket - and, indeed, it would not be in accordance with the immigration rules to give any kind of blanket - statement that an over-age dependent would not be granted, but I think it is important that we get some messages out there, and, I think, frankly, as the Minister referred to, I think we will see increasing numbers of refusals of these cases and I think that in itself will be a message. Q59 Mrs Cryer: I wonder if you are able to give us a few figures. Since the policy change last May, how many applications including dependents have been received from the group affected, and is this about the rate of applications that you actually anticipated? Mr Sedgwick: As I say, we had 1,900 cases either stayed or pending in the court system up until the new policy change; we have had 5,000 applications since then. Just over a thousand of those have been Gurkhas, around 4,000 have been dependents. We have cleared and granted all the stayed cases, we have also cleared most of the other cases that were in the appeals system, and in relation to the 5,000 we have issued or approved around half of those cases. So there is around two and a half thousand that are pending. Many of those will be over-age dependents. We are very much prioritising the main applicants, the Gurkhas. It seems right to get those through first. Obviously, it is important that we establish their settlement rights before we turn to any dependent. Q60 Mrs Cryer: How many have actually been granted settlement to date? Mr Sedgwick: We have granted settlement to the vast majority of the 1,900 - I think we have issued 1,600 of those - and we have granted settlement to, as I say, about half of the 5,000 since June. Q61 Martin Salter: What is the average time taken to process an individual application without complications? Mr Sedgwick: We did the stayed cases very
quickly. The then Home Secretary had
committed to dealing with those cases by June, which we did. A number of cases, as you are implying, if
you are a Gurkha who has served for more than four years it is a very
straightforward matter and many of those applications are dealt with very
quickly. Our service standard for
overseas settlement cases is ten weeks, and in Q62 Chair: My final question to both of you. Mr Sedgwick, are you rubbing your hands in glee because there was a suggestion that thousands and thousands of Gurkhas would suddenly arrive in the United Kingdom as a result of the Government's decision, but actually you found that it is only two and a half thousand so far? Mr Sedgwick: As I say, we still have not had a complete year. I think, if I am rubbing my hand with glee, it is with the extent to which certainly the agency has responded very effectively to deal with quite a complex difficult situation very speedily and effectively, and also I am very proud of the way that we have worked across government, as the Minister has suggested. Other departments have really pulled out the stops, whether it is the DWP fast-tracking National Insurance number applications or the government department with their arrangements for housing. I think it has been a really exemplary process. Q63 Chair: As far as the work of this committee is concerned, whenever we have asked senior officials at UKBA to get on and deal with outstanding applications, your boss, Ms Homer, who was with us last week, told us that even on our last recommendation she could only note what we had said; she would not act upon it. Here you have an example of UKBA being set a deadline, meeting the deadline, dealing with applications. Why can you not do this with other applications to the UKBA? Mr Sedgwick: I think we do increasingly. Q64 Chair: With respect, you do not as far as outstanding asylum cases are concerned. This Committee recommended that outstanding applications be dealt with by October 2010. When we put this to Ms Homer, she rejected that. She rejected the advice of the Home Secretary. What is so different about the Gurkhas' case that you are able to clear this backlog so quickly? Mr Sedgwick: On the asylum legacy, as you know there is a ministerial commitment to clear the legacy and we are on course to deliver that in the published timeframes. In relation to the Gurkhas, this is in some ways a unique but fairly focused piece of work and we have been able to apply resources locally and work effectively in a cross-government way to tackle that. Mr Winnick: Or, in plain English, more high profile. Bob Russell: You do not mess with the Gurkhas! Q65 Chair: Mr Jones, Minister, can I ask you. The Ministry of Defence is currently fighting two wars. Obviously your resources are committed to doing other things. Is it still a worry to you that there is so much ministerial time and effort being spent on this particular issue, which is, in a sense, in the overall scheme of things, not the biggest priority for the Ministry of Defence? Does it worry you that here we have the Home Affairs Select Committee looking at it again? It has taken up a lot of your time. You have come to give evidence. We are very grateful for that. When do you think it will all end? Mr Jones: Can I say, I think it was the
right thing to do, with Parliament making the decision. I think it was right that we actually then
put in place the best possible system, and I think we have done that. What concerns me a little bit is that I do
not think this is the end because the campaign now will be for over-18 dependents. It does irritate me largely when I get
letters (I am being very party political here) from Conservative Members of
Parliament who tell me that their local authorities are being inundated with
Gurkha applications when they actually voted for it. Is there a certain irritation on that? Yes, I think there is. Is it right for us to concentrate and put the
resources in at this time? Yes, it
is. Will this go away? I do not think it will, because I think in
Nepal you will now get increasingly lobbied for the over-18s, also the issue around
pensions has not gone away unfortunately, even though we have successfully, I
think, won on that in every single court case that has been fought. Is it going to be a continual issue? Yes, I think it is. In terms of numbers, I do not think we have
actually seen the numbers yet. If there
is one message I can put out it is that, if people are going to come and live
in the Chair: Minister, Mr Sedgwick, Mr Springall - I am sorry we have not heard from you today but it is lovely to see you - and Ms Gilmour, thank you very much for giving evidence today. |