Gurkhas Win Immigration, Citizenship BattleDavid Seddon[ ]

Gurkhas’ victory; government defeat
In an extraordinary reversal of fortunes for those pressing for full citizenship rights for all ex-Gurkhas, an opposition motion from the Liberal Democrats calling for the rejection of government proposals on Gurkhas’ rights regarding immigration and settlement in the UK, recently proposed by the government, was passed last week (on 29th April) by a margin of 21 votes, with some 27 Labour backbenchers voting against the government together with the two opposition parties. Already on the back foot as a result of evident popular dissatisfaction with the government proposals – both from the general public- Gordon Brown was obliged to concede eventually that a further review of the matter would be considered.
The Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, called for full citizenship for all Gurkhas in the opposition debate on 29th April following the government’s recent refusal to do so. His immediate response to the government’s decision was very robust: ‘Are there any moral principles left in this hollowed-out government?’ he asked. ‘People who are prepared to fight and die for this country should be entitled to live in this country. Yet even this basic principle is broken by a government desperate to cover its back and wriggle out of its commitments. This is the week Labour lost its last principles: dishonest with the nation about the state of our finances; cheating taxpayers by making MPs' expenses even murkier; and now turning its back on brave and loyal soldiers who simply want to live in the country they love and served.’
And it was not only the Lib Dems who called on the government to change its mind. The week before, the leader of the Conservative Group of Kent County Council reported that he: "… wrote to the Prime Minister last week on behalf of KCC's Cabinet, pleading with him to urgently rethink his government's policy to exclude Gurkha servicemen who retired from service prior to 1997 from applying for British citizenship. Kent is proud of its association with the Ghurkhas and is proud to be the home for the Brigade following relocation from its main base in Hong Kong in 1997. The imposition of the quite arbitrary 1997 cut-off date defies rational justification and it is hard to see how the integrity of immigration policy could be threatened or undermined by such a specific exemption in favour of a small - and dwindling - number of Gurkha ex-servicemen. The Gurkhas occupy a unique and highly-regarded position in British military and social history and I struggle to see how such an exemption from the rules would create any sort of precedent, either for the Armed Forces or the generality of British citizenship."
There were attempts by the Prime Minister and other government spokesmen to suggest that full citizenship would be too expensive (a figure of £1.5 billion was mentioned) and too complicated, and might set an unfortunate precedent for ‘other categories of immigrants’. But the result was a resounding and unprecedented defeat for the government and an undoubted victory for those arguing in favour of full citizenship for all ex-Gurkhas – something that the Lib Dems motion called for, and was clearly widely supported in Parliament and outside.
The Government proposals: differing perspectives
There are 26,500 ex-Gurkhas receiving a Ministry of Defence pension in Nepal, and until 2004 they were not allowed to settle in the UK. The ban was lifted for Gurkhas who retired after July 1997, when the brigade HQ left Hong Kong, but soldiers who retired earlier were only given the right to stay in Britain in very exceptional circumstances. On Friday 24 April, in response to the high court judgment last year (30 September 2008) that effectively branded the treatment of the older Gurkhas as unlawful, the Home Office issued new guidance on how applications from soldiers who retired before 1997 should be treated. There would be no automatic right to settle in the UK, but Gurkhas who met certain conditions – such as having a bravery award, or an illness caused by combat – would qualify. In fact, under these proposals, the right to settle in the UK would be granted only to those who meet strict criteria that include 20 years service, having obtained one of the highest medals for valour or suffering a chronic or long-term medical condition caused by, or aggravated by, service in the brigade.
Gordon Brown said that the new policy announced by the Home Office, which officials believed could lead to an extra 4,300 Gurkhas and 6,000 spouses and children being allowed to live in Britain, was "a big advance on where we were before". But Ministers were castigated for effectively rejecting demands for Gurkhas who retired from the army before 1997 to be given an automatic right to settle in the UK. The announcement infuriated the Gurkhas, of whom 1,350 have applied unsuccessfully for settlement. Lawyers representing the Gurkhas said that the conditions imposed were so stringent that fewer than 100 would qualify. Martin Howe, their solicitor, said that the qualifications allowed officer class entry, but offered nothing to the ordinary soldier. He said: "This is nothing less than an act of treachery." Campaigners and opposition politicians also accused the government of ignoring the high court judgment of 30 September 2008 that said the policy towards the former servicemen should reflect the "historic debt" owed them by the British people.
Joanna Lumley, whose father fought with the Gurkhas in Burma and who is now a leading supporter of their campaign, told BBC Radio 4's World at a programme that she was "ashamed" about the decision and said the government had a duty to honour the military covenant – the code saying that soldiers are entitled to "fair treatment" in returning for putting their lives at risk. The 2008 high court judgment specifically mentioned the military covenant and said that "rewarding long and distinguished service by the granting of residence in the country for which the service was performed would ... be a vindication and enhancement of this covenant". Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, accused the government of "turning its back on brave and loyal soldiers". Damian Green, the Conservative shadow immigration minister, said the government was "trying to evade the effects of a very clear court judgment". Green added: "This is an insult to the Gurkhas. We have said all along that the government should not try to challenge the courts and they would have done better to listen."
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, said that the announcement reflected Britain's "extensive and ongoing commitment to the welfare of former Gurkhas". Phil Woolas, the immigration minister who made the announcement, said it had never been the government's plan to grant settlement rights to all retired Gurkhas. If that policy was adopted, there would be ‘a risk that up to 100,000 people could move to the UK’. "What we've done today is to allow even more people in without setting a precedent that would create a massive pressure in my view on the immigration service, which I don't think the public would want me to grant," he said. Lumley said only about 8,000 men would want to move to Britain. In fact, since the introduction of the 2004 policy, around 6,000 Gurkhas and their relatives have settled in the UK, according to the Home Office.
Pensions increase
On 20th March 2009, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Kevan Jones, announced that with effect from 1 April 2009, there would be an increase in pensions paid through the Gurkha pension scheme of 14.1 per cent. In addition, there would be ‘significant increases’ of 20 per cent and more to some 1000 pensioners who are 80 years and over. This increase is in line with the tripartite agreement which established a linkage between Indian Army pensions and the Gurkhas pension scheme. Mr Jones pointed out that this means that the elderly will get an overall increase of at least 34 per cent on their pensions, a proportion of which will be backdated to January 2006.

There are some 26,500 Gurkha pensioners, most of whom live in Nepal. The pension scheme currently costs some £47 million a year; the approved increases will add around £7 million a year to that figure. It means that a rifleman with 15 years’ service who currently receives around £140 a month will get an extra £16. The MoD remarked that, at £173 a month, Gurkha pensions were the equivalent of a good professional salary in Nepal and that they were worth almost three times the Indian army equivalent. Representatives of the Gurkhas who have been pressing their case for years, pointed out that this increase was an inadequate increment and that it was time that the tripartite agreement of 1947, on which the British government’s pensions policy for the Gurkhas relied, was revised, to enable Gurkhas to receive pensions equivalent to the British soldiers alongside whom they had served for more than 60 years, often in extremely difficult and dangerous operations.

The issues of pensions and immigration rights will certainly not disappear. As regards the former, there will almost certainly be further cases brought before the High Court, and further controversy. As regards the latter, it seems likely after the defeat of the government’s proposals in the Commons, that pressure will be even greater now to extend the rights of ex-Gurkhas and their families to immigrate and settle in the UK. Those supporting full citizenship rights will be greatly encouraged. It seems that the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the government as a whole, are fighting a rearguard action but it is highly likely now that it will eventually fail and the Gurkhas will complete their well-deserved victory. 