HC Deb 06 March 2003 vol 400 cc1041-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

6 pm

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)

First, may I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting this debate for the Adjournment?

I wish to set the context in which I am raising the subject of conditions of service for personnel in the Gurkha Regiment. Mr. Justice Sullivan published a ruling on 21 February in which he addressed many issues, most of which I shall not raise in my speech. However, he said that the Ministry of Defence should review certain aspects of the conditions of service for personnel. In fact, I had applied unsuccessfully for this Adjournment debate for some weeks before Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling. My concerns do not arise directly from that case or from the recent failed action on behalf of the Gurkhas.

My concerns arise from a conversation that I had not with Gurkhas but with British officers when I visited 36 Engineer Regiment, which is in my constituency and has a substantial Gurkha attachment. I went there on my annual visit after the Remembrance day service to have one of its splendid Gurkha curry lunches. While I was there, I was appalled to be told of some of the conditions that apply to Gurkhas. That determined me to try to raise the issue in the House.

The Minister may be relieved to learn that I do not intend to rehearse yet again the issue of Gurkha pensions. I want to consider two other aspects of their conditions of service. The Gurkhas are much respected, and I know that from my experience of the regiment in Maidstone. I know that there is huge public affection for them. Each time they parade on a ceremonial occasion in Maidstone, they are warmly received. The public would be appalled if they knew about some of the conditions that we inflict on the Gurkhas.

I turn first to the conditions that govern the accompaniment of married Gurkhas by their families. Gurkhas below the rank of colour sergeant—that is, 90 per cent. of them—are not allowed to have their families with them for all but three out of 15 years service. That provision does not go back to the mists of time and it has not accidentally been left there. In July 1997, a review resulted in the introduction of "married accompanied service" for Gurkhas serving in the United Kingdom, which stated that a quarter of married Gurkhas could be accompanied by their wives and families at any given time.

In reality, not even a quarter benefit from that privilege. Colour sergeants and those in the ranks above—I have already said that they account for 10 per cent. of Gurkhas—may have their wives and families with them permanently. Therefore the quarter has to be distributed among them, as well as among the rest. Only 15 per cent. of serving Gurkhas who are not above the rank of colour sergeant have their families with them at any given time. So for 12 years of their service, they are not allowed to have their families with them.

The Minister will doubtless point out that Gurkhas have five months' long leave every three years. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that they get about 20 months' long leave during their period of service. So there is familial separation, enforced by the rules, of more than 10 years. It ill behoves the House to let that continue when MPs have just made such a song and dance about having half-term leave so that they can be with their families; yet we expect people who are serving our country to put up with more than 10 years' separation from their families. Furthermore, that precious five months' long leave is often shortened to two months because of the exigencies of the service. In addition, during those five months when the Gurkhas are in Nepal, they are paid less because they do not get the Gurkha universal addition.

So strictly is that unforgivable rule applied that surplus married accommodation is left empty rather than increasing the number of Gurkhas who might have their wives with them at any given time. Even when Gurkha children are born in this country and are therefore British, their parents cannot apply to stay in the UK after retirement. On proof that the parents are settled in Nepal, one parent can accompany the child to the UK, but only until it is 12, when either both go back or the child is left here alone.

All that is against a background of a proud history of service to Britain on the part of the Gurkhas. There are 26 Victoria Crosses in the Gurkha regiment, 13 of them won by Gurkhas. They have fought in almost every conflict since world war two. They were in the Falklands, Iraq, East Timor and Sierra Leone. At this very moment, as we sit here surveying what is a disgraceful state of affairs, they are in Kuwait, waiting to shed blood in the fight against one of the nastiest tyrants in history. How do we show our gratitude? With a P45 and a one-way ticket to Nepal.

After 15 years of serving this country Gurkhas cannot stay here even if they have British children. But how many Gurkhas are we talking about? Would they flood the immigration system? Would it cause chaos if we let them stay? No. In any given year, between 200 and 250 Gurkhas retire after 15 years' service. They are well trained, well disciplined and dutiful. They are exactly the sort of people we would usually welcome. Some 110,000 asylum seekers came to this country last year. Many of them will be allowed to stay by default because they will not be removed even though their applications are refused. Yet we sternly resist the claims of 200 to 250 people who have rendered sterling service to this country.

If anyone else had been in this country for 15 years, we would grant them naturalisation, but it is rare for a Gurkha to achieve that. So they are sent back to Nepal when most of them are still in their 30s. They have the rest of their adult life before them, but there is not exactly a glut of jobs in undeveloped rural Nepal. Any member of NATO armed forces can lawfully enter the UK upon discharge and can ask to stay here. If a Turkish infantryman can do that, why deny it to the Gurkhas? There is a perception that Gurkha soldiers and pensioners in Nepal are targeted by Maoist terrorists, so some of them will try to return here as asylum seekers. Why do we put them through that when we could simply recognise what they have done for us and grant them leave to stay here on retirement?

The Minister knows that I am not one of those who favours the extravagant language of institutional racism and all the rest of it, and I do not for one moment believe that the intention behind the provisions is racist, but their effect is undeniable: one group are discriminated against and treated in a way that those serving alongside them are not.

If the matter was reviewed as late as 1997, I am baffled as to how we could allow such a state of affairs to continue. I am aware that Mr. Justice Sullivan has asked that the MOD re-examine the rule for married accommodation. What surprises me is that, knowing that these issues were before the courts, the MOD had not prepared a response in case of just such a ruling. When we may shortly see on our screens Gurkhas in action—on behalf of us, not on behalf of themselves—I should like to think that we might then consider whether we should act immediately to solve the problem.

There is one phrase that Gurkhas probably learn fairly early. It is a phrase much used by the British and much used in the Army: "fair play". I am not asking for extra privileges for the Gurkhas. I am not asking for them to have what others in a similar position do not have. I am asking for them to have basic justice—in other words, fair play.

6.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this debate on an important subject. I am, of course, aware of and wholeheartedly endorse the high esteem in which Gurkhas are held on both sides of the House. I am also aware of the concern frequently expressed by the media and general public about their terms and conditions of service.

Interest is particularly high at present because of recent judicial review proceedings in which seven former Gurkha soldiers made a number of very serious allegations in relation to their employment in the Brigade of Gurkhas. Those ranged from complaints about dress codes to demands for improved pay and pensions. There was also a general accusation about a so-called culture of institutional discrimination in the Army in which Gurkhas as a group are systematically given lesser conditions and benefits than other members of the British Army. In view of the widespread and often inaccurate reporting of the case, I welcome the opportunity to deal with the issues that it raises. Before doing so, I should make it clear that I very much welcome Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling. I should point out, as he did, that of the 12 original complaints, eight were dropped by the claimants and therefore not pursued in the High Court. All the remaining complaints, which related to Gurkha pay, pension, married accompanied service and education arrangements, were subsequently dismissed. The ruling therefore tends to vindicate our view that, taken as a whole, Gurkha terms and conditions of service are reasonable and fair. I hope it also reassures the House and general public that there is certainly not a culture of institutional discrimination in the Army against Gurkhas, and that any such accusation is wholly without foundation.

Before I explain the thinking behind current Gurkha terms and conditions of service in more detail, perhaps I should take a few moments to explain why successive Governments have taken the view that Gurkhas are different, and why it is necessary for their terms and conditions to reflect that. Gurkhas have volunteered for British military service since 1815. Their numbers grew throughout the 19th century and large numbers fought with distinction, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, in the old Indian army in both world wars. Throughout this period, Gurkhas established a reputation as loyal, formidable soldiers—a reputation that they rightly enjoy to this day.

Many right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Gurkhas are able to serve in the British Army today only because in 1947, at the time of Indian independence, an agreement was reached with the Governments of India and Nepal to enable four Gurkha regiments to transfer into the British Army. That is known as the tripartite agreement, or TPA. The Brigade of Gurkhas today consists of approximately 3,500 men who serve mainly in the infantry, but also in Gurkha logistics, signals and engineer units, some of which are based in the right hon. Lady's constituency.

One of the original aims of the TPA was to ensure that the Armies of Great Britain and India could recruit and maintain formed Gurkha regiments on an equal basis. It also safeguarded the cultural, religious and national heritage of Gurkha soldiers, in accordance with the wishes of the Nepalese Government. That is because it was important then, as it is now, for Gurkhas not to be seen merely as mercenaries. The TPA linked British Gurkha terms and conditions of service to those of the Indian army, reflecting sensitivities about whether the newly formed Indian army would be able to retain or attract Gurkhas if there was a substantial differential between British Gurkha and Indian army terms and conditions of service. There was also concern about creating a differential in Nepal, where British Gurkha pensioners continued to live alongside fellow citizens who served in the Nepalese and Indian armies.

While I acknowledge that perhaps not all of the principles that underpinned the TPA in 1947 apply today, I must stress that it remains the basic instrument enabling us to recruit Gurkhas. Without it, Nepalese citizens would be classed as aliens for recruiting purposes and would in practice be unable to serve in the British Army. Leaving aside difficulties relating to nationality, if it were not for the TPA, the English language skills of most Gurkha recruits would bar their entry to non-Gurkha units. The Brigade of Gurkhas has a command system that caters for the fact that Nepali is widely spoken and that English is not the first language of its soldiers. It is partly for that reason that Gurkhas serve in formed units.

There are therefore three principles that underpin service in the Brigade of Gurkhas: Gurkhas are recruited in Nepal; they serve in formed Gurkha units; and they are discharged as Nepalese citizens in Nepal. Gurkhas return home with their pension entitlement, which is a vital source of revenue to one of the poorest countries in the world. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, given the history of the brigade and the unique nature of Gurkha service, it would be irrational if those differences were not taken into account when considering Gurkhas' conditions of employment. Most right hon. and hon. Members are already aware that while Gurkha basic pay continues to be set in accordance with the Indian army pay code, the TPA allows for a cost of living allowance to be paid for service outside Nepal. For many years, the Ministry of Defence has used that as a tool to enhance remuneration, and since 1997 "Universal Addition" has been paid, broadly aligning Gurkha income to the take-home pay of British personnel.

I shall briefly mention Gurkha pensions, as I received a comprehensive briefing and have enough time to cover the issue. Gurkha pensions, like basic pay, remain linked to the Indian army but have been significantly enhanced. A review in 1981 led to Gurkha pensions being linked to the top band provided for in the Indian army pension regulations. It was also decided that the annual uprating of pensions should be linked to cost of living increases in Nepal, rather than India. An examination of Gurkha pensions in 1999 led to the introduction of welfare-related cash uplifts to take account of Indian Government benefits in kind, such as access to Indian military hospitals, available to Indian army Gurkha pensioners. That increased pension payments for all 26,000 British Gurkha pensioners by at least 100 per cent. Pensions are now set at double the top rate of the Indian army and compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal. Indeed, our embassy in Kathmandu advises us that a rifleman with 15 years of service now receives a pension higher than the salary of a royal Nepalese army captain.

I should make it clear that we do not link Gurkha pensions to the Indian army solely because of the TPA. There are very good contemporary reasons for maintaining our current policy, not least the fact that we are able to pay immediate pensions to Gurkhas after only 15 years of service. That suits their needs because, unlike the UK, Nepal does not have a sophisticated system of state benefits and support. Gurkha pensions also have to be viewed in the context of Gurkha service in formed units, which have wholly different recruitment and retention patterns from British units. Each year, over 25,000 potential recruits compete for 230 or so places. There is virtually no natural wastage. The result is that 99 per cent. of Gurkhas serve for at least 15 years and are then discharged with an immediate pension. Those arrangements are necessary so that the brigade can maintain its operational edge with a reasonable age and manning balance.

The average length of service for a British soldier, on the other hand, is much lower, and approximately only 8 per cent. of British soldiers serve the full 22 years needed to receive an immediate pension. The armed forces pension scheme is specifically designed so that preserved pensions can be paid to those who have less than 22 years service. If we were to apply those arrangements to Gurkhas, it would result in large numbers of Gurkhas being discharged in Nepal with no financial support until the age of 60. We therefore need separate terms and conditions for them. Most reasonable observers now agree that the arguments for Gurkhas to receive an immediate pension on discharge remain compelling.

Moving away from pay and pension arrangements, it would be right to acknowledge that there is one aspect of Gurkha terms and conditions of service that is very much a cause for concern, and it has been highlighted by the right hon. Lady tonight. I refer to married accompanied service which, in accordance with the TPA, is capped at 25 per cent. of brigade personnel. In practice, this means that family married quarters are provided for all Gurkhas holding the rank of colour sergeant or above. Below that rank, Gurkhas are entitled to only one accompanied tour of around three years. For many years, the MOD has taken the view that it is necessary to abide by this limit in order to stay within the terms of the TPA and ensure that linkages to Nepal are maintained. The importance of these links cannot be overstated, particularly now that the home base of Gurkhas has moved from the far east to the United Kingdom.

Gurkhas are discharged in Nepal because we have a duty to ensure that they return to their home country. We also have an obligation to ensure that they do not feel that they are returning to a foreign country. It is partly for this reason that Gurkhas are entitled to special periods of five months long leave in Nepal every three years, although I take account of the right hon. Lady's assertion that these tours can sometimes be reduced. This is quite unlike any provision available to British personnel.

The brigade also goes to great lengths to ensure that Gurkha personnel are able to observe key Hindu religious festivals and have access to Hindu temples and priests throughout their service. It is provisions such as these that help the brigade to maintain a distinct Nepalese flavour, ethos and identity. At the same time, and in recognition of the problems that Gurkha accompanied service policy can sometimes cause, Gurkha soldiers who are not on accompanied tours are now able to bring their families to visit them in the UK, albeit at their own expense. All Gurkha units now allow for visits of this kind, and surplus family accommodation is made available wherever possible.

In addressing these matters in the context of the recent judicial review, we will have to take account of the views of the Nepalese Government, who will of course be consulted about the outcome. There may also be implications for the garrison estate in Brunei, given that nearly a quarter of the brigade is stationed there. The MOD also has to bear in mind the potential impact that any changes would have on the effectiveness and utility of the brigade. For example, Gurkhas marry at a younger age than British personnel. They also serve in formed units. Any significant change would, therefore, undoubtedly result in Gurkha units requiring more family accommodation.

So, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that the right hon. Lady has put forward. I have tried to stress in my reply to her just how complex the situation is, and that we do not have free and unfettered action available to us because of the terms and conditions of the agreement under which we employ Gurkhas in the British Army. I shall make one or two additional points in which she might be interested. I know that, like many of us, she will be concerned about the situation regarding family accommodation in Maidstone.

Miss Widdecombe

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should have said earlier that I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) in his place, in his capacity as a member of the Britain-Nepal parliamentary group. Before the Minister reaches his peroration—which I sense is about to happen—I must point out that, so far, he has not addressed the matter that took up about 50 per cent. of my speech, which is the way in which we insist that Gurkhas return to Nepal at the end of their 15 years' service, and whether there is a case for reviewing that.

Dr. Moonie

I thought that I had addressed that issue in some detail, because the thrust of the argument that I thought I was making was that the whole point of maintaining the ethos of Gurkha regiments as Gurkha regiments is to ensure that those who serve are able to return to their own country, as is part of the agreement under which they serve in the British Army in the first place. It is rare for nationals of a country not our own or—as the terms and conditions for enlistment in general would suggest—of the Commonwealth to enlist in our armed forces. It is incumbent on us to be very careful to ensure that the legal niceties are observed. However, I have listened very carefully to what she says about this subject, and I can assure her that I will discuss the matter with my officials and those who represent the Gurkha community to see how much of a problem is caused. Although I do not want to get her spirits up too much—

Miss Widdecombe

Oh!

Dr. Moonie

That is the nature of these things. None the less, I shall see whether any leeway is likely to be available to us. It may often seem that we are rigid—and perhaps even over-rigid—in the criteria that we apply in such cases, but I am generally assured that there are very good reasons for applying them as we do.

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The key point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was making is that, on the discharge of Gurkhas back in Nepal at the end of their term of service, if they apply subsequently for settlement in the United Kingdom, the Home Office takes absolutely no account whatever in practice either of the value and utility of former British Gurkha soldiers and officers or of their valuable years of service in the British Army when considering those applications.

Dr. Moonie

That is a nice distinction and one that I had not appreciated from what the right hon. Lady said. That is a very different issue and I can assure her that I will take it up with my colleagues, although I again make no promises as to the outcome.

I should like briefly to return to the housing situation, which I know will interest the right hon. Lady. As she knows, although we have made enormous strides over the past few years, much of our service housing remains unsatisfactory. A joint decision has been taken by the Army and the Defence Housing Executive to relocate families and bring to an end a period of uncertainty with regard to 151 1960s houses for other ranks at Maidstone. We are anxious that families currently spread over five locations should be located as close together as possible in the interests of regimental integrity, morale, welfare and operational effectiveness. It is also important that Gurkha families attached to the regiment continue to be able to exercise traditional customs and procedures while maintaining their strong sense of community. The Army is determined that, when the families eventually move from Invicta park, the same level of community support will provided at Chatham.

What can I say in summary? I have listened very carefully to the right hon. Lady's arguments and I have a great deal of sympathy for them. I am constrained by the terms of the agreement under which we engage Gurkhas in the first place, but I will have an honest look at it and see whether any changes are possible. I can assure her of that and I thank her again for raising this matter in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Six o'clock.

Forward to