HC Deb 14 September 2004 vol 424 cc1243-50

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

7.30 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of our treatment of Gurkhas, particularly so far as immigration law is concerned. The matter concerns many hon. Members: I have agreed to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) making a brief intervention at a later stage, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) have campaigned for more equitable treatment for the Gurkhas for a long time.

I shall put the debate in context. On 6 March 2003, I was fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment debate on this subject. During the course of that debate, I raised the treatment of Gurkhas in immigration law. I was particularly concerned that, although a Gurkha can serve 15 years with the British armed forces, which they normally do, and that that time is likely to include deployment on active service, those 15 years are not taken into account if they subsequently apply for leave to remain, leave to re-enter having returned to Nepal or naturalisation.

I followed up my Adjournment debate with a letter to the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), on 10 April 2003. On 1 July 2003, the then Minister replied and, among other assurances, were these words: Officials from the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office are in the process of reviewing current policy on naturalisation and settlement of Ghurkhas. A further meeting is being arranged to explore the possibility of immigration or work permit concessions that may enable Ghurkhas to return to the UK after discharge. I felt hopeful when I received that letter, but I should have known better. Nothing happened.

On 12 January 2004, I tabled a written question to the Home Secretary asking what was happening. The then Minister replied on his behalf on 15 January and said that the review would report "shortly". Nothing further happened, so I rather boringly tabled exactly the same written question on 29 March, and the then Minister, doubtless with equal weariness, replied, yet again, that the review would report shortly.

My patience is almost limitless. I did nothing at all until we returned from the summer recess, when I tabled the same question, without great hope that I would receive anything other than the same reply. On that occasion, a slight variation occurred: the Minister said that he would reply as soon as possible, and I look forward to his giving that answer tonight. That is the context in which I sought and obtained this Adjournment debate. I have patiently endured the long process of waiting for the Government to rectify the disgraceful treatment of people who have served us well.

The Minister need not glare when I say that, because that treatment was not invented by him—indeed, it was not invented by any one Government. It has gone on for rather a long time, but that does not make it any less disgraceful.

The Gurkha regiment has won 26 Victoria crosses, 13 of which were won by Gurkhas themselves. They have fought in nearly every conflict since world war two: in the Falklands, in the first Gulf war, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, and most recently, in Iraq. Yet, as I said in my Adjournment debate of 6 March 2003, we show our gratitude with a P45 and a one-way ticket to Nepal. After 15 years' service, they cannot stay here.

Let us suppose that such a Gurkha has a British child—that is, a child born in this country whom the law recognises as British. Even in those circumstances, the parent cannot remain in this country once his period of service is up. On proof that the parents have returned to Nepal and are settled there, one parent, but only one, can accompany the child to the UK; but when the child reaches the age of 12 that parent must go back. That means that a British citizen is either forcibly returned—by which I mean moral force, not deportation force—or is left alone in this country at the tender age of 12.

That prompts the question: whatever sort of country are we? I would propose that any Gurkha who has completed 15 years' service in this country and who applies to either remain, re-enter or be naturalised should be treated on exactly the same basis as anybody else who had been in this country for 15 years would be treated. I do not ask for them to be treated with special favour, but merely to have equality with others who have been in this country for 15 years.

In case there is any suggestion that this would flood the immigration system beyond its capacity to cope, only some 200 to 250 Gurkhas a year complete 15 years' service. These men are well trained, well disciplined and dutiful, and they would make ideal British citizens.

Let us make the obvious comparison. If somebody comes into this country unlawfully—in the back of a lorry, for example—or enters lawfully then decides to overstay, history shows that after a due period of time that person will benefit from an amnesty. Even if they do not so benefit, if they apply to regularise their position they will ask for the time that they have spent in this country to be taken into account and, as I well know, it is. Yet despite the 15 years' service of Gurkhas, it is as if they do not exist. Not one of them is taken into account. Any member of the NATO armed services can enter this country after discharge and apply for leave to stay here. They could be Frenchmen or Turkish infantrymen: they could be anybody. They are allowed to stay, whereas Gurkhas who have served the British Army directly, and may well have shed blood in that cause, are not.

In the previous debate, I raised other issues that I accept are not the Minister's direct responsibility, but I would nevertheless be very glad if he discussed them with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence. One of those issues is the absolute cruelty of refusing Gurkhas the right to have their families with them for more than three years out of the 15. It is true that those of the rank of colour sergeant or above can have a greater level of family accompaniment, but that is only 10 per cent. of them. Rank-and-file Gurkhas—the other 90 per cent.—can have their families with them for only three out of the 15 years.

Even if one tots up all the long leave that they are allowed in Nepal, they will still spend 10 years out of their 15 without their families. Any British soldier who is posted—not on active service—abroad can take his family with him. Why do we assume that Gurkhas are not normal human beings who want their kids and wives with them? What is so different about them that we limit them ferociously to three years? I use the word ferocious because we often have surplus married accommodation but it is not put at the disposal of Gurkhas. The rule is most rigidly enforced.

When I previously raised the issue in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley), who is a member of the Britain-Nepal group, made a timely intervention to point out that given the amount of time that has passed since the archaic agreements that resulted in such injustices, a fresh look is necessary. As I said, I was delighted when I was told that a fresh look was in process, but nothing has come of it.

I raised the matter in the first place because I have in my constituency a Gurkha unit that is attached to the 36th Engineers, who were in the recent deployment to Iraq. I know how highly esteemed they are. Whenever we have a ceremonial parade in Maidstone, the Gurkha unit always attracts the warmest applause from my constituents. They are highly esteemed, yet poorly treated.

I am assisted somewhat nowadays because a national newspaper has, at long last, taken up the cause. I understand that the Daily Express has received 36,000 positive responses to its campaign to ensure better treatment for Gurkhas. I greatly look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he will take my comments in the spirit that they are intended, which is not party political, but an appeal for the most basic common humanity that a Government should show. I am rather appalled not only at the 18-month delay that I endured but at the fact that we are still discussing the matter in the 21st century and somehow believing that there is still cause to argue about it. There should be no cause; we should right the injustice immediately.

7.42 pm
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)

I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for giving me an opportunity to say a few words, and I congratulate her on her assiduous work on behalf of Gurkhas and Gurkha families who have served this country so well over the years.

I initially became interested in the Gurkha soldiers and regiments because a demonstration company that assists with training platoon commanders and senior non-commissioned officers is stationed at Derring Lines in my constituency. The finest NCOs in this country owe many of their skills to the assistance and work of that Gurkha company.

Earlier this year, I visited Brunei with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The 2nd Royal Gurkha Rifles, which had just returned from Afghanistan, is currently stationed there. Other regiments are building on the work that they initiated in Afghanistan and the trust that they formed with the Afghan people. Britain and those other regiments have benefited from their work.

The Gurkhas are highly esteemed for their qualities as soldiers, and their loyalty to the nation and the Crown is undisputed. However, they have problems with their terms and conditions of service. Accompanied married service, to which the right hon. Lady referred, is a genuine problem for them. In the three years that they are allowed to have their wives and families with them, especially when they are based at Brecon, they are well integrated into the community. The wives find jobs, the children go to school, and they play a huge part in the community's understanding of the diversity of culture in the rest of the world.

I have also become aware that when Gurkha soldiers finish their service after 15 years, as they have to do unless they become NCOs or officers, they have little alternative but to return to their country of origin, where their pension may be of some use to them, although it is very small compared with the pension that a British soldier gets. Some of those Gurkhas wish to stay in this country a little longer to build up some financial security for the time that they will spend in Nepal. They find it difficult because they are not given the same opportunities as other people from their country who have not served in the British Army, and I am pleased that the right hon. Lady has brought this matter to the attention of the House.

There has been concern in the Royal Gurkha Regiment that a number of its soldiers were leaving the service early to join commercial organisations providing security in Iraq and Afghanistan. They leave the British Army to do that so that they can build up the financial means to retire to Nepal. It is a great shame that they should have to leave the Army before they have to, in order to achieve that. If they were given the certainty that they could remain in Britain for a certain length of time, they would not need to take up such employment.

I do not believe that many Gurkhas would wish to remain in this country for ever, because they have a great affinity for their home country and want to return there to play a part in the reconstruction and improvement of the area. They are simply looking for an opportunity to stay here for a short while to build up some financial security before they go back to Nepal.

I support the work that the right hon. Lady is doing. It is important for the Gurkhas that they should have the confidence to serve this country, and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

7.47 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on being doubly fortunate in having secured two Adjournment debates on this important subject over the past 18 months, and I welcome this debate. May I also thank the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for his contribution? I should like to remind him that he is but one of a number of Members on both sides of the House who have spoken out in support of the general thrust of the right hon. Lady's argument. He is fortunate to have been granted this opportunity to contribute to another Member's debate, and he represents a significant number of Members who have contacted either my Department or the Ministry of Defence on this issue. The support in the House for this issue reflects the level of support that the Daily Express has generated among its readership.

I am well aware of the high regard in which the Gurkhas are held in this country, and of the valued contribution that they make during their service with the British armed forces. As I was preparing for this debate, I read the right hon. Lady's previous Adjournment debate on the subject. She has repeated tonight some of the observations that she made about the distinguished history of the Gurkhas, and I am sure that the legend of honour of the Gurkhas could occupy the House for some time, if we were to debate their heroism and service to British society and its armed forces.

I am also acutely aware of the concern sometimes expressed about the terms and conditions of the Gurkhas' service, and I shall deal with the specific points that the right hon. Lady raised if there is time for me to do so. She reminded the House that a review is being carried out, and I am sure that she would not expect me to pre-empt that work by making an announcement tonight. However, this debate gives me the opportunity to put the issue in context and to respond to her questions.

Miss Widdecombe

rose—

Mr. Browne

If the right hon. Lady wishes to raise the issue of the time that the review has been going on for, I will deal with that specifically, and appropriately, in response to the debate. I will do it now if she wants me to do so.

Miss Widdecombe

When the Minister comes to respond on the time that has already elapsed, what I and, I am sure, other Members would be far more interested to hear, is how much time has yet to elapse before we get those results?

Mr. Browne

To the extent that any Minister is ever able to do that—the right hon. Lady knows that it is limited—I will endeavour to give an answer to that question.

At the outset—although I am now some way into my speech—I want to say that I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying that this should not be reduced to a party political issue. The issue is far too important for that. I did not want to be brought by contributions to this debate to have to remind the House of the history of this matter—of course, Governments of a different hue from the current Government had opportunities to deal with this issue. Circumstances change, and as the right hon. Lady reminds us, we are in the 21st century, and it is time to look forward and not back. Some of those who comment on these issues outside the House ought to be reminded—and I would be grateful if she would repeat some of her comments outside—that this is not a party political issue, and that the situation persisted long before this Government came to power. While it needs to be resolved—I accept that, in the 21st century—that is not because of the actions of this Government.

The Government recognise the enormous contribution that the Gurkhas have made, serving across the world for the UK's armed forces. I want to take this opportunity simply to thank them for their bravery and their loyalty. Ministers are sympathetic to concerns about their current situation, which, as the right hon. Lady reminded us, has applied for the past 50 years. I reassure the House that Ministers, including me, have focused on a solution that works for the next 50 years, because the relationship between the Nepalese and British people has been of mutual benefit, and we ought to find solutions to these persistent problems.

On the time that the review has taken, it has been conducted in line with the undertaking given by the former Defence Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), in the right hon. Lady's debate on 6 March 2003. Officials of the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office have been conducting a joint review on current policy on naturalisation and settlement of Gurkhas, and in particular, they are looking at how current immigration policy impacts on Gurkhas on discharge. That review is nearing completion—[Interruption.] I know that that is a different form of words from that which the right hon. Lady—

Miss Widdecombe

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Browne

No. I want to deal, as the right hon. Lady requested, with the issue of why it has taken so long.

This is not by any stretch of the imagination as simple as identifying an apparent injustice and seeking to resolve it. As one would have expected, the review has identified complex legal issues, on which complex legal advice is being sought. We need to be sure that we understand what impact change might have in relation, for example, to ensuring that any future policy is not discriminatory, and that the Gurkhas obtain the best advantage from it.

Because we share a common objective that the relationship of the Nepalese people with the Brigade of Gurkhas and the British Army continues, we need to consider the impact on recruitment and retention of Gurkhas, which is not straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, as I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates and understands. We need to consider changes to current pension arrangements to ensure that they do not disadvantage Gurkhas. We need to consider the impact on the Nepalese economy. We need to consider ensuring continued cohesion of Gurkha units serving in the British Army. We also need to consider how current immigration policy impacts on Gurkhas, the scope for change, and immigration or work permit concessions. Fundamentally, care needs to be taken to ensure that the practices underpinning the tripartite agreement, which dates back to 1947, are not undermined.

The review has been wide-ranging. It has included discussions of settlement, work permits, naturalisation, and welfare issues, including those affecting dependants, and the issues are complex. I hope, however, that we will shortly be able to resolve those issues as the review draws to a conclusion.

Miss Widdecombe

Will the Minister please interpret for me the difference in Ministerspeak between "shortly" and "nearing completion"?

Mr. Browne

I did not intend to convey any different messages. I intended to give the right hon. Lady the impression that we were moving to the point of completion. Because we are dealing with issues of advice and consideration of advice, and because a number of people are involved—I cannot make the decision alone, but must engage in consultation—I cannot bind any individuals to a timetable that is unreasonable. I am sure that she and the House will understand that. I cannot bind other people's thought processes.

In my introductory remarks—which have now taken up the bulk of my speech—I have tried to explain the complexity of the decisions involved. I do not know whether, when she was a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Lady had an opportunity to go into that complexity, but if she did not I must say, with respect, that she is at a disadvantage. Having done so myself, I do not think it unreasonable to have taken much of last year to set up the review, take the necessary advice and reach the point that we have reached. We should bear in mind the history, and the fact that the solution will need to serve us for at least another 50 years.

It seems to me distinctly unreasonable—in the context of the time scale of not just the service of the Gurkhas to the British Army but the persistence of the present agreement and arrangements—to keep saying that it is all taking far too long. It is not taking far too long, given what has to be done. I am sure that when announcements are made and their consequences are appreciated, Members throughout the House, along with those outside who are aware of the issues, will agree that it has not taken too long.

Let me try to deal quickly with some of the specific issues that the right hon. Lady asked me about. She repeated some of the arguments that she advanced in her earlier Adjournment debate. In particular, she asked me to intercede with the Ministry of Defence with regard to the issue of accompanying families. Partly as a result of what she said in that earlier debate, that issue too is being reviewed by the MOD. I am not in a position to tie the MOD and its Ministers to any time scale, but I understand that Ministers expect to make announcements later this year. I am sure that if the issues can be resolved in that time, she will be content.

The right hon. Lady asserted that NATO troops are allowed to settle in the United Kingdom. I am not sure exactly which NATO troops she was thinking of. It is not my understanding that troops who served with NATO are entitled by the immigration laws to acquire settlement status in the UK. It is, however, true that Commonwealth troops serving in the British Army can settle. That is my understanding of the law, but I shall have it checked, and if I have inadvertently given the House incorrect information I shall write to the right hon. Lady.

The right hon. Lady drew attention to something of which I was not aware, and as a result I shall ensure that it is looked into. I refer to her assertion that children can be left here when their parents are required to return to Nepal. I agree that that is not an appropriate way in which to treat children, and I should have thought that it was inconsistent with our domestic legislation, which constrains us to act in the best interests of individual children. My simple approach is that most children are better off with their parents, if their parents are loving and caring. I am not aware of the arrangement to which she referred, but I will look into it and write to her.

I see that I am running out of time. Let me finally reassure the House that the current review is being conducted in the best interests of the Gurkhas. In the meantime, outstanding applications have been held in limbo, as it were—held aside—to ensure that—

The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight o'clock.