Gurkhas: Pay and Service Conditions (Hansard, 26 March 2003)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government greatly value the unique contribution that the Gurkhas continue to make. The fact that Gurkha pay and pensions represent a fair deal was recently affirmed by a ruling in the High Court. Take-home pay is equivalent to that of other Army 794 personnel, and pensions, which are available after only 15 years of service, compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal, where Gurkhas are discharged. We will, however, be studying the ruling carefully, particularly in respect of current provisions concerning married accompanied service.

§ Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's response although he would not expect me to accept it all. Now that the legal case has been set aside, is it not time for the pay and service conditions of the Gurkhas to be re-examined by Her Majesty's Government with a view to improvement? After all, the Gurkhas have served this country as a great fighting force for more than two centuries, during two world wars and numerous conflicts. Does the Minister agree that social justice alone demands that we should not remain so stingy in relation to these very brave and noble fighting men, who have fought for us for all this time and who are most loyal and true to this nation? When can we expect a report on those issues?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the Gurkhas. The whole House will agree with her about their role in many campaigns over many years of our history. She will know that brave Gurkhas are presently serving with Her Majesty's forces in Iraq—I understand that about 600 Gurkhas are currently serving. That demonstrates to the House how valuable a part they play in our military campaigns.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness—I say this with some trepidation—about the pay and conditions of the Gurkhas being somehow "stingy". As I suggested in my Answer, the pay of Gurkhas is made up of two elements: the Indian army basic pay and the universal addition, as it is called. That gives Gurkhas broadly the same net take-home pay as a British counterpart in the United Kingdom. Pensions were reviewed just three years ago. All British Gurkha pensioners—25,500 of them—had their pensions at least doubled. Those pensions must be viewed in the context of the cost of living in Nepal, where all Gurkhas are recruited and discharged as Nepalese citizens. Matters arose in relation to the judgment to which the noble Baroness referred, which we will take up. However, on pay and pensions, as the High Court found, there is no injustice.

§ Baroness Sharples
My Lords, does the Minister agree that because there is very little employment in Nepal, when those troops are decommissioned, they should be allowed or encouraged to return to this country? Their money from this country would go back to Nepal.

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, I cannot agree in full with the noble Baroness. The problem goes back to the tripartite agreement, which is now many years old, although it has been brought up to date since 1947. It involves Nepal, India and this country. The basis of 795 that agreement is that the Gurkhas are recruited in their homeland, they serve in their own regiments and are discharged as Nepalese citizens in their own land. They are therefore subject to the same immigration rules as everyone else.

§ Lord Redesdale
My Lords, although I welcome the fact that the MoD dropped its case for not paying compensation to Gurkha prisoners of war in Japan—it took more than 50 years to agree—does the Minister agree that that should be taken as a case for improving pay and conditions to Gurkhas when the next review of the tripartite agreement takes place?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, as I said, there is currently no planned review of the tripartite agreement although we are seriously looking into elements of it as a result of the judgment. One such matter was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. We accept the current position on compensation.

§ Viscount Slim
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, made clear, the unhappiness among Gurkhas at the moment is not so much about pay and conditions as about what happens after their release. It is strange that a government who accept criminals, terrorists and all sorts of funny people from overseas into this nation of ours do not take a loyal and solid Gurkha once he has had his discharge in Nepal and wishes to come back to work. It is my understanding—I hope that the Minister will correct me—that the Home Office is not too averse to the proposal, but the Ministry of Defence seems to dig its toes in at anything to do with a Gurkha after he has left service.

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, Her Majesty's Government are not to be divided up in the way he suggests. I cannot possibly agree with the last comment that he made. However, both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, have raised an issue which I know is of considerable importance to, and accepted by, many in this House. During the course of a debate in another place on 6th March, my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie, who is the Minister responsible for these matters, made it clear that he would take up with his colleagues the issue that has been raised generally. But he also made it clear that he could make no promises.

§ Lord Vivian
My Lords, can the Minister say whether, if the tripartite agreement could be amended satisfactorily for all three parties, consideration might be given to extending the terms of engagement from 15 to 22 years, as 99 per cent of all Gurkhas now complete their full-time military service of 15 years?

§ Lord Bach
My Lords, I certainly undertake to look into that matter. However, one advantage held by the Gurkhas is that at the end of 15 years, which is their minimum level of service, they receive a pension which is paid straightaway. UK-citizen soldiers have to be in the Army for 22 years before receiving a pension 796 straightaway; otherwise, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, they have to wait until they are 60 years of age.