HC Deb 15 January 2002 vol 378 cc125-6W
Mr. Hoyle

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many special arrangements are in place to pay pensions to retired Gurkhas who are sick or disabled; [27497]

(2) if he will review the tri-partite agreement between the UK, India and Nepal to increase the pension paid to retired Gurkhas. [27498]

Mr. Ingram

My right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Armed Forces completed a thorough review of Gurkha pensions and gratuities only two years ago. The outcome was a significant improvement in the payments made as a result of a death in service, which brought death in service gratuities for Gurkhas to the level of comparable British Army service personnel, and increases to pension payments of at least 100 per cent.

Gurkha pensions are not paid at the same rates as British service men as the context in which they are paid is very different. Discharge in Nepal, and the link to Indian Army rates is the basis on which the Gurkhas serve. The levels of pension paid to our Gurkhas reflect the cost of living in Nepal, where they are discharged. Gurkha pensions now compare favourably to professional salaries there. They are also paid earlier than that of a British soldier. Gurkhas receive their pension at the end of their 15 years of service rather than the 22 years required of their British counterparts. In addition, up to 100 per cent. of the Gurkha pension can be passed on as a family pension to a soldier's widow until her death or remarriage and then to unmarried children up to the age of 25 years.

Sick or disabled Gurkha pensioners are able to nominate an individual, usually a family member or friend, to collect their pensions in cash from one of the three pension paying offices in Kathmandu, Pokhara and Itahari, or from one of the 24 Area Welfare Centres situated throughout Nepal. A significant number of sick and disabled Gurkha pensioners choose to receive their pension this way, but it is impossible to identify the precise number without making manual checks to over 25,000 pension records. The information could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Back to