Gurkha Veterans Still Not Allowed Entry to UK

[Sionnach Glic]

Gurkhas not able to settle in Britain, despite court victory
Tens of thousands of Gurkhas will be refused the right to settle in Britain despite a landmark court ruling, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Only certain categories of veterans, including the bravest or seriously injured, will be allowed to come and stay after the Home Office ruled out a blanket policy, amid fears it would lead to up to 100,000 veterans and their dependants wanting to come.

The move will infuriate the Gurkhas and supporters, including actress Joanna Lumley, who thought they had won a long fought battle last year.

Immigration minister Phil Woolas will respond to a High Court decision which concluded that rules which stopped Gurkhas who served before July 1997 from settling in Britain were illegal.

Campaigners celebrated the ruling last October as a "victory for fairness" and had hoped it meant up to 40,000 Gurkhas who had served before the cut off date would now be allowed to live here.

Currently only those who retired after July 1997, when the Gurkha base was moved from Hong Kong to England, could automatically stay in Britain.

But the Home Office will insist the judge did not say the principle of the cut-off date was unlawful, only the criteria surrounding those who could come.

It will publish revised criteria but it will stop well short of allowing all pre-1997 veterans from settling, Whitehall sources disclosed.

Instead the new policy will be "generous" to those who were honoured for bravery or valour, require medical care due to injuries suffered during service and those who served a lengthy period, which will be higher than the four year requirement currently in place for Gurkhas who joined after July 1997.

Veterans who had their applications for settlement put on hold pending the court case - believed to be around 1,100 - will also be looked on favourably.

The policy will lead to fewer than 10,000 Gurkhas being affected instead of nearly 40,000.

A source said: "The problem is it is not just the soldiers but their dependants as well.

"It was estimated that if there had been a blanket policy then it would have cost the country between £1.1 billion and £1.5 billion."

In October, Mr Justice Blake said it was "irrational'' that Gurkhas were denied residency while other foreign soldiers serving in the Army were allowed to settle.

Lawyers for the soldiers had argued Britain owed the Gurkhas a "special debt'' of gratitude for their brave service, during which 50,000 have been killed and 13 have won Victoria Crosses.

[Mikey]

That's an aboslutely abhorrent policy. How much does a man have to give to a country in order to be accepted?

[Deepcrush]

Nice to see the UK is again trying to copy the US in stupidity.

[Tsukiyumi]

I would've thought we'd have had that trademarked by now.

[Mikey]

I think idiotic internal policy was a part of Lend-Lease that was never repealed.

[Deepcrush]

Oh, well that works I guess.

[Aaron]

That's an aboslutely abhorrent policy. How much does a man have to give to a country in order to be accepted?

The Commonwealth should step up and offer these men citizenship, we owe them almost as much as the UK does after all.

[Sionnach Glic]

Hell, I'd fully support letting them come here. We used to be part of the Empire, so I'm sure we owe them on some level as well.

[Tyyr]

Wait... so the UK is fine with having these guys fight and die for them but they're not good enough to come live in it once their service is over? That's... that's pretty messed up.

[Sionnach Glic]

Pretty much, yeah.

[Tyyr]

While I'm not one to be in favor of throwing money around normally, 1.1 to 1.5 billion dollars for vets? That's freaking pocket change for what these guys did.

[Sionnach Glic]

Exactly. And they can't even pull the "it's a recession!" card, because they've been doing this for decades.

[Captain Seafort]

Brown gets a well-deserved kick in the teeth

Gordon Brown's government has suffered a surprise defeat in the Commons on its policy of restricting the right of former Gurkhas to settle in the UK.

MPs voted by 267 to 246 in favour of a Lib Dem motion that all Gurkhas be offered an equal right of residence.

Tory leader David Cameron backed the Lib Dem motion to scrap rules which leader Nick Clegg called "shameful".

Mr Brown's first significant defeat as PM came despite last minute concessions being offered to rebel Labour MPs.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had promised to start a review of the new criteria - which was only announced last week - by the summer and gave an assurance veterans would not be deported.

'Immense victory'

The vote is not binding, but it represents an embarrassing Commons defeat for Gordon Brown at a time when he has faced criticism over a number of other issues.

It is also thought to be the biggest Commons victory achieved by the Liberal Democrats since their formation two decades ago.

There were shouts of "resign" as the numbers were announced. Labour MP Martin Salter told the BBC many of his colleagues had abstained in the vote.

The Lib Dems said 28 Labour MPs voted for their motion.

After the vote Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron joined actress Joanna Lumley who has been campaigning on the issue and Gurkhas outside Parliament.

Both leaders said, while the vote was not binding, the government would have to change its policy.

Mr Clegg said: "This is an immense victory on a series of fronts: for the rights of Gurkhas who have been waiting so long for justice, a victory for Parliament, a victory for decency."

He added that it was "the kind of thing people want this country to do".

Uncomfortable episode

Mr Cameron said it was "embarrassing" for the prime minister because his efforts to strike a "shoddy deal" with Labour rebels had failed.

He added: "Today is a historic day where Parliament took the right decision. The government have got to come back with immediate proposals so that the Gurkhas can have an answer."

Ministers should come back with immediate proposals to change the system, he said.

BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said there would now be enormous pressure on the government to change the guidelines on settlement.

She added it was another uncomfortable episode for Jacqui Smith - who has faced recent questions over her expenses and handling of a Home Office leaks inquiry.

Some 36,000 former Gurkhas have been denied residency because they served in the British army before 1997.

'Major changes'

Ministers had introduced new rules allowing more soldiers to settle here based on long service, medals received, and those injured in battle.

The Home Office said that new rules would allow about 4,300 more to settle, but the Gurkha Justice Campaign said it would be just 100.

Defending the policy at prime minister's questions earlier, Gordon Brown said that the new guidelines announced last week would allow 10,000 Gurkhas - including their families into the UK.

He added: "We are determined to honour the service that the Gurkhas give. We have been very proud of what they have done for our country. We have made major changes over the last few years. We are prepared now to make major changes again.

"And we are prepared to continue to review the situation for the future. It must be based on proper facts and proper figures, and it must be based on the ability to make decisions that we can afford."

Ms Lumley said the campaigners were "elated" as they had expected to lose the vote.

"When it came through we saw it on the screen and I can't tell you the sense of elation," she said.

[Mikey]

Couple of questions (forgive my ignorance - )

"MP's" = "Members of Parliament," right?

Is a simple majority enough to advance the motion, and does it need to then go the House of Lords?

Does the PM have any sort of veto power?

In any event, it's nice to see that the rperesentative body, at least, has a little more humanity than the powers-that-be.

[Captain Seafort]

"MP's" = "Members of Parliament," right?

Correct.

Is a simple majority enough to advance the motion, and does it need to then go the House of Lords?

This is just a motion (unfortunately), not an Act of Parliament, so no, it doesn't.

Does the PM have any sort of veto power?

Nope. Only the monarch has a veto (in that she can refuse to grant Royal Assent) and that hasn't been exercised for three centuries.