Prince Harry’s visit to Folkestone to open the Step Short, First World War centenary memorial arch, was a day that the whole town and district could be proud of. It was highly appropriate as well that the parade of soldiers on that day from our local infantry regiment, the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, was accompanied by the band of the Brigade of Gurkhas. The Gurkhas based at Shorncliffe Barracks are at the heart of our community and we are rightly proud of the important role they continue to play in the British armed forces. I fully supported the decision five years ago that all ex-Gurkhas, including those who had retired before 1997, should have the right to live in the United Kingdom; if they have been prepared to die for Britain they should have the right to live here.
Next year marks the 200th anniversary of the agreement between Britain and Nepal that led to Gurkha soldiers serving with our armed forces. As we commemorate the centenary of the First World War, we should also remember the contribution of the Gurkhas, and solders from right around the world, in the service of Britain and our Allies. These important anniversaries make now a particularly appropriate time for parliament to consider the outstanding grievances that are held by many older ex-Gurkhas regarding their pensions and financial settlement from the Ministry of Defence.
For the last six months I have served on the cross party committee of MPs who have conducted an inquiry into welfare of older retired Gurkhas; those who do not enjoy the equalised pension rights with the British army, that are now commonplace. The pension schemes created after the Second World War for British and Gurkhas soldiers were very different and in many ways do not bare direct comparison. Gurkhas could retire after fifteen years of service and claim their pension straightaway, whereas in the British army, whilst the pension offered was significantly higher, it was based on twenty two years of service and could not be claimed until the ex-serviceman had reached the age of sixty. However, our inquiry has identified a number of important grievances that affect around 7,000 ex-Gurkhas, many of whom left the army before completing fifteen years of service and receive little or no pension at all. Some of these Gurkhas were made redundant, through no fault of their own, after the conclusion of the conflict in Malaya in 1960. There are others who have for many years claimed that they were victims of unfair dismissal. Some Gurkhas for example faced dismissal, until as late at the 1990s, if they married a non-Nepalese woman. Over one hundred Gurkhas were dismissed in 1986 after an incident in Hawaii where a small number reacted to a situation of extreme provocation from a non-Gurkha training officer.
The full report from the parliamentary inquiry will be published in the next few weeks, and last week in the House of Commons I took part in the debate on the findings of the committee’s work so far. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will review these cases where Gurkhas have been treated unfairly, and consider their appeal for a fair pension based on their actual years of service