Gurkha Pensions

Debate between Jackie Doyle-Price and Alison Seabeck

Thursday 11th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I would like to record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for its excellent work in facilitating debates such as this one today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing the debate on Gurkha pensions and terms of employment. The topic has been discussed at length here before but, as I would have expected, she gave an extremely thoughtful and well balanced speech. We have heard knowledgeable and passionate speeches from other Members, highlighting very specific concerns, including the issue of dismissals and Hawaii. I shall not get involved in those; I am sure the Minister will consider all those detailed and specific points.

I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock for the hard work that she and her colleagues do in the all-party group. Many people and organisations have given up their time—we have heard about the huge number of attendees—in connection with it. Having walked down the Committee corridor on a number of occasions when events were taking place, I know that the hon. Lady has had an interesting and, I suspect, at times quite difficult-to-manage task. She deserves the plaudits she was given, particularly from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth); they were entirely justified.

Members will understand why so many colleagues have been absent from today’s debate, but the defence of the United Kingdom and the Union is a paramount concern. Scotland plays an important role in the overall defence of our realm. A yes vote, which would leave the Scots unable to respond to incidents, without intelligence cover and losing jobs is not, I think, something that any Member in the Chamber would want to see, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot for his comments. As he said, many Members whose constituencies contain significant Gurkha and Nepalese communities have gone to fight for the Union today.

The hon. Member for Thurrock set out some of the initial findings, and highlighted some of the key issues that had been raised with the all-party group. I am pleased that she sought to obtain this debate in order to listen to the views of Members, and—here I return to the fact that so many Members have not been able to participate in it because of their commitments elsewhere—I hope that she will pursue the issue. I hope that she will give all Members a copy of the report of the debate, and seek their views further to ensure that she has all bases covered. I am sure that others will want to read what has been said here today.

Members in all parts of the House recognise the enormous contribution made by the Gurkha soldiers to Britain. The Gurkhas are held in much public affection and esteem by the British public, and rightly so. They have represented and protected our nation gallantly for well over 100 years—indeed, as we heard from the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), for approaching 200 years. They fought alongside British troops before and during the first and second world wars, and continue that tradition in present-day operations. I was interested to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) about the Mandalay company’s involvement in training in his constituency. That, I think, illustrates just how important the Gurkhas are currently to the British armed services.

The last Government, appreciating the contribution and service of the Gurkhas, made a commitment to honour the Gurkha regiments, first by eliminating differences between their terms and conditions of service and those of their British counterparts, and later by delivering the first ever rights of settlement for Gurkhas, their spouses and their dependent children. We are proud of the work that we did in government in enhancing the lives of Gurkha soldiers and their families. I understand, however, that although there have been significant developments in recent years in relation to the pay and conditions of Gurkha soldiers and the extension of their right to settle in the UK, some outstanding grievances remain. We heard about a number of them during the debate, and of course we have also heard from Gurkhas and organisations that represent them, such as the Gurkha Welfare Trust.

Chief among those grievances is the issue relating to Gurkha pension arrangements for those who served prior to 1997. The last Government introduced a policy under which all who served after 1997 were able to transfer into the armed forces pension scheme and enjoy the same terms and conditions as their British equivalents. Of course, before 1997, Gurkha regiments were focused in the far east. Recruits came from Nepal, pay and other conditions reflected the terms available in the Indian army and it was assumed that Gurkhas would retire not in the UK, but in their home country of Nepal.

Following the transfer of the Brigade of Gurkhas to the United Kingdom in 1997, it seemed only right for the Gurkhas’ terms and conditions to be brought in line with those of British soldiers. As increasing numbers of Gurkhas were based here and began to put down roots in the UK, it became necessary to give them the right to settle with their families, a right that the last Government delivered. As for those who had served before 1997, and who were not part of the cohort of soldiers who moved with the base to the UK, it was still the expectation that they would settle in Nepal. They remained under the Gurkha pension scheme, which allows them to collect a pension after 15 years of service—far less than for a British soldier—and which provides them with an amount that can secure a good standard of living in Nepal.

I heard what the hon. Member for Thurrock said about the way in which that income is now spent, and what other Members said about the pressures on those living in Nepal. I shall be interested to read the evidence from the all-party review, particularly that relating to medical services. I am sure that the Minister will also be interested to read it when it is made public.

During a debate on this topic in 2009, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out that the early payment of pensions for Gurkhas, after 15 years of service, actually means that most Gurkhas receive a significant pension before equivalent soldiers receive anything at all. A Gurkha soldier enrolled in the Gurkha pension scheme who enlisted at the age of 18 would have been able to retire at 33 and begin to collect his pension then. That has raised a number of issues; as I have said, I shall be interested to see the report. Members have posed further questions to the Minister today, including questions about the use of LIBOR funding and various other pots of money, and I am sure that she will give that some thought. I listened with interest, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister’s response, although I suspect that she, like Opposition Members, will want to see the detail and consider it, because the devil is always in the detail when looking at such complex issues.

In contrast, those under the armed forces pension scheme 1975 cannot collect a pension until they are 60. By the time they reach 60 it is correct to say that the Gurkhas will receive lower monthly payments than their British counterparts, but they will have already benefited from 27 years of annual payments by that time, whereas the British soldier will have received none.

We should also remember, of course, that the Gurkha pension scheme cannot be separated from other pension schemes, including the current and previous schemes for our armed forces. It has been the policy of Governments across time that the terms and conditions of pension arrangements cannot be changed retrospectively after people leave public service. I know that a number of organisations are still seeking to make changes to the pension arrangements for those who served prior to 1997, and as Members have pointed out, there has been a series of legal challenges, to the High Court and Court of Appeal. The latter found, in relation to the pre-1997 pension arrangement, that the previous Government had acted fairly, especially given that the soldiers’ entire service was completed before the base was moved from Hong Kong, and at a time when the assumption and, importantly, the reality was retirement to a life in Nepal. We maintain that the policy introduced by the last Labour Government was reasonable, rational and lawful.

I should like to touch briefly on the emotional and complex issue of the changes sought to rules in relation to adult children. With regard to changes in the rules to allow adult children to settle in the UK, we must be clear that the UK Government’s policy has to be consistent and fair. What has been sought would not be in line with policy offered to other former servicemen from abroad and with wider UK immigration policy. This is a highly emotive area, but the Home Office has very clear rules about this, and those rules need to be acknowledged.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must ensure that our application of our immigration laws is consistent. A number of Gurkhas are applying to get their families over on the basis of a right to family life, but ultimately anyone can apply under other visas—student visas or work visas—and does the hon. Lady agree that their adult families might use those routes, rather than the right to family life or any right that might arise from their veterans’ service?

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, although it would probably be better answered by a Home Office expert than me. This is complex, however. I have in my constituency a large number of Fijians who are based in Plymouth and in the Navy, and have a long-standing commitment. They could possibly equally argue that things need to be altered because of their degree and level of service. The rules must be clear, consistent and fair. If the hon. Lady’s report can give an indication that that would be the case, I am sure the Home Secretary would be interested to read it—and I, too, would be interested to read it—but at the moment, as the rules stand, there can be no specific exceptions.

This is not a day for tub-thumping party politics, but I make one small observation: the Gurkhas are being disproportionately affected by the Government’s handling of their proposed reform to the armed forces and the rationale behind the removal of 350 Gurkhas from service still needs some explanation—but I will go no further on that point in terms of the cuts to the regiments and the timing.

The welfare and well-being of our serving personnel and our veterans is a priority for this party, as I am sure it is for the Government parties. That is one reason why we pushed so hard to enshrine the principles of the armed forces covenant in law. It is also why we undertook to introduce equal pay and pension rights for Gurkhas and to provide them with the option to settle in the United Kingdom if they wished to.

We have heard from many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) highlighted his constituency links to the Nepalese community in a very positive way. The hon. Member for Aldershot spoke of the pressures of resettlement on local councils and health services. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke of her constituent’s commitment to his community in being elected as a local councillor. None of us would want to suggest that the Gurkhas and other members of the Nepalese community are anything other than a positive benefit to the communities in which they settle, as long as the right support is in place for them. The Gurkhas play a vital role in our armed forces, and I hope that we can look forward to many more years of their dedicated, brave, committed and highly skilled service.

Hospital Car Parking Charges

Debate between Jackie Doyle-Price and Alison Seabeck

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One objection to our campaign on parking charges is that somehow the money would be taken away from health care, but I do not believe that is the case at all. He mentions staff. In order to get the best conditions for care, we need to make it easier for people to go out and work, and access to cheap parking is very much a part of that.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I would like to make a little more progress.

These charges are a tax on the sick. They hit patients and their families when they are at their most vulnerable. It is incumbent on hospital trusts and us in this House to make sure that we create the conditions for patients to have the support to aid their recovery. Simply levying high parking charges will not aid their recovery. We all know that receiving visitors will help. We should be making it easier for them to visit their loved ones.

[Alison Seabeck]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I will—persistence pays!

[Alison Seabeck]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way in this very interesting and extremely worthwhile debate. Does she share my concern that, in seeking to get profits from car parks, the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) about staff being sidelined or being asked to pay more is a problem? We certainly have that problem in Derriford, where staff are now finding it very difficult to park anywhere, if at all.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Absolutely. This comes back to the issue of challenging trusts as to whether the car parking charges are fair. We have had push-back from a number of trust managers who say that it costs money to operate and maintain the car parks, partly because of some of the PFI contracts that have been mentioned. It is simply not good enough, however, for hospital trusts to pass on costs to staff and vulnerable patients when they need to be more challenging about how they manage their finances and not simply take from the patients. Nor is it enough for trusts to argue that charges are reasonable for their area. That is like writing an open cheque and allowing London hospitals to levy extremely high charges. It simply is not good enough. There is, in effect, a parking lottery in the NHS, with some patients able to access health care without any charge for parking their car, while others pay extremely handsomely for the privilege. I find that scenario completely incompatible with an NHS that should be free at the point of use.

I was shocked to discover that 74% of hospitals make more than £500,000 a year from their car parks, and even more shocked that more than 40% raise more than £1 million. I recognise that there are many reservations about the removal of car parking charges because of the amount of revenue received, but I do not buy it: I think there is lots more that hospital trusts can do to replenish any gaps that might occur in their revenue as a result of removing car parking charges.

I want to refer to my own local trust of Basildon in that regard. Some will know that Basildon has a very troubled history. It was one of the hospitals that went into special measures following the inquiry into Mid Staffordshire and it has had very high death rates. In the past year, however, since a change of leadership in the hospital trust, it has made massive advances, and it was the first to come out of special measures.

One of the things that the new chief executive has done is to recruit 200 new nurses, and in doing so she has managed to cut the pay bill because she is no longer relying on agency staff. We can all find other ways of replenishing the money that might be lost as a result of reducing car parking charges—not least, I might add, through some patients getting better quicker because they will get more visits from their families. That makes perfect sense to me.