Gurkha Veterans
Monica Harding Excerpts(6 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
One of the most favoured spots in my constituency on a Friday evening is The Ferry in Thames Ditton, a wonderful Nepalese restaurant run by Cepe, who served with the Royal Gurkhas for 19 years. Around the restaurant are pictures of VCs, a proud reminder of the many Gurkhas who have served our country loyally and bravely, without hesitation, in some of the most dangerous theatres of war.
With thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, I want to speak today about something that I think cuts to the heart of what we stand for as a country: fairness, honour and how we treat those who have served under our flag. For more than two centuries, the Gurkhas have stood shoulder to shoulder with British soldiers. From the trenches of the first world war to the jungles of the second and the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have fought with a courage and loyalty that should inspire us all. The Gurkhas are not a peripheral force; they are an integral part of the British Army. Yet, despite that sacrifice, we have not treated them as equals. That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate.
Let me be clear about the scale of the problem. Around 25,000 Gurkha vets who retired before 1997 remain on the Gurkha pension scheme, a system designed not for life in the UK but for retirement in rural Nepal. As a result, they receive pensions that are significantly lower than those of their British counterparts, despite having done the same job, worn the same uniform and faced the same dangers. These are not marginal differences; they are life-defining disparities. Many Gurkha veterans living in this country are surviving on incomes that would be considered unacceptable for any veteran of our armed forces. Some are living in poverty, some are struggling to heat their homes and some are making impossible choices between basic necessities.
The argument has long been that the Gurkha pension scheme was designed with a different purpose and that retrospective changes to pension arrangements are uniquely difficult, but that no longer holds, and here is why. In 2009, after a sustained and powerful campaign supported by Members across this House, Gurkha veterans secured the right to settle in the UK. That was a landmark moment, but it created a new reality—one that our pension system has simply failed to catch up with. We cannot invite people to live in one of the most expensive countries in the world and then continue to pay them as if they were living in Nepal. It is not sustainable or defensible.
This is not a new complaint; it has been raised repeatedly by campaigners, vets themselves and Members on all sides. We have seen hunger strikes, protests outside this building and legal challenges, but the fundamental injustice persists, and that should trouble every one of us. When people who once risked their lives for Britain feel that their only remaining tool to be heard is protest or starvation, something has gone very badly wrong.
The Liberal Democrats have been consistent in this fight. In 2009, we used an Opposition day to force the House to confront the issue of settlement rights. That vote sent a clear message, and the Government of the day were forced into a U-turn. That showed what this House can achieve when it acts with conviction. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has written to the Minister for Veterans and People demanding action. We are not raising this issue for the first time; we are raising it because it remains unresolved.
There are wider pressures bearing down on this community. Many ageing veterans face language barriers that make it genuinely difficult for them to navigate the system. Many are unaware of entitlements that they should be receiving, and many struggle to access NHS services or social care. Mental health provision is often inconsistent and inadequate. Families face high visa fees and significant financial strain when trying to reunite with loved ones. This is not only about pensions; it is about a broader failure to support a community that has given so much.
We must confront the deeper issue here: the current system is rooted in a colonial-era arrangement, the 1947 tripartite agreement between the UK, Nepal and India. That agreement may have reflected the geopolitical realities of the moment, but nearly eight decades later, those realities have changed. The Nepalese Supreme Court itself recently called for a review of the arrangement, highlighting the unequal power dynamics under which it was created and questioning its continued relevance. It has made it clear that the current system does not adequately protect the rights and welfare of Gurkha soldiers, and we should take that seriously.
The armed forces covenant promises that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families should be treated with fairness and respect—it is a promise of no disadvantage—and yet, for Gurkha veterans, that promise has not been fulfilled. They are, in effect, excluded from the full application of that principle. That is not right, and we have a responsibility to do something about it. Fairness before the state should depend not on where someone was born, but on what they have given.
Where do we go from here? The answer is not overly complicated, but we require political will. First, we need a comprehensive pension justice review that seriously examines how we can move towards parity for Gurkha veterans who served before 1997. Secondly, we need to address the financial barriers that continue to affect Gurkha families through reductions in visa fees and, where appropriate, waivers. Thirdly, we need a targeted support package for ageing veterans to ensure that they can access healthcare, social care and mental health services without unnecessary obstacles. These are not radical demands; they are reasonable steps towards fairness.
At the end of the day, this comes down to a simple question: do we believe that equal service deserves equal treatment? If the answer is yes—and it must be—the current situation cannot continue. The Gurkhas have served this country with extraordinary courage. They have done so without hesitation and with a loyalty that has become the stuff of legend. But loyalty is a two-way street, and for too long we have not upheld our side of that bargain.
Let us act. Let us match their service with fairness, match their sacrifice with justice, and ensure that the values we so often speak about—honour, duty and equality—are reflected not just in our words but in our actions. If we cannot do right by those who have fought for us, the claim that we are a fair and honourable nation begins to ring hollow, and that is something this House should never accept.
Oral Answers to Questions
Monica Harding Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for her really important question. I am absolutely dismayed by the reports of damage to the cemetery by both Israeli operations and Hamas fighters. Brave servicemen laid to rest overseas should not in any way, shape or form have their graves defiled; neither should the courageous men and women who tend to the graves have to experience that. Together with our international partners, we have raised our concerns with Israeli authorities. We will continue to support the commission as it looks to assess and repair the damage when it is safe to do so.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
We are studying developments very carefully and remain in close contact with the United States and other allies. The UK’s position is clear: the best way forward for the region and the world is a negotiated settlement with Iran when it has given up its nuclear ambitions. Recent events have also underlined the importance of resilience, strong alliances and credible military capability in a world where regional crisis can develop quickly. A sustainable peace must reduce the risk of conflict, not simply pause it.
Monica Harding
My constituents are deeply concerned about further escalation in the middle east and the UK being pulled further into a conflict with no clear objective. They are also concerned about the impact on their energy bills, inflation and interest rates. President Trump is attempting to pull us into his war of choice, urging UK deployments to the strait of Hormuz and asserting that NATO’s future depends on allies committing to deploying assets. Will the Minister rule out the deployment of military assets to the strait of Hormuz, and will he do so as strongly as our German and Spanish allies have done? Does he agree that de-escalation is key, as any further military action threatens a sustainable peace? Does he also agree that a better way forward would be for the UK, as penholder on the UN Security Council, to present an emergency resolution to get the strait of Hormuz open through UN channels?
Al Carns
I have attended every staff college in the military—initial staff college, advanced command staff college and higher command staff college—and they all say two things: “First, you must have a legal mandate before putting people in harm’s way; secondly, you must think through to the end.” We will continue to work in a comprehensive and calm manner with our allies and partners to ensure that we can come up with a solution to the strait of Hormuz, and we will not rule anything out, because we cannot guarantee where this war is going to go.
Commonwealth Troops: First World War
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this important debate. I, like him, want to start by sharing the story of Khudadad Khan for his extraordinary courage in holding off wave after wave of German infantry in 1914. He became the first soldier of Indian origin to receive the Victoria Cross. What makes his story even more remarkable is the moment at which it occurred. In late 1914, the British Expeditionary Force had lost around 70% of its original strength. Germany’s armies were pushing through the channel ports. Had they broken through, the war could very well have been lost in its first months, and mainland Europe would have likely fallen under the dominion of imperial Germany. But the line held and it did so in part because 45,000 soldiers from India arrived on the western front just in time.
Those soldiers had travelled thousands of miles from the subcontinent. Many arrived still wearing cotton uniforms designed for the heat of the Indian frontier, when they were suddenly thrown into the freezing mud of Flanders. They had never seen trench warfare before. They faced artillery barrages, barbed wire, machine guns and the bitter and unfamiliar cold of a Belgian winter. Yet they stood firm. That moment tells us something fundamental about the first world war. This was not simply a British story, but very much one of the Commonwealth. More than 3 million soldiers and labourers from across the empire fought alongside Britain in the first world war.
The war memorials in my constituency of Esher and Walton bear testimony to a generation who fought not alone, but shoulder to shoulder with men and women from across the Commonwealth. The numbers alone are staggering. More than 1.4 million came from India, nearly 630,000 from Canada, over 410,000 from Australia, almost 130,000 from New Zealand, and many thousands from the West Indies, Africa, Fiji and beyond. More than half a million Commonwealth soldiers lost their lives. This was not a marginal contribution; it was decisive, and it altered the course of the war.
Britain entered the war in 1914 with a relatively small professional Army. There were about 700,000 trained soldiers in total, including reservists and territorials. Set against the vast conscript armies of the central powers, particularly Germany and Austria-Hungary, this force was tiny.
Without reinforcements from across the empire, Britain could not have sustained the war effort. The wartime Prime Minister David Lloyd George put it clearly. He said that, had they stayed at home, the issue of the war would have been very different and the history of the war would have taken a different course. We often hear that the arrival of the United States in 1917 tipped the balance of the war, and there is truth in that claim, but there is also a powerful argument that without the Commonwealth’s contribution, the war might not have lasted long enough for the Americans to arrive at all.
Rebecca Smith
Does the hon. Member agree that a significant contribution was also made by the 140,000-strong Chinese Labour Corps, ironically enough, who came over from 1916 to do a lot of the work on the front, which then freed up the soldiers to do the fighting?
Monica Harding
The hon. Member is entirely right, and I will shortly come on to the forgotten stories of this war.
From the mud of Flanders to the deserts of the middle east, from the jungles of East Africa to the mountains of the Balkans, Commonwealth soldiers were present in almost every theatre of the conflict. Their bravery and resilience, too often forgotten and overlooked, was one of the most notable features of the conflict.
Canadian troops faced chlorine gas for the first time at the second battle of Ypres in 1915, holding the line. At Vimy Ridge in 1917, four Canadian divisions fought together as one for the first time, and in just four days they achieved what the French and British had spent years and over 100,000 lives bravely failing to do. This courage was not confined to the trenches. In the skies above Europe, Canadian airmen distinguished themselves with equal daring. Fighter aces such as Billy Bishop, who was awarded the Victoria Cross, played a crucial role in securing allied control of the air.
Australian troops bravely fought for eight months on the steep cliffs of Gallipoli, before playing a decisive role in the final offensives of 1918. New Zealand, with a population of barely 1 million people at that time, sent more than 120,000 soldiers overseas, nearly one in five of whom never returned.
My own constituency of Esher and Walton has a profound historical connection to New Zealand, dating back to the first world war. During the conflict, Walton served as a major centre for treating injured soldiers from the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, particularly those wounded in the Gallipoli campaign. The Mount Felix mansion was converted into the first New Zealand hospital in the UK. Some 27,000 New Zealand soldiers were treated there, and 21 New Zealand soldiers unfortunately died and are buried in St Mary’s churchyard in Walton.
We remember this connection, such as through our roads; New Zealand Avenue runs through the middle of Walton, and we have Adelaide Road too. Since 1920, an annual Anzac Day service is held at St Mary’s church. The Mount Felix tapestry features the soldiers at the hospital, and a kowhai tree donated by the New Zealand Government in 1970 stands at the former site of the hospital. My brilliant constituents in Esher and Walton ensure that the sacrifice of those from New Zealand who served in the great war is remembered.
Soldiers from the Caribbean served in the British West Indies Regiment, operating across Europe, Africa and the middle east. Many of them were denied the chance by the British Government to fight as equals. Instead, they were often assigned labour duties, such as digging trenches, unloading ships or carrying supplies. Despite that discrimination, they served with courage and dignity.
African soldiers and porters were indispensable to the campaigns across the continent, carrying ammunition and supplies through terrain that would have stopped any conventional army. They suffered catastrophic losses, but they were the logistical backbone of the campaign, and their story remains one of the least known chapters of the war. Women across the Commonwealth were also vital to the British war effort, serving as nurses, driving ambulances, working in munition factories, and keeping farms and industries running.
In many schools, our students still learn about the Somme, Passchendaele, and the western front but hear very little about the role played by Indian, African, Caribbean, Australian, Canadian and Chinese forces. As Baroness Warsi powerfully put it,
“Our boys weren’t just Tommies—they were Tariqs and Tajinders too”.
When we speak of those who served in the first world war, we are speaking about people from every corner of what was then the British empire—people who crossed oceans to fight for a country they had never seen, people who fought in climates and conditions utterly alien to them, people who believed that they were fighting for principles, freedom, justice and the defence of small nations. Yet the response of the British Government in the immediate aftermath often fell far short of the ideals that these men believed they had fought for. West Indian soldiers were excluded from the London victory parade. In India, promises of reform made in return for wartime loyalty were followed by the brutality of the Amritsar massacre.
The first world war reshaped not only Europe but the political map of the world. The modern Commonwealth and the family of nations that it represents today has its roots in the sacrifices made during that war. That brings us to the present. We must honour the shared history that binds us to the Commonwealth. Let us ensure that their contributions are fully recognised. Their service must be fully integrated into our national commemorations, and their stories taught in schools so that young people understand that the first world war was not fought by Britain alone.
We must uphold the vital work of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and its volunteers, whose quiet dedication ensures that the name of the fallen, regardless of their nationality, faith or background, are remembered with dignity. We fought alongside a brave coalition of nations and peoples—millions of individuals whose courage, labour and sacrifice made victory possible. They fought in the mud of Belgium, the deserts of Palestine, the mountains of Greece and the jungles of East Africa. Tragically, many of them never came home. They were asked to fight and, sometimes, to die for a country that they had never seen. Let us, a century later, remember why they came and the bravery with which they fought not as a footnote to history but as an essential part of the story of how that tragic war was fought and won.
Ukraine
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Most Members of this House recognise that Vladimir Putin has no interest in securing a just peace for Ukraine. The only peace he will accept is one that carves up Ukraine and leaves it defenceless against future Russian invasion. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to apply more pressure on Putin, and I encourage Ministers to go further.
As the Minister has pointed out, Putin’s oil profits are still propping up his war machine. They will continue to serve as a lifeline to the Russian economy until the UK, together with our international partners, turns the screw more tightly. Has the Minister considered the Liberal Democrats’ call to work with G7 partners to lower the oil price cap to $30 a barrel, which could cut more than a third off Putin’s oil profits?
Donald Trump has become another vital lifeline for Vladimir Putin, as he remains fixated on rewarding the Kremlin’s illegal invasion by pressuring Ukraine into giving up unconquered land in the Donbas. Reports now suggest that Trump is trying to block the UK and Europe from seizing frozen Russian assets, despite the transformative leverage that they could give Ukraine by funding new weapons. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not allow Trump to block efforts to seize those assets? Can he confirm whether the Government will seize the £30 billion-worth of assets in this country, which estimates suggest could fund half of Ukraine’s military budget for 2026?
Luke Pollard
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I agree with her that it is important that, as we hopefully move towards a peace deal that is brokered by our American allies, the Ukrainian voice is heard loud and strong, and that a deal signals not a pause in hostilities but the end of hostilities. In order for that to happen, the Ukrainians must have their voice heard in the negotiations and be able to maintain a viable defence of their own nation in the future. The UK stands ready to support them through the coalition of the willing, the Multinational Force Ukraine and further actions.
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the actions we have taken on the Russian oil price cap have made a difference. My colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and in the Treasury continue to look at more methods that we can use. Indeed, a key part of our sanctions activity involves doing so alongside our allies, and we continue to build international support for those actions. That includes making sure that we can maintain our NATO commitments and our NATO unity when it comes to not only Euro-Atlantic security, but the support we offer Ukraine.
UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility
Monica Harding Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts the argument very well. This is a matter of freedom of navigation and a matter of international law, but it is also a matter of economic self-interest for Britain, because the price for the disruption to world shipping on this essential trade route through the Red sea is paid by ordinary people in the food and goods they depend on. That is in part why we took this action last night.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the professionalism of our armed forces, and I am thankful for their safe return. Is the Secretary of State confident about the appropriate security for our military personnel, given that the previous leaks from the Trump Administration on Signal gave details of such attacks before they happened, and what reassurances has he had from the United States on that?
John Healey
I am confident. We handle secure communications in secure ways, and we do that consistently here in the UK.
Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross
Monica Harding Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. On 8 May, this House, together with the whole country, will celebrate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe. This important milestone provides us with a renewed opportunity to reflect on the sacrifices and struggle of that greatest generation, who fought to protect Britain and preserve our freedom and democracy in the face of fascism and tyranny.
It is our duty in this House and in our communities across the UK to recognise and celebrate the contributions made by our incredible service personnel to the security, defence and prosperity of this country. That must include reflecting on the service of all current military personnel who protect us today, the living veterans who have finished their time in the armed forces, and the servicemen and women from previous generations who are no longer with us.
They are, all of them, bound together by a thread of service and sacrifice for this country. We must continually renew our gratitude and remembrance of that service. Therefore I welcome today’s incredibly valuable debate. It shines a spotlight on the gallantry and heroism of one of the UK’s most decorated servicemen, Blair Paddy Mayne, whose proposed recognition with a posthumous Victoria Cross I warmly support.
As the premier operational gallantry award, it is worth while reminding ourselves of its requirements. It is awarded for
“most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy”.
It is clear that Blair Mayne personified the highest standards of bravery in the face of the enemy and across his career in the Special Air Service, and on that basis merits the award of a Victoria Cross.
Blair Mayne was one of the first leaders of the SAS following its formation in 1941. It was designed with the intention of conducting guerrilla warfare against the axis powers, which were at that time on their march across Europe, Africa and Asia. The SAS’s role in the second world war was unconventional but crucial. Its work to disrupt operations behind enemy lines, particularly through its use of small-scale raids, intelligence gathering and support for networks of resistance groups against the fascist occupiers, was vital in undermining the axis’s political and military strength.
As part of the then regiment, Mayne showed extraordinary valour and heroism while carrying out dangerous and daring raids in north Africa, Italy and France, harassing Nazi and fascist supply lines. Indeed, in November 1941 Mayne led one of the first SAS missions considered to be a major success—an attack on a Libyan airfield, which saw dozens of enemy aircraft destroyed. In January 1943, following the capture of Colonel David Stirling, Mayne took over the command of the SAS, going on to lead his men in campaigns in Sicily and Italy, before the SAS took part in the D-day landings. These are just a few examples of the conspicuous bravery displayed by Mayne in his leadership of the SAS.
It is important to remember too that for Mayne and all the members of this elite regiment, being apprehended by the Nazis from 1942 onwards would likely have meant their summary execution at the hands of their captors. Consistently operating under such conditions requires, without doubt, exceptional bravery. Mayne is already one of our most decorated veterans. He was one of only eight people during the second world war to be awarded the Distinguished Service Order on four occasions—at the time the second highest gallantry award behind the Victoria Cross. This serves as an important testament to the consistency of his bravery, leadership and resolve, often in the face of odds stacked against him.
It is only right and fair that we honour that courage today through the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross. Indeed, the award of a Victoria Cross would honour not only Mayne but in many ways the role of our special forces writ large, both historically and to this day.
For many people, their knowledge and understanding of the SAS will have been informed by the BBC’s dramatisation of the regiment’s founding in “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, which Members have already extolled. The series has had an important impact, highlighting the enormous contribution of the SAS in securing the freedom we celebrate today and protecting it still. It has also highlighted the important work of the BBC in bringing stories such as these to the public’s attention, impressing on all of us the sacrifices and courage of our armed forces.
There are now only a few living veterans of that greatest generation who can recall their stories and remind us of the price that they and so many others paid to defend our way of life. Just last month we said goodbye to another Paddy, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, who was the last surviving pilot of the battle of Britain and who, as part of the RAF, defeated the Luftwaffe and defended our country from invasion. We have a responsibility to champion their voices and their deeds, and to continue to recognise acts of outstanding valour and heroism in our armed forces. That is why I warmly support the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, the decoration that King George VI said had “so strangely eluded him” but is within our gift to correct.