|
Gurkhas
Expenses
Your opinions (results)
Hi all –
A report back on the last polls of your views below, but first comments on
the Gurkha and expenses controversies. Before I get into those, a passing
plug for this thought-provoking little video on human evolution:
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=cL9Wu2kWwSY
Startling stuff!
1. The Gurhka controversy
As many of you know, I was one of the MPs who voted against the Government
on this, but I'll try to summarise the arguments as I understand them
fairly anyway.
Gurkhas have traditionally been recruited from Nepal on a contract as
foreign soldiers, paid what is a good rate for Nepal but much less than
British soldiers. They can retire at age 33 on a pension, which again is
very small by British standards but not bad in Nepal.
Traditionally, serving Gurkhas did not acquire the right to live in
Britain, and in fact up to 1997 apparently only six Gurkhas did so, all of
whom happened to be wealthy and entitled to settle on the basis of being
self-supporting. The current government introduced the right of settlement
for all Gurkhas who served since Labour took over in 1997, which coincided
with the date when Gurkhas started to be based in Britain, and it's also
increased the Gurkha pension so they could afford to live here.
The current campaign is for Gurkhas who served before that to be allowed
to settle as well, with their families (around 30,000 people). The
argument in favour is quite simple, and was expressed by the LibDem
leader, Nick Clegg: `if people are willing to die for Britain, they should
acquire the right to live in Britain'. Moreover, many people like what
they see and hear of the Gurkhas, and feel that they would be a valuable
addition for the country. Finally, many of the people we are talking about
are now quite elderly, so if we're going to do anything, we need to get on
with it.
The argument against is partly cost: 30,000 additional mostly retired
people will need both the higher pensions and health care: the possible
extra cost is estimated at around £1.4 billion a year. Moreover, it wasn't
part of the original recruitment deal, which quite clearly didn't include
any right of settlement. Finally, it may be that establishing the
precedent in the terms expressed by Mr Clegg will lead the courts to rule
that all former combatants who fought with British troops are entitled to
settle here. If so, we are potentially talking about several hundred
thousand new pensioners from Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada and many
other countries, at a cost of many billions.
That does seem to me to be something we shouldn't rush into, and the
legislation needs careful drafting to focus on the Gurkhas. The government
proposed to extend the right of residence to pre-1997 soldiers, but only
if they were long-serving, had been stationed in Britain, had received
medals for gallantry, or had fallen ill as a result of service.
I don't think the Government has a poor record on this, and Opposition
critics of `unfeeling' Ministers have something of a nerve, seeing that
previous Governments refused to allow virtually any Gurkhas to settle at
all. But I felt it had now got to the point where we were quibbling, at
the expense of some very vulnerable old people who have been good friends
to Britain. So I voted accordingly, for the Opposition motion, and look
forward to an improved deal.
A general comment: it's easier for me to vote against the Government when
I disagree with something now that I'm no longer a PPS so no longer so
much bound by collective responsibility. The downside of that is that I am
consulted less about Bills before they're proposed - essentially I've
switched from an 'insider' to an 'outsider' role. There's something to be
said for both, but I'm finding the independence of the backbench role
useful; this is my second revolt in a couple of months and I'm also signed
up to the opposition to the Royal Mail part-privatisation.
2. Expenses
More horrors are unfolding as I write, and I don't have anything to say in
defence of anyone who perverts the system, especially as they drag us all
into the mud with them. I am formally proposing to the independent
Committee of Standards in Public Life my suggestion in a previous email:
that we should buy the former County Hall on the Thames and assign the
furnished flats rent-free to MPs, getting rid of any allowance to rent or
buy anywhere else.
At a personal level, I went through my four years of invoices and I've
found one error: a few years ago, I seem to have claimed £61.10 twice in
successive months for the same anti-virus software. I've pointed it out to
the office who examine claims, and asked them to check that it's actually
the same payment (and not the same software for two different computers);
while they're checking, I've refunded the money. I can't find anything
else odd in my invoices; they'll all be published in July (or sooner if
the Telegraph puts them all online) and you can review them for yourself.
My second home has always been a small rented London flat, and I've never
bought any furniture or fittings for it from expenses.
3. Survey results
Many thanks to all of you who took part in my survey on potential
cost-saving measures. A summary of the results:
Trident: 43% agree with my suggestion that we should put the system into
the disarmament talks. 37% would like to simply scrap it without further
ado. 20% would like to press ahead.
Aircraft carriers: 55% agree with my suggestion that we should cancel the
project and scale back our commitments to middle-sized power level. 37%
disagree, and would like to continue the project. 18% would cancel the
carriers, but seek to retain a global role in other ways.
ID cards: 59% of you would now scrap the project; 26% would like to
continue but delay implementation; 15% would like to press ahead at once.
Schools and hospitals: 65% of you agree to slowing capital projects to
free resources for other medical treatment. 27% disagree and want to press
ahead with the current rate of building. 8% favour cuts in health and
education.
Motorways: 46% are against further motorway construction in principle, 44%
favour a slowdown to save money, but 10% want to press ahead with more
motorways to give drivers a better deal.
Taxes on high incomes: 62% of you agree with me that it would be
reasonable to raise tax by 2p above £50,000. 29% think this goes too far,
but would be up for it over £100,000. 9% think the Government's existing
increases over £100,000 are unfair.
Thanks again for taking part! I'll bear the results in mind and quote them
to colleagues in Westminster when the opportunity arises as we tackle the
later stages of the economic crisis.
Best wishes
Nick
|
