Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

To the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for tabling the new clause, I say: thanks. I do not know about middle-aged men being uncomfortable, but sometimes in ministerial life it is the worst of two evils to put oneself in that situation, but that is one for the memoirs.

My understanding is that the new clause, tabled by the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Rochdale, is intended to remove two requirements from the rules relating to indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain for former Gurkhas. Those two requirements are: the requirement to be discharged from the British Army in Nepal on completion of engagement on or after 1 July 1997, and the requirement to have been discharged from the British Army not more than two years prior to the date on which the application is made. That would mean that Gurkhas discharged prior to July 1997 could qualify for indefinite leave to enter or remain under the immigration rules.

In response to the new clause’s first provision, I can say that the revised policy announced by the Home Secretary on 21 May 2009 had the same effect in that regard as the new clause, so that provision is already there. The new clause’s second provision would have the effect of removing the time limit for applications for indefinite leave for all former Gurkhas, not just those discharged prior to 1 July 1997. I will explain why we wish, on that specific point, to resist the new clause. The policy announced on 21 May, following consideration, meets the concerns of Parliament on the issue. That led subsequently to new draft guidelines, based on the seminar of the Home Affairs Committee, to which we were very grateful.

The Select Committee fulfilled its role superbly in helping Parliament and advising Government. I was glad that we were able to use that conduit, given that Parliament was suffering severe public criticism. Although I disagreed with the decision of the House, I said that evening that I respected its decision, and I put my shoulder to the wheel to deliver what Parliament had insisted upon. The Select Committee was beneficial in helping with that. The subsequent process was to publish new draft guidelines to meet the requests of the pre-1997 Gurkhas; they were shared with the Select Committee and the Gurkhas’ representatives, including Miss Lumley. Agreement and an understanding were reached.

The criteria for the pre-1997 people were therefore that soldiers must have served for at least four years, but there is no time limit on their application—a critical difference from what people expected. There is not a two-year window, and there are a number of reasons for that. One was a recognition of the practicalities—of how we could inform people in Nepal of their rights. Another was that we did not want to create a rush that we could not handle administratively, which would cause difficulties with housing and so on. For the pre-1997 people there is no cut-off point.

The difficulty with the second implication of new clause 5 for post-1997 Gurkhas is the critical principle called for by their representatives—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House argued for it—that they should have parity with other Commonwealth servicemen and women in our armed forces. That would require a two-year cut-off point, after four years of service. In other words, it would give the post-1997 Gurkhas something better than was given to the Commonwealth soldiers. That is not what is being pushed for by the representatives, and no Government would be able to adhere to it because, in effect, it would open up a retrospective right for Commonwealth soldiers. That would be unmanageable, and not required.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Member for Ashford. The new guidance is out, and a statement has been made to the House. I will be bringing my life-size cut-out of Miss Lumley to future meetings, as my recognition rating in my constituency is significantly higher than it was before that episode. I have never been the victim—if victim is the right word—of such jealousy. More seriously, I hope that I have met the point being made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

See this speech in context