Was Lumley campaign good for Gurkhas?

Gerald · 07-30-11, 06:32 PM

Ragprasad Purja (right) says he is forever grateful to Joanna Lumley

Two years ago actress Joanna Lumley helped Gurkhas who retired before 1997 win the right to settle in the UK. Gurkha welfare groups and the Home office estimate that about 8,000 former soldiers and their families have since moved to Britain. But many have struggled in the UK, as the BBC's Alastair Lawson reports.

Nowhere can the influx of Gurkhas into Britain be more clearly seen than in the British military town of Aldershot.

The local authority estimates that one in 10 of the town's 90,000 residents comes from Nepal - many as a direct result of the campaign Ms Lumley helped lead.

If the British Gurkha Welfare Society (BGWS) is to be believed, Joanna Lumley's campaign has been a disaster, resulting in thousands of elderly and infirm Gurkha pensioners - most unable to speak English - living in poor accommodation and relying on state handouts to survive.

The actress herself has broken a strictly-observed silence over criticisms of her campaign to release a statement to the BBC.

"Our campaign had moral right on our side," the statement said, "and the vast majority of the British public wanted the government to amend the law to allow Gurkhas to settle in the UK.

"Debts of honour are not easy to translate or quantify into pounds and pence, and some MPs have criticised our campaign for not considering the potential financial impact on the exchequer. Yet the government did consider this at the time, and decided that our campaign arguments vanquished the issues of pure cost."

Ms Lumley's supporters insist that her campaign successfully reversed decades of discrimination against older Gurkhas who fought for the British army yet were denied the right to retire in the UK.

But the BGWS argues that it would be far more cost-effective if retired Gurkhas were paid better pensions and encouraged to stay in Nepal rather than pursue the more expensive option of emigrating to the UK to take advantage of state pensions, housing benefit and free health care.

The organisation says that from the outset its campaign has been different from that waged by Ms Lumley and her supporters - it argued that fair pensions and the right of former Gurkhas to retire in the UK were equally important, whereas the emphasis of her campaign was on resettlement rights.

About 25,000 Gurkhas who retired before 1997 still get only about a third of the amount of pension received by their British and Commonwealth former comrades, despite winning the right to live in Britain.

In 2007, the pension rules were changed to give Gurkha soldiers who retired after 1997 equal pension rights with other UK service personnel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13372026

Note: 30 July 2011 Last updated at 23:09 GMT

07-30-11, 06:32 PM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Was Lumley campaign good for Gurkhas? Ragprasad Purja (right) says he is forever grateful to Joanna Lumley Two years ago actress Joanna Lumley helped Gurkhas who retired before 1997 win the right to settle in the UK. Gurkha welfare groups and the Home office estimate that about 8,000 former soldiers and their families have since moved to Britain. But many have struggled in the UK, as the BBC's Alastair Lawson reports. Nowhere can the influx of Gurkhas into Britain be more clearly seen than in the British military town of Aldershot. The local authority estimates that one in 10 of the town's 90,000 residents comes from Nepal - many as a direct result of the campaign Ms Lumley helped lead. If the British Gurkha Welfare Society (BGWS) is to be believed, Joanna Lumley's campaign has been a disaster, resulting in thousands of elderly and infirm Gurkha pensioners - most unable to speak English - living in poor accommodation and relying on state handouts to survive. The actress herself has broken a strictly-observed silence over criticisms of her campaign to release a statement to the BBC. "Our campaign had moral right on our side," the statement said, "and the vast majority of the British public wanted the government to amend the law to allow Gurkhas to settle in the UK. "Debts of honour are not easy to translate or quantify into pounds and pence, and some MPs have criticised our campaign for not considering the potential financial impact on the exchequer. Yet the government did consider this at the time, and decided that our campaign arguments vanquished the issues of pure cost." Ms Lumley's supporters insist that her campaign successfully reversed decades of discrimination against older Gurkhas who fought for the British army yet were denied the right to retire in the UK. But the BGWS argues that it would be far more cost-effective if retired Gurkhas were paid better pensions and encouraged to stay in Nepal rather than pursue the more expensive option of emigrating to the UK to take advantage of state pensions, housing benefit and free health care. The organisation says that from the outset its campaign has been different from that waged by Ms Lumley and her supporters - it argued that fair pensions and the right of former Gurkhas to retire in the UK were equally important, whereas the emphasis of her campaign was on resettlement rights. About 25,000 Gurkhas who retired before 1997 still get only about a third of the amount of pension received by their British and Commonwealth former comrades, despite winning the right to live in Britain. In 2007, the pension rules were changed to give Gurkha soldiers who retired after 1997 equal pension rights with other UK service personnel. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13372026 Note: 30 July 2011 Last updated at 23:09 GMT __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie