The Liberal Democrats, in both Houses of Parliament, are committed to changing the current immigration rules and criteria that are unfairly prejudiced against Gurkhas who retired from the British Army before 1997. We feel very strongly about addressing the inequality of the current Gurkha immigration policy, which is why we used one of our debating slots to highlight the issue of Gurkha settlement on 29th April.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Gurkhas who were prepared to fight and die for this country should have the right to live here. They should be treated in the same way as their foreign and Commonwealth counterparts, who have a right to indefinite leave to remain after four years of service in the armed forces.
Under the Government’s new provisions, announced in April in response to Mr Justice Blake’s judgement that present policy was unlawful, Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and want to live here have to serve for five times as long as Commonwealth soldiers or Gurkhas who retired from service after 1997. This 20 year service rule effectively excludes most private soldiers, who normally serve for 15 years. This inequality is, in our view, unjust and intolerable.
The Government suggested that approximately 4,000 Gurkha soldiers would benefit from their new policy, leaving 10,000 in total once dependents are included. Lawyers working with the campaign believe that a much smaller number would be able to benefit, possibly even as few as 100. The Government has said that if all Gurkhas, including those who were discharged before 1997, wanted to come to the UK the total would reach 100,000 including their dependents.
This is fanciful. It is like estimating the potential migration from the rest of the European Union as the entire population, because every EU citizen can work anywhere in the EU. It takes no account of the high living standards enjoyed by most discharged Gurkhas in Nepal and hence the attractiveness of staying in their country. In fact, just 1350 Gurkha soldiers who retired before 1997 have lodged appeals to be allowed to stay in the UK. The figures released by the Government on the number of Gurkhas they expect to settle in the UK and the potential cost are highly dubious. Channel 4 News fact check gave the Government’s estimates a rating of 4, one below the rating for ‘the claim has no basis in fact.’
But the numbers are surely secondary. The Gurkhas have made an unconditional commitment to our nation, and we cannot repay that extraordinary service, bravery and dedication with a penny-pinching attitude. This is an issue about our own values as a people, as much as it is about the Gurkhas.
Wonderfully, we managed to defeat the Government by a vote of 267 to 246, the first success for any opposition motion for more than thirty years and only the third Government defeat in the Commons since 1997. It was a moment of great pride and elation, as it seems the Gurkhas will finally receive the respect they deserve.
The Government announced the increase which you mention in last year’s Pre-Budget Report to counter potential price reductions caused by the new 15% rate of Value Added Tax. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Finance Bill to try and prevent these increases because whilst the VAT cut is expected to be temporary the beer duty increase is not.
As with Post Offices, good pubs are an asset to the communities they serve. They are also important small businesses: they provide jobs and support our local economy. It is crucial therefore that we support them. My concern is that tax rises on beer will harm pubs which are already struggling in difficult economic circumstances and closing at a record rate. They will also damage smaller independent beer breweries.
The current Axe the Beer Tax campaign being led by the British Beer & Pub Association and the Campaign for Real Ale is attributing the financial difficulties experienced by British pubs solely to the rate of beer duty. Yet research by the Fair Pint campaign has revealed that pub companies are typically selling beer at twice the price a barrel that tenants could purchase it on the open market.
In addition many pub chains have been raising rent and other costs, forcing tenant landlords and publicans into heavy debt. I have been told by landlords in my constituency of the worries they face due to the increasing costs heaped upon them by the pub chains. Clearly the pub companies need to be held to account for the high price of beer.
There is genuine concern, about excessive alcohol consumption and the impact that it is having on behaviour in public places. But there is little evidence to suggest that the higher taxes in the Budget will have a significant impact on binge drinking, and the suspicion must be that the Government’s primary motivation was to raise additional revenue.
We need to see a broader and more intelligent response to binge drinking. This should include more being done to prevent alcohol sales to under-18s, the introduction of new social minimum pricing measures to stop irresponsible pricing by supermarkets and better enforcement of existing laws which prevent bars from selling alcohol to customers who are clearly drunk.
Responding to Alistair Darling’s Budget, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg said:
“Today we got a pick and mix Budget of recycled announcements from a government skilled in raising people’s hopes but incompetent at actually delivering help. “This Budget is a political supermarket sweep of random promises, without even a hint of a plan or any likelihood the promises will be put into practice. “The biggest disappointment in this Budget is its failure to sort out Britain’s unfair tax system. To put money into people’s pockets to help them make it through this recession. “Britain’s taxes are too heavy on those who can least afford it. And too easy to avoid for those who know how. “The 50p rate will further encourage the very wealthy to avoid tax unless we tackle the unfair loopholes they exploit. “The Liberal Democrats would get practical help to people who are struggling and cut the vast majority of people’s Income Tax bills by £700, paid for by taking aggressive action to clamp down on all the loopholes and exemptions that benefit the richest people and biggest businesses. “We would take big choices about what government should and shouldn’t do. “With a shocking deficit this year of £175bn we need a national debate about what the state can and cannot afford in the future. “That is the responsible way – the honest way – to reduce spending in the years ahead and avoid painful higher taxes. “But Labour is out of ideas and out of steam. “Today they have condemned us to years of unemployment and a decade of debt. “The country deserves something different.” Read a summary of the party’s Economic Recovery Plan at www.LibDems.org.uk/RecoveryPlan
You should be able to read Nick Clegg’s Budget response in the House of Commons at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/home.htm from around 5pm today
