Follow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Basis for £1.4 billion cost of Gurkha settlement rights
To Home Office by Matt Raven 29 April 2009
Number of former Gurkhas moving to UK
To UK Border Agency by Matt Raven 3 July 2010
Number of Gurkha's that have served Britain since 1909
To Ministry of Defence by Bryn Parry 3 May 2009
English language provision costs for Gurkha soldiers in the British Army
To Ministry of Defence by Matthew Laing 23 March 2010
Tax breakdown
To HM Revenue and Customs by Julian 23 January 2012
Military procurement
To Ministry of Defence by Mark Pack 14 November 2010
Laws of great Britain
To Ministry of Justice by brian ovens 5 January 2010
Receipts and spending budgets for 2009 and 2010
To Ministry of Defence by Daniel Sedlacek 19 August 2010
Medical Discharged as a Result of injury sustained during initial training and having NOT completed 4 years service.
To UK Border Agency by Stephen N 22 March 2012
Administrative Discharges
To Ministry of Defence by Phillip Wood 11 March 2011
Budget impact of pre #97 Gurkha Settlement
Matt Raven made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence
The request was successful.
From: Matt Raven
20 July 2010
Dear Ministry of Defence,
On 29 April 2009 Phil Woolas stated that the cost of giving pre '97
Gurkhas settlement rights (estimated at the time as £1.4 billion
per year) would come from the defence budget.
Please can you confirm the amount of your budget spent on pre '97
Gurkhas since May 2009 and the number of former Gurkhas and the
number of family member that this involves?
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully,
Matt Raven
From: LF-Sec-F&C1-SO2(Sanderson, Jonathan Mr)
Ministry of Defence
5 August 2010
Dear Mr Raven
Your correspondence dated 20 July 2010 has been considered to be a
request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000. You requested the following information:
On 29 April 2009 Phil Woolas stated that the cost of giving pre '97
Gurkhas settlement rights (estimated at the time as £1.4 billion per
year) would come from the defence budget. Please can you confirm the
amount of your budget spent on pre '97 Gurkhas since May 2009 and the
number of former Gurkhas and the number of family member that this
involves?
Although the Ministry of Defence has taken the lead in the work across
government to prepare for the anticipated increase in immigration from
those Gurkhas who retired from the Brigade of Gurkhas before 1 July 1997,
the costs associated with settlement do not, for the most part, fall to
the defence budget. The principle applied for these costs is that they
are borne by each government department with responsibility for the
particular benefit, credit or service to which the ex-Gurkhas and their
families are entitled.
You make reference to a statement by Phil Woolas MP to the effect that the
estimated cost of giving settlement rights of £1.4 billion would fall to
the defence budget. In fact, during the debate held on 29 April 2009
(Official Report, Column 988), Mr Woolas made the following statement:
"The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked about costs. I answered his point
before, but I am not aware that I used the £1.5 billion figure. The
£1.4 billion figure is our best guesstimate, but I must tell the House
that that is an annual figure that will not apply forever. If, as a
result of decisions for Gurkhas, the policy to be adopted by the
Government and accepted by the House were to allow settlement rights for
Commonwealth soldiers and former soldiers that went beyond those currently
available, there would be implications. In our view, we believe that in
total they would run into billions of pounds."
The figure of £1.4 billion was the result of cross Government
consultation on the potential financial cost to the UK of allowing all
former Gurkhas to settle here. It covered pension benefits, tax credits,
child benefit costs, NHS costs and education costs. None of these costs
are covered by the defence budget.
During the debate Mr Woolas also referred to the campaign to make
retrospective pension arrangements for those Gurkhas who retired before 1
July 1997:
"Indeed, I think that I am right to say that the Ministry of Defence
pension is a pay-as-you-go pension. An additional cost to it would have to
be met from defence budgets."
This is an entirely separate matter from the cost of any increase in
immigration following the change in the immigration rules. The cost of
providing retired Gurkhas with Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS)
equivalent pension benefits for all pensionable service before 1 July 1997
has been estimated at £1.5 billion over 20 years.
One area of expenditure that does fall to the defence budget is the cost
of setting up and running an office in Kathmandu in order to provide free
help and advice with completing the visa application form, obtaining the
necessary supporting documents and generally helping ex-Gurkhas to make an
informed choice about whether life in the UK is for them. The cost of
setting up and staffing the Settlement Office amounted to £20,000 in
financial year 2009/2010 and a similar budget has been earmarked for the
current year. The office has dealt with almost 10,000 visits since
opening in October 2009.
The Ministry of Defence is not involved in processing visa applications
from ex-Gurkhas and their families. You would need to contact the UK
Border Agency for details of the number of overall successful settlement
applications submitted to them. However, I understand that they do not
monitor if or when someone chooses to use their visa and would be unable
to tell you how many successful applicants had subsequently moved to the
UK to settle. If you wish to pursue this further you should contact the
UK Border Agency at:
[1]www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact/request-information.
The information supplied to you continues to be protected by the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. You are free to use it for your
own purposes, including any non-commercial research you are doing and for
the purposes of news reporting. Any other reuse, for example commercial
publication, would require the permission of the copyright holder. Most
documents supplied by the Ministry of Defence will have been produced by
government officials and will be Crown Copyright. You can find details on
the arrangements for re-using Crown Copyright from the Office of Public
Sector Information at: [2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm.
Information you receive which is not subject to Crown Copyright continues
to be protected by the copyright of the person, or organisation, from
which the information originated. You must ensure that you gain their
permission before reproducing any third party (non Crown Copyright)
information.
In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act,
all information is assumed to be releasable to the public unless exempt.
The MOD therefore will be simultaneously posting the information you
requested, together with any related information that will provide a key
to its wider context, in our online FOI Disclosure Log at
[3]http://www.foi.mod.uk.
If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [4][email address]). Please note
that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working
days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has
come to an end.
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[5]http://www.ico.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Sanderson
Jonathan Sanderson| LF Sec SO2 Sec (F&C)a| Land Forces Secretariat
(Foreign & Commonwealth)
IDL 24 |Headquarters Land Forces| Blenheim Building| Floor 2| Marlborough
Lines| ANDOVER, Hampshire| SP11 8HJ
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/contac...
2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm
3. http://www.foi.mod.uk/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
From: Matt Raven
5 August 2010
Dear LF-Sec-F&C1-SO2(Sanderson, Jonathan Mr),
Thank you for your reply but you are mistaken. Mr Woolas did say
"Our estimate is £1.4 billion, and I remind the House that that
would come from the defence budget." See
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id...
However, I understand from your reply that he was inaccurate in
this assertion.
Thank you for the information.
Yours sincerely,
Matt Raven
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests




