Originally Posted by
Voxpop
Thank you!
The deeper one looks into this, the more interesting it becomes, the civil servants at Land Command, the Border Agency and at the MoD at the time, may need to have their thinking reviewed. There are already many recent instances of the MoD displaying flexibility (thereby creating 'fresh' victims as the line in the sand moves), and I'm unable to accept the MoD/FPS contention that sliding scales create their own injustices, and therefore, must be avoided.
The Forces Pension Society under John's superb stewardship seems to be gaining in strength and stature across many platforms at Whitehall, but this is a more prosaic cause that must not be overlooked. The sticking point seems to be one of drawing a line in the sand and who is penalised, and who isn't. One case in point which captures many facets of this particular matter, is the issue of Gurkha resettlement.
The MoD had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into providing a measure of graduated support that it hadn't wanted to. Indeed, in this exchange on the Home Affairs Committee, Lin Homer (a senior civil servant at the Border Agency) was forced to concede there were many grey areas and that there was not a line in the sand, which it now relies on.. there indeed
was a sliding scale.
Q23 Patrick Mercer: Could you explain the precise calculations behind the Government's figures of 4,000 ex-Gurkhas and around 6,000 dependants who will be eligible under the rules you announced on 24 April, please?
Ms Homer: The figure of 4,000, which we are confident about because this is based on actual information, is that about 2,200 will meet the 20 years of service, of which about 55% will not be officers. We think that we will then have 100 that would qualify under the Gallantry Rule, 700 under the medical rules and at least 1,000 under the combination of secondary factors. For example, there are 500 who would get a Mention in Dispatches with ten years of service. So that is how we have put together those figures which are based on the actual service that these people have provided. We are confident that those are an accurate summary.
Q24 Patrick Mercer: Let me just return to the conditions of service. Would you confirm that below the rank of warrant officer 2nd class there is a cut-off point in Gurkha service at the 15-year point? I absolutely take the point about not joining as an officer, but if you have not progressed up to warrant officer 2nd class, in other words to colour sergeant, then the terms of service kick in and your discharge occurs at that point, does it not?
Mr Pitt-Brooke: I do not think that is quite true. If you progress as far as colour sergeant you would retire at 19 years, not at 15. There is a sliding scale.
The matter of there being a cut off is one used.. when it suits. If the issue of there being a hybrid pension award being made to compensate, then so be it. After all, David Cameron felt able to make an ex gratia payment to his advisers, last week. More interestingly, the government has established a fund to retrospectively assist those Gurkhas it now concedes were dealt with unfairly.
I will be writing shortly, to Vice Admiral Peter Wilkinson CB CVO, Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Burton OBE and Major General Peter Currie CB CBE to appraise them of my concerns, and to see if we can't move forward together. More recently, and I accept it's only one particular area, the MoD has broadened its scope of retrospective flexibility further in the matter of helping the Gurkhas - we live in hope.
In the meantime, we shall plod on, regrettably, without the help, support or co-operation of the Forces Pension Society.