Unanswered Questions on the Lib Dem Policy on Gibraltar

I have some questions on the Lib Dem policy on Gibraltar, prompted in part by posts on "A Gibo's Tale" blog (Does Duff support 'Britishness' and the British in... and Duff refuses to answer questions on being British) run by a friend of mine. Why not just ask them? I did, they didn't answer. This is very disappointing for me.

The email I sent was:

Dear Sirs

I have recently joined the Liberal Democrats as I tend to agree with the party's policies which are generally properly considered rather than designed to appeal to the Daily Mail. I would however welcome some clarification on an issue that is important to my family and me.

Gibraltarians have repeatedly expressed a desire to remain British despite harassment by successive Spanish governments. The Liberal Democrats' position on the Gibraltarians' right to self determination appears to have changed recently for the better, although possibly this should be explained to Andrew Duff who seems to think that Gibraltar should be given to Spain against the democratically expressed wishes of the Gibraltarians. Please can you explain the current position and the reason for the change?

I realise that this is not top of most people's priorities, but having married into a Gibraltarian family and experienced the smears and pettiness of the Spanish Government and opposition politicians at close quarters it is something I feel strongly about. I know that a number of Gibraltarian voters were put off by the historic position, the fact the position apparently changed at about the same time that Gibraltarian votes counted in the European elections and the views expressed by Mr Duff. It is great that a Gibraltarian candidate was listed but having him so far down the list made it easy for people to dismiss it as a cheap stunt as Mr Stagnetto was obviously not going to be elected.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully

Matt Raven

Now, I don't really know what response I was hoping for, but anything would have been nice.

If anyone has the answers, please let me know...

Ian Lucas Replies re: Gurkha Settlement Rights

Further to my FOI reqest regarding the Gurkha settlement issue (also covered by the excellent Mark Reckons) I recently sent an email to my MP Ian Lucas (through Write to Them) asking why he voted against the motion on the Gurkhas.

Dear Ian Lucas,

I have recently received information from the Home Office explaining how the figure of £1.4 billion was reached as a potential cost of allowing all Gurkhas the right to settle in UK.  It seems that figure (repeatedly   quoted by Phil Woolas and Gordon Brown) assumes that every single  living Gurkha who retired from 1948 onwards would instantly bring his entire family (including elderly parents) over and that none of them would ever work.  The information is here:http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/basis_for_14_billion_cost_of_gur#incoming-38596 in case you do not have a copy.

I note from TheyWorkForyou that you voted against the motion to grant the pre-1997 Gurkhas settlement rights.

Given that the figures were clearly desperately overstating any potential cost, please could you explain why you chose to vote against this motion?

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Matt Raven
I was pleasantly surprised to receive a long reply in which Mr Lucas set out the history of the Gurkha settlement rights and the Judicial review, the fact that  the Government was "outnumbered" in the vote and that he knew the £1.4bn was an unlikely maximum cost.  Something that he seems to have forgotten to include is his actual reason for voting with the Government.  He covers the fact that it was the unclear guidance that was illegal, not the 1997 cutoff but ignores all issues of fairness.

He ends the letter with:
I am sorry that I have set out the position at some length but I am afraid that there has been much misrepresentation of the history of this matter, much of it for political advantage by parties who have not supported the Gurkhas while they were in power.  I also do not believe that this issue is as simple as the media coverage suggested.
Given this was largely a Liberal Democrat issue, I'm glad he chose to level misrepresentation claims against the Conservatives not us!

Government's Ridiculous £1.4 Billion Gurkha Settlement Figures

OK, so I wasn't alone in thinking that the £1.4 billion figure was a little suspect, but let's pretend that you thought it was potentially accurate...

A Freedom of Information request that I sent via the fantastic Whatdotheyknow.com on 29th April has finally been answered a mere two months and one internal review late.

I asked them to "Please supply details of the calculation used to determine the £1.4
billion cost of settlement rights for Gurkhas."

Their eventual reply (obviously available on WDTK) was that the figure assumes (among other things) that:

• All 36,000 who retired between 1948 and 1997 would choose to settle if they were able to do so
• None of the dependants (including spouse, children under 18, unmarried dependant children 18-30, elderly parents living with the main applicant - and assuming half of children 18-30 are married) work
• All settling families are on Child Tax Credits maximum award.

And do not take account of any tax or national insurance contributions that former Gurkhas may have made in the past or that they may make in the future

While I am obviously not a Gurka expert I would not have thought that those assumptions were particularly likely to apply to any group. No wonder that nice Mr Woolas so stenuously avoided answering any questions on the figures...