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!