Gurkhas, spin and border controls

Until last year only Gurkhas that served after 1997 were eligible to settle in the UK.  The Gurkha Justice Campaign supported by the Lib Dems (and eventually the Tories) worked hard to get this changed.  Eventually Gordon Brown's government bowed to pressure and agreed to extend UK settlement rights to the pre '97 Gurkhas.  Before they finally did the right thing, the Labour government repeatedly claimed that giving the pre '97 Gurkhas settlement rights could cost £1.4 billion per year.  This figure seemed rather high so, with the help of WhatDoTheyKnow.com I requested details of the calculation.  It took them a long time to provide it, but when they did it turned out to be an outrageously insulting claim.

The £1.4 billion was based on all 36,000 pre '97 Gurkha moving here with their entire family and not a single one ever working.  

The calculations 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. 

and

All settling families are on CTC maximum award. None of the dependants work and there is no WTC cost 

Because none of them were ever going to work this £33,000 per Gurkha includes

"Temporary accommodation cost estimated at £10,400 per year"

.  There was also an assumption 

"that there will be 12,161 children under the age of 18" in "8759 households with children under 18"

which seem quite specific for an assumption.  Presumably it is based on a percentage.


It also turns out that it was the maximum estimate for that eventuality - the range was £960 million - £1.2 billion

While this had to be taken into account somewhere, the way it was portrayed was that it was likely to cost that much, not that it was never really going to. While in full scaremongering mode (i.e. before being told off by Joanna Lumley), Phil Woolas said 

"Our estimate is £1.4 billion, and I remind the House that that would come from the defence budget"

To be fair, he did later admit that was the maximum cost. 


The following month Jacqui Smith finally admitted that the likely figure was far lower at £300 - 400 million.  Even then she did not make the assumptions clear.

That was just over a year ago now, and apart from the ill-advised smear attempt and some worrying (and disputed) warnings from the Army Benevolent Fund it's all been quiet.  I wondered how things had advanced and how accurate the 100,000+ influx of Gurkhas and family members prediction was.

Once again WhatDoTheyKnow facilitated that information request.  I was rather surprised by the response.

It turns out that the UK Border Agency don't actually know who comes into the country.  

"UKBA do not monitor when individuals choose to use their visas"

During the election we heard all about the fact no-one knows who has left the country thanks to the abandoned exit checks, but I don't remember anyone mentioning that who comes in is just as much of a mystery.  That hardly seems like the way to run an effective immigration policy whatever your feelings about the subject.  How does a government effectively plan service delivery without these figures?

They did have some information - between May 2009 and 31 March 2010 they have

"approved and issued approximately 5,000 applications were issued from ex-Gurkhas (who retired before 1997) and their dependants." 

The lowest estimate published in the scaremongering phase was 12,000 Gurkhas each bringing family members (which seem to be estimated at about 3 - 4 per Gurkha) giving around 40,000 predicted visas. So for the first year there were around eight times fewer applicants than the minimum government estimate.  Given the estimates of £264 - 400 million for 12,000 main applicants this gives £33 - 50 million as the approximate gross cost (using their assumptions).  Not quite the £1.4 billion suggested.  Obviously with those assumptions the numbers are pretty much meaningless.

Another way of looking at it is that of the 12,000 minimum estimate potentially only around 1,500 have applied.  I'm sure that it is a complete coincidence that this is the number that were in progress before the guidance changed.  


It would appear that the former government were caught out in an epic act of scaremongering.  Their minimum estimate of the number of pre '97 Gurkhas who would resettle seems to be far higher than the real situation, and the costs quoted were clearly many times higher than the reality.  To make matters worse there was a stupid and disgraceful attempt to claim Joanna Lumley and the Gurkha Justice Campaign had abandoned the Gurkhas once the rules had changed.


While of course I am delighted that the rules were changed, the way it was handled at the time was terrible.


Does any of this matter now?  After all the settlement rights were granted and Labour are no longer in government.  


I think it does because there are important lessons to be learned from this master class in how not to act.

1. Political parties need to know that such blatant spin will backfire and make them look dishonest (for the simple reason that they are being dishonest).
2. Governments should show some grace in defeat.
3. It is both a great example of what a campaign can achieve and a warning of the bile that can be directed against them if they are successful.
4. We should all to remember that government predictions are, at the end of the day, just guesses based on assumptions that are likely to be influenced by their view on a subject. Just like everyone else's.  They should always be taken with a good ton of salt, even (or especially) if they agree with your views. 

What next?


I have requested some clarification and some extra information.  As usual I will update once I receive the information.


From UKBA:

1. Confirmation of whether the number of visas issued does include those cases in progress in May 2009
2. For the figures to be broken down between former Gurkhas and dependants.
3. Whether any other agency would have better figures

From the Ministry of Defence:

1. Since Mr Woolas stated that any costs would come from the defence budget I have requested details of any impact on the defence budget associated with the pre '97 Gurkhas

I suspect the most important answer will be from the MoD, recklessly assuming they give one.