ianstone
08-29-2010, 08:55 PM
Gurkha regiment faces axe as Liam Fox insists on £20bn Trident replacement
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/29/british-army-gurkhas-spending#history-link-box)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2010/8/28/1283011532184/Repatriation-006.jpg Gurkhas wait to mourn a fallen comrade at Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire killed in Afghanistan. Photograph: David Hartley The Gurkha regiment could be one of several sacrificed as a result of an increasingly bitter government dispute over defence funding, the Observer can reveal.
The Gurkhas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gurkhas) have formed part of the British army for almost 200 years, but may be among those cut unless the government meets Ministry of Defence demands for more money to fund the replacement of Trident (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/trident) nuclear-missile submarines.
Last night, hopes for extra funding were fading as the Treasury rejected demands for more money from the defence secretary, Liam Fox (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liamfox), and insisted that the £20bn cost of replacing Trident had to be met fully by the MoD.
One expert said that the increasing costs of running the Gurkhas – following actress Joanna Lumley (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/joanna-lumley)'s high-profile campaign last year to improve their rights – added to the sense that the "writing is on the wall" for the Brigade of Gurkhas, which has 3,640 personnel.
Fox has been pushing hard for the Treasury to increase the MoD's budget in some of the toughest negotiations of the spending review, aimed at slashing Britain's £155bn deficit.
In today's interview with the Observer however, Treasury secretary Danny Alexander – whose Liberal Democrat party opposes Trident – rejected Fox's calls: "It is an MoD responsibility in terms of budgets. That is the way Trident has been done in the past. So it has to be covered within the overall defence spending allocation," he said. Alexander suggested that the MoD's unique funding pressure had already been recognised in the spending review, because it had only been asked to plan for cuts of 10% at best, and 20% at worst – far less than many other departments.
Last night the MoD conceded that, given the financial pressures, "anything is possible" regarding the Gurkhas and other regiments. Defence experts said it was a cruel irony that Lumley's campaigning – which led to retired Gurkhas being given the right to settle in the UK – had made the Nepalese soldiers more vulnerable.
With Nick Clegg and other Lib Dem ministers in the government under increasing pressure to prove to party supporters that they are influencing policy, the issue of Trident has been the focus of an ideological, as a well as a financial, tussle. Clegg, who believes that the Trident replacement is a waste of money, knows that he will be in a far stronger position at the party's annual conference next month if he is seen fighting to abandon – or at least downgrade – the Trident project.
The issue has also opened divisions within the Tory party. While Fox is said to be seeking a full Trident replacement, chancellor George Osborne and even David Cameron are said to be questioning whether this would offer good value for money.
Another defence insider said that – despite their fame and public following – the Gurkhas had long been a candidate for cuts. "Ever since 1 January1948, when the Brigade of Gurkhas joined the British army, their future has been up for discussion. They have been here before."
A spokesman for the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which provides support for ex-Gurkhas and their families, conceded that they were vulnerable. He said: "The government has made it clear there are no sacred cows."
Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: "The first people to go will be the Brigade of Gurkhas, probably in their entirety. In the past, the Gurkhas' existence was guaranteed by the fact they are cheaper to run than British troops, and that there was a shortage of British troops.
"Recent changes mean they are now just as expensive, and recruitment is extremely healthy at the moment. I am afraid the writing is on the wall."
Lumley's triumph last year had, according to Mercer, piled costs on to the running of the Gurkhas. Nepalese soldiers who move to Britain will be entitled to full pensions, whereas those in Nepal receive around a third of what former British soldiers get.
The increased cost of the Gurkhas comes as homegrown recruitment soars, to the extent that more than 5,000 potential troops were turned away during the last year because the army was considered to be fully manned. Last week, quarterly MoD figures showed that the armed forces as a whole were close to being 100% manned for the first time since 1998.
The Gurkhas have been an integral part of the army since 1815, when the British East India Company signed a peace deal allowing it to recruit Nepalese soldiers. Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute said that army manpower would have to be reduced and the Gurkhas' future would depend on whether they were perceived to have an important future role, rather than relying on sentiment.
Chalmers, who said in a recent report that the number of trained military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military) personnel could shrink by up to a fifth to 142,000 in six years because of a lack of money, added: "The most important thing is to determine what capabilities are our highest priority for future defence needs – not for past associations.
"The Gurkhas have performed well – issues around Gurkhas versus UK recruitment forces are issues of quality of personnel and ability to recruit in the future."
Other regiments at risk are said to include a tank regiment and a Scottish battalion – such as the Black Watch or the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
Big-ticket items are also to be re-evaluated, including two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers – which are to come into service in 2016 and 2018 – and the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/29/british-army-gurkhas-spending#history-link-box)
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Columnist/Columnists/2010/8/28/1283011532184/Repatriation-006.jpg Gurkhas wait to mourn a fallen comrade at Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire killed in Afghanistan. Photograph: David Hartley The Gurkha regiment could be one of several sacrificed as a result of an increasingly bitter government dispute over defence funding, the Observer can reveal.
The Gurkhas (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gurkhas) have formed part of the British army for almost 200 years, but may be among those cut unless the government meets Ministry of Defence demands for more money to fund the replacement of Trident (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/trident) nuclear-missile submarines.
Last night, hopes for extra funding were fading as the Treasury rejected demands for more money from the defence secretary, Liam Fox (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/liamfox), and insisted that the £20bn cost of replacing Trident had to be met fully by the MoD.
One expert said that the increasing costs of running the Gurkhas – following actress Joanna Lumley (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/joanna-lumley)'s high-profile campaign last year to improve their rights – added to the sense that the "writing is on the wall" for the Brigade of Gurkhas, which has 3,640 personnel.
Fox has been pushing hard for the Treasury to increase the MoD's budget in some of the toughest negotiations of the spending review, aimed at slashing Britain's £155bn deficit.
In today's interview with the Observer however, Treasury secretary Danny Alexander – whose Liberal Democrat party opposes Trident – rejected Fox's calls: "It is an MoD responsibility in terms of budgets. That is the way Trident has been done in the past. So it has to be covered within the overall defence spending allocation," he said. Alexander suggested that the MoD's unique funding pressure had already been recognised in the spending review, because it had only been asked to plan for cuts of 10% at best, and 20% at worst – far less than many other departments.
Last night the MoD conceded that, given the financial pressures, "anything is possible" regarding the Gurkhas and other regiments. Defence experts said it was a cruel irony that Lumley's campaigning – which led to retired Gurkhas being given the right to settle in the UK – had made the Nepalese soldiers more vulnerable.
With Nick Clegg and other Lib Dem ministers in the government under increasing pressure to prove to party supporters that they are influencing policy, the issue of Trident has been the focus of an ideological, as a well as a financial, tussle. Clegg, who believes that the Trident replacement is a waste of money, knows that he will be in a far stronger position at the party's annual conference next month if he is seen fighting to abandon – or at least downgrade – the Trident project.
The issue has also opened divisions within the Tory party. While Fox is said to be seeking a full Trident replacement, chancellor George Osborne and even David Cameron are said to be questioning whether this would offer good value for money.
Another defence insider said that – despite their fame and public following – the Gurkhas had long been a candidate for cuts. "Ever since 1 January1948, when the Brigade of Gurkhas joined the British army, their future has been up for discussion. They have been here before."
A spokesman for the Gurkha Welfare Trust, which provides support for ex-Gurkhas and their families, conceded that they were vulnerable. He said: "The government has made it clear there are no sacred cows."
Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and a former army officer, said: "The first people to go will be the Brigade of Gurkhas, probably in their entirety. In the past, the Gurkhas' existence was guaranteed by the fact they are cheaper to run than British troops, and that there was a shortage of British troops.
"Recent changes mean they are now just as expensive, and recruitment is extremely healthy at the moment. I am afraid the writing is on the wall."
Lumley's triumph last year had, according to Mercer, piled costs on to the running of the Gurkhas. Nepalese soldiers who move to Britain will be entitled to full pensions, whereas those in Nepal receive around a third of what former British soldiers get.
The increased cost of the Gurkhas comes as homegrown recruitment soars, to the extent that more than 5,000 potential troops were turned away during the last year because the army was considered to be fully manned. Last week, quarterly MoD figures showed that the armed forces as a whole were close to being 100% manned for the first time since 1998.
The Gurkhas have been an integral part of the army since 1815, when the British East India Company signed a peace deal allowing it to recruit Nepalese soldiers. Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute said that army manpower would have to be reduced and the Gurkhas' future would depend on whether they were perceived to have an important future role, rather than relying on sentiment.
Chalmers, who said in a recent report that the number of trained military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military) personnel could shrink by up to a fifth to 142,000 in six years because of a lack of money, added: "The most important thing is to determine what capabilities are our highest priority for future defence needs – not for past associations.
"The Gurkhas have performed well – issues around Gurkhas versus UK recruitment forces are issues of quality of personnel and ability to recruit in the future."
Other regiments at risk are said to include a tank regiment and a Scottish battalion – such as the Black Watch or the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
Big-ticket items are also to be re-evaluated, including two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers – which are to come into service in 2016 and 2018 – and the RAF's Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft.