- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Blunt: Cut Gurkhas before Fusiliers
19 October 2012Gurkha units are the "most expensive infantry in the British Army" and should have faced cuts before the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (2 RRF), an MP and former army officer has said.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that 2 RRF was to be axed as part of the Army 2020 restructuring plans set out earlier this year.
In a debate on the decision to cut 2 RRF, Crispin Blunt, Conservative MP for Reigate, said that the government should have reduced the number of Nepalese Gurkhas employed by the British Army before it cut the Fusiliers.
Blunt said that the regard the Gurkhas are held in is "entirely proper" but that they amounted to "foreign mercenaries" and were now more costly than UK-born and Commonwealth troops, adding that he 'regretted' voting for greater settlement rights for Nepalese families.
"There is an important issue of identity and then of wider public policy in relation to having a recruiting regime in another country, bringing Nepalese soldiers into the British Army," he said. "That was fine when, frankly, the Gurkhas were cheap. They were paid less than their equivalents—their pensions cost less, too—and there was a deal. It meant that these soldiers went back to Nepal, highly trained to be really good citizens of enormous value to Nepal.
"We have changed the rules through sentiment. In my judgment, we now have the most expensive infantry in the British Army supporting a training organisation in Nepal, which is quite limited in what it can do in comparison with British line infantry. ...That poses real public policy problems that we should be brave enough to address; we need to be brave enough to work through the sentiment."
Former Conservative defence minister Gerald Howarth repeated calls for military units to be spared by diverting funding from overseas aid.
While the Army cut decisions - taken while he was a minister - had been "painful", Howarth said he believed other options were available.
"I never said in government there is no alternative: there is an alternative," he said. "That is to reprioritise government spending. My view is we cannot justify spending ever more taxpayer's money on overseas aid and cutting our armed forces."
HAVE YOUR SAY
19 October 2012
Interesting thoughts but remember that the Gurkha Rifles should be considered more like 1 Para, i.e. special forces support not as an ordinary line infantry battalion. This of course may change in time as they are run down due to a lack of recruits in the future.
Mike R - Wales
19 October 2012
Why should the RGR be considered like SFSG? They are at best an average infantry regiment, firmly resting on their laurels and former glories. Not a progressive forward leaning organisation like the RRF
John Smith - London
22 October 2012
UK jobs for UK citizens, why are we still recruiting so many people from overseas when there are so many unemployed in the UK?
My old (well recruited) Regiment is being amalgamated again, 20 years after the last amalgamation, the Scots DG's (who have trouble recruiting) have not been touched again . . . . More politics
Rob - Telford
23 October 2012
Well, it is too right to say gurkhas are becoming expensive and Mr Blunt you are also right that unemployment figure in the UK is raising but you have to be very careful while saying such delicate things. If you are still upholding your British values and standards. Don't try to be selfish. You have to deeply study your "British History Book". During the 1st and 2nd World War more than hundrend thousand of Gurkha Soldier sacrificed their lives. Some were captured, injured and many more died. Now remember that if there weren't Gurkha soldier then, your grand parents or fore fathers should have to go to keep your country's values and definitely many of you who are against the Gurkhas would not have bourn. So read the history book and think who helped to stand you as a British today and be proud of having a Gurkha Regiment.
We are just 2800 soldiers it does't differ hugely, but it does matter hundreds of people come over in the UK and try to spoil the UK by involving in various terrorist activities.
Another fact, 1 Battalion is in Brunei and how much money will British Government get from Sultan. That's around half of the Army can be paid due to the 1 Battalion in the Brunei.
So, gentlemen, women, ministers, you got to be very careful. You have two very distinct options. one is: do you still want to employ the Gurkhas who helped your country to become British in 1st and 2nd World war, great source of income from Brunei Sultan Sarkar and most importantly who always helps to protect this country from being terrorize.
2nd option is : Do you want help to those guys who is plotting bombs and threatening your life and your country! Choice is yours.
Thanks for Reading. I'm just reminding you and you all pass this message to your ministers and people who are anti Gurkhas.
Yam Gurung - Aldershot
23 October 2012
Yam Gurung - Aldershot
Nobody is anti-Gurkha here, I had a 2RGR driver on safety staff in BATUS for six months and got on well with him, I also did my EFP with a CSgt from ITC Brecon. The point we are making is that why are we getting rid of a British Infantry Battalion that is historically well recruited whilst leaving others (Scottish) Battalions alone, the natural follow on from that is why are we still spending the amount we do to recruit, transport, train Gurkha soldiers when we could keep UK citizens in employment.
I have nothing but the utmost admiration and respect for the ten Regiments of Gurkhas that have served in the British Army and the Indian Army.
Rob - Telford