TNAG-1842-FCO40-2617-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1989 — Page 129

XC

FIRST REPORT FROM

the conventions regarding the advice on policy options given to Ministers and on which Ministers have not taken a view,

As stated in the Department's first Memorandum in September 1988, the only formal constraints on the deployment of Gurkhas are those stemming from the Tri-Partite Agreement. Apart from particular considerations applying to the deployment of infantry units in Northern Ireland, the position of the Government has been and remains that there is no reason of principle why Gurkhas, as an integral part of the British Army, should not be deployed to any location where British servicemen are required to serve. Against that background, no option for the future deployment of the Gurkhas has been excluded in principle from consideration, taking into account the need for particular consideration to be given to the need to meet the operational requirements of the Army as a whole.

Extract from a letter from the Clerk of the Committee, 19 January 1989

I have to say that I do not understand the paragraph of your letter relating to Question 3 in my letter of 12 January. This question does not relate to "advice on policy options given to Ministers"; it does not ask what deployments have been recommended to Ministers. The three points of Question 3 are purely factual.

I would be grateful if you could explain why the Ministry is unable to provide

answers.

Extract from a letter from the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, 23 January 1989

You will recall that in his letter of 30th September 1988 accompanying the Government's opening memorandum, the Secretary of State said that we would be as helpful as we possibly can "in respect of factual material, and where there is an existing Government policy". Existing government policy is reflected ir the current deployment pattern of Gurkhas given in an earlier Memorandum, and we have made it clear that deployment options would be one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the future of the Gurkhas. As we have also made clear, no option for the future deployment of the Gurkhas has in principle been excluded from consideration.

It would, therefore, be inappropriate for us to go beyond what was said in the Memorandum forwarded with my letter of 18th January.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Letter from the Chairman of the Committee to the Secretary of State for Defence 26 January 1989

At our meeting yesterday, the Committee asked me to raise with you a matter which has been causing us difficulty: the question of whether Gurkhas might be stationed in some country where they have not so far served. We had in minc the possibility of some arrangement akin to that between HMG and HM Th Sultan of Brunei. At our first evidence session on 26 October last year, we approached this as a purely factual question: was any such redeployment being considered, and to which country or countries? The principal official witness before us refused to answer, and we later followed the point up in writing.

The exchanges between ourselves and your Department are set out in the Annex to this letter. You will readily see why the replies we have been receiving to simple and straightforward questions are regarded by colleagues on the Committee as unsatisfactory.

*

*

Quite apart from the terms of the replies, which have caused no little annoyance, the reasons given for refusing a substantive answer would apply . Yet Simor equally to the question of whether Glenarthur found no difficulty in briefing us about this possibility on a classifie basis. In our requests of your Department we have made it clear that we wil accept a classified reply should the circumstances require it.