TNAG-2122-FCO40-3028-Future-of-the-Brigade-of-Gurkhas-in-Hong-Kong-1990 — Page 30

Ave South NPOO

d

UK EYES A

COUNCIL

OF THE C

HK206215

Palministers In Bayra

M

incitven

Chut Charn

State

GR/AG

R1

SECRET

Miss Marsden Mr Store

la

PRIME MINISTER

W 21,

LORD

PRESIDENT

ARMED FORCES BILL

-

The Burnis

དོང

استاعان من

Lids

Sexto

MKV)

SEC POL

Specvil

Now's

PROVISIONS AFFECTING GURKHAS

17

12

I refer to the minute of 22 October from the Secretary of State for Defence, proposing that these provisions should not be

included in the Armed Forces Bill to be introduced in the

forthcoming Session. Your Private Secretary's letter of 23 October indicated that you thought it would be advisable to proceed with the provisions in the bill as originally proposed.

The Business Managers in both Houses believe there is a powerful case for accepting the Defence Secretary's proposal. Including the proposed provisions would cause considerable handling

difficulties for the bill. They raise issues which could be

divisive and difficult within our own Party, as well as providing the Opposition with grounds for holding things up.

First, we think it likely that the proposed provisions would give rise to debate on the sensitive issue of whether Gurkha regiments should be maintained at a time when hard decisions may have to be taken about other regiments, many of them traditionally associated with areas where our support is strongest. This is, of course, an issue to be grappled with in the Defence

Secretary's Options for Change exercise but, as he has explained, he will not be ready to make proposals until early next year and it would be premature and possibly damaging to trigger off debate at this stage.

Secondly, we will face the argument that we owe a debt of honour

to the Gurkhas and that, if we think we continue to need Gurkha

regiments, excluding them and their families from citizenship is no way to repay that debt. When OD took its original decision we were clear that criticism on those grounds would have to be faced, but in view of the change in the balance of probabilities which the Defence Secretary has outlined, it seems wrong to enter this controversy until we have to.

SECRET

-

UK EYES A

4.w.isa

1

Page 30Page 31