As a Parliamentary aide at the Home Office, Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield MP, has found himself on the wrong side of the publicity regarding the Gurkhas. But he urges people to look through the emotion to the hard facts.

EVERYONE has the greatest respect for the Gurkhas. The campaign headed by Joanna Lumley is to be commended.

But I believe, because of the heightened drama the campaign generated, the facts have been driven away by emotion.

Newspaper headlines would have you believe the Government is against any Gurkhas staying in the UK. In fact, this Government’s record is the best of any previous administration.

In 2004, the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas who had been discharged since July 1997, following the transfer of the brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the UK.

The new rules said that any Gurkha who had completed at least four years’ service and had been discharged in Nepal after July 1, 1997, could apply to settle in the UK within two years of their discharge.

Under those rules, 6,000 Gurkhas, plus their family members, have been welcomed to the UK.

The judgement in a court case last September stated that the cut-off date of July 1997 was fair.

Last month, the Government published further guidelines which will allow about 4,300 Gurkhas plus their families to settle here.

Nepal receives £56m in development aid from the UK, plus £54m in pensions paid to Gurkhas living there. Both are significant contributions to the Nepalese economy.

The Government’s approach is to review and consult on the guidelines in an ongoing and staged manner, because there are serious policy issues to be addressed. For example, what about the tens of thousands of Commonwealth troops from Pakistan, India, Kenya, Singapore, Malaya, to name but a few places?

We cannot have one rule for the Gurkhas and another for other brave Commonwealth servicemen and women who have fought for Britain. That is why the whole issue requires fair and rational consideration.

In the view of the Nepalese government, if the door is open to every Gurkha and his family, a drain on economic resources could be a major problem for Nepal and could lead to it thinking twice about allowing the British Army to recruit Gurkhas in the future.

Joanna Lumley’s campaign on behalf of the Gurkhas has been fought with integrity, but I would not say the same about the political opportunism shown by others.

I believe the Conservatives’ approach does not bear any consideration because when they were in power for 18 years, only five Gurkhas were allowed to remain in the UK.

At the time of the 2004 settlement, which allowed access to 6,000 Gurkhas, the then Conservative defence spokesman said: “We warmly welcome the Government’s decision.

This should receive overwhelming support from the British people.”

If the Tories thought it was the right decision then, why not now? I believe the answer is opportunism. They would seem to want it both ways.