Gurkha veterans accused the Government of betrayal yesterday after the Home Office issued new rules that would allow only a small number of the former soldiers to settle in Britain.

Phil Woolas, the Immigration Minister, said that thousands of ex-Gurkhas and family members would benefit from the revised rules but lawyers representing the Nepalese servicemen said that fewer than 100 people would meet the requirements.

Under the new Home Office ruling, ex-Gurkhas must meet specific criteria before being allowed to settle in Britain. These can include medals for bravery, service of more than 20 years or a serious medical condition linked to their time in uniform.

“This guidance honours the service, commitment and gallantry of those who served with the Gurkhas brigade,” Mr Woolas said. “Another 10,000 Gurkhas and family members will be able to benefit.”

Times Archive 1970 £1m needed for a 'debt of honour'

An appeal on behalf of Britain's staunchiest allies was launched, with the feeling that this was not a request for charity, more of a debt of honour

• Letter from Field Marshal Montgomery

• Letter: Gurkha Welfare Appeal

Related Links

• Gurkha immigration policy derided as a sham

• COMMENT: loyal fighters face their own hour of need

• The fate of the retired Gurkhas

Campaigners who had hoped to win residency rights for all ex-Gurkhas condemned the ruling as a “sham”, and argued that fewer than 100 people, mostly officers, would meet the new requirements.

Immigration rules introduced in 2004 allowed only Gurkhas who had retired after 1997, when the Gurkha base was moved from Hong Kong to Britain, to settle in the UK. Older veterans who left the Army before that date had no automatic right to stay.

Last September, the High Court ruled that the policy excluding older Gurkha veterans was unlawful, since they had shown the same courage and commitment to Britain as those who had served after 1997.

Gordon Brown defended the new rules, claiming the bar had been lowered significantly for former soldiers wishing to settle in Britain. “Anybody who has done 20 years’ service before 1997 is going to benefit from this decision,” the Prime Minister said. “They can make the choice if they want to come to Britain. Anybody that has suffered injuries or who has got rewards for gallantry can also come to Britain.”

Lawyers representing the Gurkhas said they would appeal. David Enright, of Howe and Co solicitors, said: “They have set criteria that are unattainable. They require a Gurkha to serve for 20 years but a rifleman is only permitted to serve for 15 years.”

The Home Office statement claimed the new rules would “ensure that those who have given outstanding service will be entitled to settle in the UK” but the Gurkhas’ supporters claimed the rules had been framed to admit the smallest possible number.

The Home Office statement noted that “prior to 2007, the Gurkhas completed their service at the age of 33”. This would mean that to satisfy the requirement that would-be residents serve at least 20 years, they would have to have signed up at or before the age of 13.

Nepalese Gurkhas, renowned for their ferocity and courage, have been part of the British Army for nearly 200 years. Some 200,000 fought for the Allies in the First and Second World Wars. The Gurkhas have won 6,500 medals for gallantry fighting under the British flag, including 13 Victoria Crosses. There are now about 3,500 serving Gurkhas.

The actress Joanna Lumley, a long-time supporter of the campaign to allow all former Gurkas to live in Britain, said: “The Gurkhas cannot meet these new criteria. It makes me ashamed of our Government.”

Gurkhas who left the Army before 1997 were able to apply to settle in Britain but more than 2,000 Gurkha veterans have been refused permission to stay. Some 36,000 of them served in the British Army before 1997.

Last November, a petition signed by 250,000 people was handed in to Downing Street, calling for the Government to grant all retired Gurkhas the right to settle.

Mr Woolas denied that the Gurkhas had been unfairly treated. “What we’ve done today is to allow even more people in without setting a precedent that would create a massive pressure in my view on the immigration service, which I don’t think the public would want me to grant.”

Martin Howe, a lawyer representing Gurkha veterans, described yesterday’s guidance as “an act of treachery” that would only “allow a small handful of officer-class men in”. “It has scant regard to the High Court judgment of last September,” Mr Howe said. “We have a so-called Labour Government prepared to give £200 billion to banks but not a penny to the Gurkhas.”

The Opposition was also swift to condemn the ruling. “The Government is trying to evade the effects of a very clear court judgment,” Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman, said. “This is an insult to the Gurkhas.”

The Gurkhas fought the British in the 1814-16 Gurkha war. In recognition of their warlike qualities the British formally designated them a “martial race”. By imposing rigid rules on admitting veterans, the Government has provoked a fresh battle with some of the most tenacious fighters in the world.

The rules

Settlers must fulfill one of these criteria:

— Three years’ continuous residence

— Close family in Britain

— A level 1-3 bravery award (including VC, DSO or MC)

— 20 years’ service

— A long-term condition caused or aggravated by service

Times Recommends

• Times Christmas appeal: Letter from the Editor
• Conferences — what a waste of money
• Schools supremo learns a painful lesson