Comparison of Divisions: Committees — Administration Committee — Pay for Chairmen of Standing Committees — 13 Jul 2005 at 17:43 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

That this House—

(1) takes note of the Report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on Pay for Standing Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons presented to Parliament on 6th July (Cm 6566); and

(2) expresses the opinion that—

(a) with effect from 1st November 2005, the salary of a Member should be higher by the amount specified in sub-paragraph (b) than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which the Member has been nominated by the Speaker to act as a temporary chairman of committees in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Chairmen's Panel) ('a member of the Panel'), other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (d) apply;

(b) for a Member who has served on the Panel for less than one year, the additional amount should be £2,615; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least one year but less than three years, the additional amount should be £7,340; for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least three years and less than five years, the additional amount should be £9,960; and for a Member who has served on the Panel for at least five years, the additional amount should be £13,107; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph length of service should include membership of the Panel before 1st November 2005 and should be calculated irrespective of breaks in service;

(c) a period should begin for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) on the day on which the Member is appointed to the Panel, or on 1st November 2005, whichever is the later; and end on the day on which the Member ceases to be a member of the Panel;

(d) there should be disregarded for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) any period in respect of which the Member is receiving additional payment as Chairman of a Select Committee;

(e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) should apply, with effect from 1st April 2006, to a salary determined in accordance with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) as they apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and

(f) the Speaker should have authority to interpret these provisions.

The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 74.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the motion:^[1]

• This House
• regrets the Government's recent statement^[2] outlining the eligibility criteria for Gurkhas to reside in the United Kingdom;
• recognises the contribution the Gurkhas have made to the safety and freedom of the United Kingdom for the past 200 years;
• notes that more Gurkhas have laid down their lives for the United Kingdom than are estimated to want to live here;
• believes that Gurkhas who retired before 1997 should be treated fairly and in the same way as those who have retired since;
• is concerned that the Government's new guidelines will permit only a small minority of Gurkhas and their families to settle whilst preventing the vast majority;
• further believes that people who are prepared to fight and die for the United Kingdom should be entitled to live in the country; and
• calls upon the Government to withdraw its new guidelines immediately and bring forward revised proposals that extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

As a consequence, the alternative Government motion, which read:^[3]

• This House
• recognises that this Government is the only one since the Second World War to allow Gurkhas and their families settlement rights to the United Kingdom;
• notes that in 2004 the Government permitted settlement rights to Gurkhas discharged since 1997, following the transfer of the Brigade HQ from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom;
• further notes that under these rules around 6,000 Gurkhas and family members have been welcomed to the UK;
• acknowledges that the court judgement of September 2008 determined that the 1997 cut-off date was fair and rational, while seeking clarification of the criteria for settlement rights for those who retired before 1997;
• further notes that on 24 April the Government published new and more generous guidelines for the settlement applications of Gurkhas who retired before 1997;
• supports this revised guidance, which will make around 10,000 Gurkhas and family members eligible to settle in the UK;
• further notes that the Government undertakes actively to inform those who may be eligible in Nepal of these changes and to review the impact of the new guidance within 12 months;
• further notes that the contribution Gurkhas have made is already recognised by pensions paid to around 25,000 Gurkhas or their widows in Nepal that allow for a good standard of living there; and
• further notes that in the year 2000 Gurkha pensions were doubled and that, earlier in April 2009, in addition to an inflationary uplift of 14 per cent., those over 80 years old received a 20 per cent. increase in their pension.

... was never voted upon.

Although this extremely rare Government defeat in an opposition day motion is not binding (has no legal force)^[4] a Government minister made a statement later in the day to bring "forward the date for the determination of the outstanding applications to the end of May."^[5]

• [1] Christopher Huhne MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [2] Phil Woollas MP, Written Ministerial Statement, 29 April 2009
• [3] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009
• [4] Home Secretary Jacqui Smith blamed for humiliating Gurkhas defeat in the Commons, Daily Mail, 30 April 2009
• [5] Phil Woolas MP, House of Commons, 29 April 2009