Comparison of Divisions: Terrorism Bill — Clause 1(2) — Offence of Glorifying Terrorism — 2 Nov 2005 at 15:57 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

(Swap the two divisions around).

Vote (a) : Terrorism Bill — Clause 1(2) — Offence of Glorifying Terrorism - 2 Nov 2005 at 15:57 - Division No. 75

The majority of MPs voted to make glorifying the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism an offense.

Those voting Aye wished to delete subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Terrorism Bill

Subsection (2) says:

  • ...[S]tatements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging... acts of terrorism... include every statement which-
  • (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
  • (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances.
  • This provision interprets subsection (1) which asserts that both direct and indirect encouragement of terrorism is an offence.

Vote (b) : Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat - 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 - Division No. 104

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]

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Opposite in Votes - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote on Motion (a) was opposite to their vote on Motion (b). You can also see all differing votes between these two divisions, or simply all the votes.

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote (a) | Vote (b)

NameConstituencyPartyVote (a)Vote (b)
Jim CousinsNewcastle upon Tyne CentralLab (minister)aye no
Frank DobsonHolborn and St PancrasLab (minister)aye no
John GroganSelbyLab (minister)aye no
Andrew LoveEdmontonLab (minister)aye no
George MudieLeeds EastLab (minister)aye no
Gordon PrenticePendleLab (minister)aye no
Jon TrickettHemsworthLab (minister)aye no
Ian CawseyBrigg and GooleLab (minister)tellno aye
Paul FarrellyNewcastle-under-LymeLab (minister)no aye
Joan HumbleBlackpool North and FleetwoodLab (minister)no aye
Andrew MacKinlayThurrockLab (minister)no aye
Gordon MarsdenBlackpool SouthLab (minister)no aye
Shona McIsaacCleethorpesLabno aye
Julie MorganCardiff NorthLab (minister)no aye
Nick PalmerBroxtoweLabno aye
Steve PoundEaling NorthLab (minister)no aye
Nick RaynsfordGreenwich and WoolwichLabno aye
Andy ReedLoughboroughLabno aye
Andrew SmithOxford EastLabno aye
Paul TruswellPudseyLabno aye
Keith VazLeicester EastLabno aye
Sylvia HermonNorth DownUUP (front bench)no aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive