Comparison of Divisions: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill — Timetable — 9 Feb 2006 at 17:22 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

(Swap the two divisions around).

Vote (a) : Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill — Timetable - 9 Feb 2006 at 17:22 - Division No. 157

Those voting Aye agreed that the scrutiny of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill by the Standing Committee would be finished by 9th of March, and that the debate on the floor of the House of Commons after that would last no more than one day.

This timetable, known as a guillotine motion, is designed to ensure that debates finish to a pre-arranged schedule, even if it turns out there is nowhere near enough time to discuss everything. When the Bill returned from four days of Standing Committee debates with no changes, this schedule was amended from one to two days just before the debate began to take account of the time that was required. It should be noted that since the MPs in Parliament can change the schedule whenever they like, it cannot be used as an excuse for not having enough time to scrutinize something important.

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 inverted 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)
Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLabaye aye
Ian CawseyBrigg and GooleLab (minister)aye aye
Harry CohenLeyton and WansteadLab (minister)aye aye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye aye
Paul FarrellyNewcastle-under-LymeLab (minister)aye aye
Mark FisherStoke-on-Trent CentralLabaye aye
Neil GerrardWalthamstowLab (minister)aye aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLabaye aye
Kelvin HopkinsLuton NorthLab (minister)aye aye
Andrew MacKinlayThurrockLab (minister)aye aye
Gordon MarsdenBlackpool SouthLab (minister)aye aye
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye aye
Shona McIsaacCleethorpesLab (minister)aye aye
Nick PalmerBroxtoweLab (minister)aye aye
Steve PoundEaling NorthLab (minister)aye aye
Nick RaynsfordGreenwich and WoolwichLabaye aye
Andy ReedLoughboroughLab (minister)aye aye
Linda RiordanHalifaxLab (minister)aye aye
Alan SimpsonNottingham SouthLabaye aye
Andrew SmithOxford EastLabaye 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