Comparison of Divisions: Sale of Radar System (Tanzania) — 30 Jan 2007 at 21:47 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

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

• This House
• notes the protests of citizens of Tanzania in a demonstration in Dar es Salaam on 20th January 2007 demanding the arrest of any wrongdoers involved in the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in 2001-02;
• further notes that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating the propriety of the deal and allegations of corruption;
• further notes that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world and a leading recipient of British aid;
• further notes that Tanzania borrowed to finance this deal, whilst simultaneously seeking and receiving debt relief;
• calls upon the Government to explain whether adequate enquiries were made into the propriety of the deal at the time;
• further calls upon the Government to explain why the views of the World Bank were not adequately considered in the process of deciding whether to issue an export licence, in breach of Criterion Eight of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria; and
• further calls upon the Government to explain why consent to the deal was forced through a divided Cabinet by the Prime Minister in the face of the opposition of the then Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood.

In its place, a new motion was proposed:

• This House
• notes that it would be inappropriate to comment on allegations of corruption in connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in light of the current investigation by the Serious Fraud Office;
• notes the great progress made by Tanzania since 2002 in achieving debt relief, poverty reduction and public service reform;
• notes that the decision to grant an export licence for the air traffic control system was taken after due consideration of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria;
• acknowledges that that decision took place after full discussion at Cabinet level;
• further notes that the UK subsequently established its own cross-Whitehall methodology for the assessment of applications against Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria and was subsequently instrumental in establishing a shared methodology with its EU partners; and
• further notes the Government's efforts to promote an International Arms Trade Treaty.

which then passed without a vote.

• [1] Andrew Mitchell MP, House of Commons, 30 January 2007
• [2] Hilary Benn, House of Commons, 30 January 2007

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