Comparison of Divisions: Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill — Exempt only correspondence — rejected — 20 Apr 2007 at 12:45 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

The majority of MPs voted against changing the proposed Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill (designed to remove Parliament and MPs from the power of the Freedom of Information Act 2000) so that the Freedom of Information Act would still apply to Parliament.

All that would have remained was the exemption regarding MPs' correspondence. Since this was the official justification for the proposed change in the law (the threat that Freedom of Information laws could be used to obtain sensitive correspondence),^[1] this vote tested whether a law leaving in that provision would be acceptable to its proponents.

(It wasn't, because the real purpose was to hide MPs' expenses.)

This vote was a follow-on from Division 94

Since there was not enough MPs around to close the debate (it requires at least 100 MPs to vote for it)^[2] the MPs opposed, even though they were in the minority, were able to carry on talking (without repeating themselves)^[3] until the time for the debate ran out.

Friday afternoons (the time for debates on private members bills) have a low attendance. Initially the debate for this Bill was rescheduled for the following week (27 April 2007), but was pulled from the timetable at the last minute in order to prevent a repetition of the filibuster.^[4]

Accordingly, it was rescheduled for 18 May when a large enough turn-out of MPs could be arranged in order to close the debate.^[5]

The first division on that debate is Division 119.

• [1] Norman Baker MP, House of Commons, 20 April 2007
• [2] Majority for closure, House of Commons Standing Order 37
• [3] The Speaker, House of Commons, 20 April 2007
• [4] MP delays FoI exemption bill, The Guardian, 27 April 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