Comparison of Divisions: Energy Security — Commends the Government's effort — 30 Jun 2008 at 18:51 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

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

• This House
• acknowledges that the security of the UK's energy supply has become of increasing importance over the last five years;
• understands that with over eight GW of coal and a further seven GW of nuclear generating capacity coming offline in the next decade the UK faces a potentially serious energy gap by 2016;
• regrets that with only 2 per cent. of the UK's energy needs coming from renewable sources, the UK is one of the worst performers in Europe;
• notes that the Government's own Renewables Advisory Board has established that the UK is set to miss its EU renewables target for 2020 even with significant policy changes;
• further notes that, as an island nation, the UK has major potential as a source of wave and tidal energy;
• deplores the fact that the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund has not delivered monies to a single project since its creation in 2005;
• regrets that the Government's latest Energy Bill contains insufficient provisions for feed-in tariffs for microgeneration,^[2] the fast roll-out of smart meters or any serious help for the fuel poor; and
• urgently presses the Government to act now to secure the UK's energy supplies for the future.

In its place a new motion was proposed:^[3]

• This House
• acknowledges that the Government is addressing the recent sharp increases in fossil fuel prices, which reflect an imbalance between supply and demand in global markets, through international engagement;
• recognises that the UK has the most competitive energy markets among the G7 nations, as recognised by independent analysts;
• acknowledges the Government's success in establishing a market framework which encourages sharp increases in gas import and storage capacity;
• further acknowledges the Government's success in establishing a clear framework for investment in new nuclear generation capacity through the Nuclear White Paper, and in setting out a blueprint for a historic expansion of renewable generation through the Renewable Energy Strategy consultation;
• recognises the Government's work in promoting energy efficiency as an integral part of its strategy;
• commends the Government's efforts to counter fuel poverty through the Winter Fuel Payment and through securing major financial commitments from energy supply companies;
• notes the Government's support for microgeneration;
• recognises that the Energy, Climate Change and Planning Bills will provide a legislative framework that is fit for purpose in changing market conditions and that supports the Government's policy objectives;
• believes that the Opposition's failure to show clear leadership on energy could put at risk Great Britain's energy security;
• condemns their failure to support the Government's Renewables Obligation; and
• deplores their opposition to the Planning Bill, which will provide greater certainty for major infrastructure building and help secure Great Britain's future energy independence.

which passed without a further vote.

• [1] Alan Duncan MP, House of Commons, 30 June 2008
• [2] Energy Bill - Renewable energy feed-in tariff - rejected, House of Commons Division, 30 April 2008
• [3] John Hutton MP, House of Commons, 30 June 2008

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