Comparison of Divisions: Fuel Duty — Balance against oil prices — rejected — 16 Jul 2008 at 18:50 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

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

• This House
• notes that oil prices are now almost $150 per barrel;
• further notes that diesel in the UK is the most expensive in Europe; acknowledges the sharp rises in fuel prices over the past year and the resulting impact on headline inflation figures;
• recognises the financial pressure this places on hard-pressed families already struggling with soaring food and housing costs;
• condemns the Government's continued dithering over the implementation of the two pence increase in fuel duty, planned for the autumn, as neither a sustainable nor a stable way to make tax policy;
• further notes that a balancing mechanism to adjust fuel duty in line with changes in the price of oil would have reduced the current price of petrol by five pence per litre since March 2008; and
• calls upon the Government to consider the implementation of such a balancing mechanism to ensure that the burden of rising oil prices is shared fairly between government and families, the sensitivity of the public finances to changing oil prices is reduced and the cost of carbon can be stabilised to send consistent environmental signals.

In its place the an alternative motion was proposed:^[2]

• This House
• recognises the pressure that the increase in fuel prices, caused by pressures from the international oil market, has put on business and families;
• welcomes the Chancellor's decision to defer the planned two pence per litre increase in fuel duty that was due to take place in April 2008;
• notes that while fuel prices have increased by over 20 per cent. since last October, fuel duty has stayed constant;
• also notes that had the escalator introduced in 1993 been in place since 1999, fuel duty would now be 29 pence per litre higher;
• supports the Government's global leadership on this issue, in particular at the recent Jeddah Energy Meeting, and welcomes the Government's intention to host a follow up to this meeting in London later this year;
• further recognises that the Government does not receive a significant windfall when oil prices rise, because any additional revenues from the North Sea are likely to be offset by other effects; and
• therefore further notes that a system which would automatically cut fuel duty when oil prices rise would be destabilising, creating volatility for the public finances and uncertainty for the financing of public services, and would create considerable pressure for tax increases elsewhere.

which passed without a further vote.

Note that when this proposal was made to the Finance Act earlier in the year to actually establish such a balancing mechanism in law, virtually no Libdem or Conservative MPs voted either way.^[3]

Citizens interested in the subject might also be interested in another scheme relating to rural petrol prices which was proposed at the same time.^[4]

• [1] Philip Hammond MP speech, House of Commons, 16 July 2008
• [2] Yvette Cooper MP speech, House of Commons, 16 July 2008
• [3] Finance Act - General fuel duty regulator - rejected, House of Commons Division, 2 July 2008
• [4] Finance Bill - Remote rural fuel discount scheme - rejected, House of Commons Division, 2 July 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