Comparison of Divisions: Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat — 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 with Division No. 169 on 15 Feb 2006 at 16:45

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

Those voting Aye removed a Lords amendment to Clause 3 of the Terrorism Bill

This clause outlines how the "Encouragement of terrorism" and the "Dissemination of terrorist publications" laws (in Clauses 1 and 2) will be applied to the Internet.

Subsection 3(3) explains how the police would be able to serve someone a notice which

(a) declares that, in the opinion of the constable giving it, the [webpage]... is unlawfully terrorism-related; (b) requires the relevant person to... [modify or make it unavailable] to the public; [and] (c) warns... that a failure to comply with the notice within 2 days will result in... [it] being regarded as having his endorsement [with all the legal consequences that this implies].

The amendment made by the Lords was to insert the phrase "in the opinion of the constable giving it", which was removed by this vote in the Commons.

It's difficult to locate the thinking for this disagreement in the preceding debate (please try if you can), but one speech by the minister mentions how there will be "properly accredited" special branch officers behind these notices. The disagreement with the Lords appears to be whether those special branch officers will be able to send out a notice to remove a webpage which, to the policeman who actually delivers it, does not appear to be unlawfully terrorist-related. In other words, it's whether common sense prevails, or the decision is wholly left to the experts.