Comparison of Divisions: Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat — 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 with Division No. 240 on 16 May 2006 at 20:45

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 No rejected an an amendment to the just amended Clause 14 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (seen as Clause 17 of the new Bill) that would have loosened the limitations on the possibility of a Parliamentary veto on an order passed under this Bill. The clause says:

The Minister may make an order [following a]... draft order... [if] Parliament [vetoes it] within the 40-day period, or a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after... 30 days [but]... before 40 days... recommends... that... [it be vetoed]... only if it considers that... the draft order does not serve the purpose specified, [or]... [it does not satisfy the preconditions in] Section 3 (proportionality, balance, and consistency with policy objectives).

The amendment, which was voted down in this division, would deleted the italicised words and have given it the freedom to veto an order for any reason it chose.