Comparison of Divisions: Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat — 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 with Division No. 25 on 19 Jan 2007 at 12:58

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

MPs voted on a technical motion "That the Question be now put". In other words, those voting Aye were agreeing that now was an appropriate time to put the Question. Those voting No were saying that debate should continue.

Unfortunately, this language is somewhat confusing, since it fails to define what "the Question" is. In this case "the Question" was "Should the Bill receive its second reading?".

Translating, this means the original motion was "Is now an appropriate time to proceed to a further motion on whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading?". This is known as a closure motion, simply because it is a motion to end debate. Closure motions require 100 votes in favour, or they will not be deemed to have reached the quorum necessary for them to be carried. Closure motions will only be accepted by the Speaker if he/she deems there to have been enough debate (usually around 4-5 hours) for one to be allowed to be put to the vote. In the event the closure motion was approved by 175 votes to 17.

If the closure motion had not received 100 ayes in favour, debate would have resumed, since closure would not have been granted. This notably happened in the case of Clare Short's Armed Forces (Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict) Bill.

Once closure was secured, the motion to give the Sustainable Communities Bill a Second Reading was approved on the nod, and the Bill proceeded to a public bill committee.