Comparison of Divisions: Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat — 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 with Division No. 116 on 4 Mar 2008 at 22:30

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

The majority Aye voters passed a motion^[1] that confirmed the clauses on 'parliamentary control of decisions' (clause 6) and 'short title' (clause 7) should remain in the European Union (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 6 outlines which decisions made at the European Union (EU) level would have to be approved by parliament. This mainly relates to the passerelle clauses which enables the EU to make decisions on certain policy areas via qualified majority voting rather than unanimity.

The Tories were opposed to this clause because they felt that ministers:

• 'in referring to clause 6, which is entitled "Parliamentary control of decisions", have tried to give the impression that what is happening here is a strengthening of parliamentary control. They refer to the fact that the House and the other place will have to vote on a motion to approve some of those changes, neglecting to point out that the status quo is that an Act of Parliament has to be passed to put through treaty changes.'^[2]

However, the government argued that:

• 'We went further in the Bill's provisions than any other Government anywhere in the European Union who are currently using the process of ratification. The Bill gives Parliament a power that is not given anywhere else in the treaty or for any of the passerelles: prior control over the Government's veto. The treaty does not give national Parliaments prior control of any passerelle decision and a parliamentary lock is set out in the treaty. The Bill also provides a parliamentary lock on six separate passerelles, which, under the treaty, have no parliamentary lock at all—'^[3]

The European Union (Amendment) Bill implements the Lisbon Treaty into UK law. The main aims of the Lisbon Treaty were to^[4]:

• Streamline EU institutions
• Establish a permanent President of the European Council (as of 16 March 2010 held by Herman Van Rompuy)
• Establish the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (as of 16 March 2010 held by Catherine Ashton)
• Give new powers to the EU over justice and home affairs
• Remove the national veto in some areas such as energy security and emergency aid

----

• [1] Motion on Clause 6 and 7
• [2] Mark Harper MP, House of Commons, 4 March 2008
• [3] Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 4 March 2008
• [4] BBC News Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty, 5 February 2010