Comparison of Divisions: Gurkha Settlement Rights — Government defeat — 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49 with Division No. 219 on 11 Jun 2008 at 17:45

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

The majority of MPs voted to extend the period of police detention without making any criminal charges of terrorist suspects from 28 days^[1] to 42 days, subject to a complex series of bureaucratic procedures. See also the next vote which outlined the powers themselves.

The procedures include:

• Statement - The Home Secretary must make a statement that a grave exceptional terrorist threat has occurred or is occurring for which this power to detain suspects without charge beyond 28 days is necessary for the purposes of investigation and bringing to justice those responsible.^[2]
• Legal advice - Independent legal advice (from a lawyer not employed by the Government) must be obtained as to whether the Home Secretary can be properly satisfied by his or her statement.^[3]
• DPP report - A report must be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief police officer which states that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the detention of one or more persons beyond 28 days will be necessary to obtain or preserve evidence that relates to the commission by the detained person or persons of a serious terrorist offence.^[4]
• Committee chairs - A copy of the legal advice and the report must be provided in confidence to the chairmen of the Home Affairs Committee, Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the Intelligence and Security Committee.^[5]

Although this threatened to be the largest Labour Party rebellion for Gordon Brown,^[6] a bigger one occurred six weeks earlier.^[7]

A comparison between MPs' votes on the 90 day detention and this 42 day detention is here or reported in the Guardian here. The list of related Parliamentary votes on detaining persons without charge is here.

• [1] Terrorism Bill — Extension Of Period Of Detention to 28 Days, House of Commons Division, 9 November 2005
• [2] Statement to be laid before Parliament, New Clause
• [3] Independent legal advice, New Clause
• [4] Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention, New Clause, 11 June 2008
• [5] Notification of chairmen of certain committees, New Clause
• [6] Blacklist of MPs in terror bill rebellion, The Times, 20 April 2008
• [7] Energy Bill - Renewable energy feed-in tariff - rejected, House of Commons Division, 30 April 2008