Government defeated on Liberal Democrat motion on Gurkha rights

12.24.00am BST (GMT +0100) Mon 4th May 2009

Nick Clegg meets Gurkha veterans outside the House of Commons

Victory for cross-party alliance forces Government rethink over right to live in UK for Gurkhas who have fought for Britain. The Government have suffered a rare defeat, on a Liberal Democrat opposition day motion calling for them to revise their proposals and ensure that an equal right of residence is extended to all Gurkhas.

27 Labour MPs joined Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and others to inflict the Government's first defeat on an opposition day motion since the 1970s, a sign of the strength of feeling on the issue.

Opening the debate, Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, criticised the Government for its decision back in 2004 to distinguish between those who were discharged from the Gurkhas before 1997 and those who were discharged after. He argued this move led to "some ridiculous and shameful anomalies", whereby soldiers, including a holder of the Victoria Cross, have been refused residency in Britain because of "inadequate ties to the United Kingdom".

Chris highlighted many of the shameful rules the Government is proposing. The most discriminatory being the necessity of twenty years service in the Gurkha regiments. Chris explained, "so many of the Gurkhas - and especially private soldiers and riflemen - serve just fifteen years." He said, "only officers would have achieved twenty years or more." Whilst the Government has argued its proposals would allow 10,000 people to claim residency in the UK, Chris argued this figure is more likely to be only 100 given the discriminatory eligibility criteria.

In an impassioned conclusion to his speech Chris asked: "are we to say that people who are prepared to fight and die for our country are not good enough to live in it? This debate is not just about the Gurkhas. It is about the sort of people we are. The House must today find the generosity of spirit to repay in the small way that we can, the enormous debt of gratitude that we owe to the Gurkhas."

Former Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell also spoke in the debate. Sir Ming attacked the Government's self-proclaimed achievements on helping the Gurkhas. He accused them of reacting to public pressure rather than having a sincere determination to help the Gurkhas, claiming the Government had merely felt "compelled" by the judicial decision to bring the proposals forward.

Sir Ming also criticised the Government's decoration criteria. He argued that this qualification "is based not on being brave, but on being recognised as having been brave." He said, "anyone who has been engaged in conflict will say that some of the bravest and most selfless acts of heroism are committed by people who never receive any recognition of any kind whatever."

The party's Shadow Defence Secretary Nick Harvey wound up the debate. He said it was bizarre for the Government to suggest that there needed to be an impact assessment on the effect in Nepal of any decision as the decision to allow those, generally younger, Gurkhas who have served since 1997 the right of settlement in the UK would have had far more impact on Nepal than allowing in a relatively smaller number whose service took place long ago.

Nick said that, "sooner or later the Government will end up losing this argument, having to give more ground and be seen to have done so with appalling bad grace, having been dragged kicking and screaming every inch of the way".

When the votes were counted, the Liberal Democrat motion was passed by 267 to 246 votes and the Government was defeated. 

In a statement after the debate the Government announced a rethink and said new proposals would be published before the summer recess. 

Related Link:

Nick Clegg's response to the vote.