Tories and Lib Dems defeat Government on settlement rights for Gurkhas

Following exchanges over the issue at PMQs earlier, a vote has just taken place during an Opposition Day debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats in which the Government was defeated on settlement rights for Gurkhas.

MPs voted by 267 to 246 in favour of a motion that the government should extend an equal right of residence to all Gurkhas.

Conservatives and Lib Dem joined forces along with, I imagine, a number of Labour rebels (28 according to sources around the murmurs around the Commons). In advance of this afternoon's vote, shadow immigration minister Damian Green said:

“We are supporting the Gurkhas today because we believe the Government is being ungenerous and unfair. A Conservative Government would give all Gurkhas and their immediate dependents the right to settle here, and we hope the Government listens and acts immediately on this matter.”

Paul Waugh notes that David Cameron and Nick Clegg made a joint appearance outside the Commons in the wake of the vote, which is the culmination of a long campaign, highlighted here last week.

5.45pm update:

The following statements have just been put out:

David Cameron said:

"Today is an historic day where Parliament took the right decision. The basic presumption that people who fight for our country should have a right to come and live in our country has been set out very clearly. And the Government has now got to come back with immediate proposals so that those Gurkhas who have been waiting so long for an answer can have that answer. It can be done, we've set out a way for it to be done so that it doesn't ruin our immigration system and it should be done.

"I think that everyone would like to say congratulations to Joanna Lumley for the incredible campaign that she's fought with all these brave Gurkhas, some of them very old and very infirm, coming to Parliament again and again.

"The Government attempted a shoddy deal today to try and buy off some of their backbenchers and I'm proud of the fact that it didn't work and I'm proud that Labour joined us all in the lobby and actually got the right result for Britain and for the Gurkhas.

"I also pay tribute to Nick Clegg for holding the debate today, it was pleasure to join him in that lobby and get the Government to see sense."

Shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green added:

"A Conservative Government would scrap Labour's plans for the Gurkhas. We will create a new category within the points based system for former service personnel who are not British citizens and we will allow them the right to settle. The vast majority of those who will benefit from this category will be pre-1997 Gurkhas. We will be consulting with Gurkhas representatives and others about how best to achieve this."

6.30pm Update:

PoliticsHome records the following reaction from shadow defence secretary Liam Fox:

Mr Fox said that the vote this afternoon had "moral implications" and it showed that the government was "fatally out of touch."

"The vote says to the Government that the current policy is regarded by the majority of people in Britain as unfair," he said.

"It's a country where people have seen immigration get out of control and many people coming in who haven't necessarily contributed anything, and yet the Gurkhas are discriminated against."

Challenged over the cost of allowing the Gurkhas to live in the U.K, Mr Fox conceded that this was a reasonable concern.

"That's why we put down an amendment to the motion," he said. "We said that within a more restrictive immigration policy, we'd set a new category for those who fought for the armed forces. We may have to tighten immigration policy but when we do, we should do it in a fair way."

Mr Fox added that the government were on the "wrong side of public opinion" and were "perhaps fatally out of touch".

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Paul J]

Goodness me. The wheels really are starting to come off Gordon Brown's cart.

[Silent Hunter]

Brilliant news!

Another day - another kick in the teeth, for Gordon Brown and his venal Ministers.

[Will S]

Good!

[powellite]

Actually, there may not have been many Government rebels, if any. The arithmetic points to mass absentions from the Government, rather than votes for the Lib Dem motion. The Ayes could easily be made up of Tory, Lib Dem and others clubbing together.

(Takes anorak off)

[meli]

So happy about this. The Gurkhas deserve it after all they have done.

[Jay Lawson]

Great news. And I hope we don't hear anyone moaning about our taxes paying for NHS care and social security payments for these brave Gurkhas. Cameron and Clegg trying to steal Joanna Lumley's moment of triumph was a bit mean, but that's politics I guess.

[James Hopkins]

Delighted by this. The Prime Minister and the government's policy on this is shameful, completely unjustifiable, and just plain wrong. It is quite obvious what should be done on this issue, what is the right thing to do on this issue, and the government for some bizarre reason are refusing to do it.

Congratulations to Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems for bringing this motion to a vote, and to David Cameron and the Tories, and Labour rebels, for supporting it.

Shame on Gordon Brown. I hope he listens to Parliament.

[David Belchamber]

That is excellent. As Nick Clegg said: "If the Gurkhas can die for Britain, they should be allowed to live in Britain".

Joanna Lumley has done a marvellous job and it was good to see David Cameron and Nick Clegg joining forces to support her hard work; equally it was good to see Brown beaten yet again. He is not having a good time at the moment.

[Ricardos Ghost]

28 Labour MPs voted against the government according to the Lib Dems.

[pp]

PMQs was well played - I originally thought it was a bit much having quite so many questions on the ghurkas (and nothing on the top number 10 petition) but it was a real build up to a great victory.

[Kris]

Hooray for the Labour rebels then. Without them this would not have been possible.

[Will B]

It's of course fantastic news that the government has been beaten back on this issue because their attempt at dodging it has been more than embarrassing, it's been disrespectful and arrogant.

To say on one hand that they want to give justice to the Ghurkas and then to hand them a shoddy proposal is dishonest.

I will however point to the fact that there are issues with opening the government to legal challenges from other interested parties and concerns over money in Nepal.

Perhaps a better settlement would be exactly what the member for Witney proposed at PMQs today to add to the immigration bill details to allow all those who have served this country to live in it.

[ToryBlog.com]

"The wheels really are starting to come off Gordon Brown's cart"

Indeed, although Brown doesn't 'recognise' that description, with govt stats showing it that is a Ferrari not a cart and far from the wheels coming off, it is in race condition.

With LabourHome even calling for him to go, imagine the pressure post the euros and local elections...

[Will B]

It'd be better for the country if the whole government fell and they went to the country.

P.S. Gurkhas*

[RichardJ]

"And I hope we don't hear anyone moaning about our taxes paying for NHS care and social security payments for these brave Gurkhas."

Agreed, we should instead take the money that is used to pay for those in this country illegally.

[The Huntsman]

Will Mr. Cameron pledge today that Joanna Lumley will be one of the first to receive a significant honour (eg D.B.E) for 'services to Gurkha Welfare' immediately upon his entry into No. 10?

I imagine that it is unlikely that she will get anything from the Sociopath who currently lives there....

She also deserves it for giving very considerable pleasure to a lot of people for having delivered a smart smack on the snout of the dishonourable rabble that is pleased to call itself a 'government'.

My late father served alongside Gurkha troops in India in the lead up to independence. He was a devoted admirer and taught me the value of their service to our country. That long service is something of which the British people are well aware which explains why they are so evidently supportive of their cause.

Of such things Labour is utterly ignorant which is why they have so sorely misjudged the mood of the nation in this matter. Their decisive defeat is thus richly deserved and deeply pleasurable.

[snegchui]

"Shame on Gordon Brown. I hope he listens to Parliament. "
Well, he hasn't got a get track record on that. So while pleased with today's voting result, I await the trickery he will doubtless employ to circumvent the intended outcome.

[Gary]

Very good news.

[stephen s]

Great news - well done Joanna and the Labour rebels!

[libertarian2]

I wonder what Brown threw in anger when heard, and at whom?

[Iain]

Is it good news? On the World at One I heard that there are 45,000 pensions being paid, if that is correct and 5 dependents gain enter per pension, we are talking of 225,000 people. For an already over crowded country with an unsustainable population, allowing that many people entry to the country doesn't seem very clever.

[snegchui]

I don't know if Brown will throw anything at anybody today. He was very subdued, obviously distracted as the little brouhaha over walking away early showed.
Has someone given him some bad news that has actually sunk in?

[Raj]

Joanna Lumley is already OBE, so it might be a bit much to "promote" her purely on this. However, I'm sure she has done other things in recent years that put together might warrant being made CBE or even DBE.

[James Maskell]

Fantastic news. Its sad that it had to come to this as the Government shouldnt have made this the issue it has become. If Labour needs a bloody nose in the Commons to realise how wrong they are on this issue then so be it. Its nothing less than a scandal that the Government holds out like it does.

[Will B]

Iain,

I'd argue that it isn't all about numbers. Mostly I'd argue that with matters of immigration it's more to do with content of character.

To limit those who have served the country, and by that, are of sound character from entering the country, yet allowing Islamists with a view to causing political strife, therefore being far from sound character, to come in is an unsound state of affairs whatever why you slice it.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you Iain.However I do think exception should be made for those who enter our armed services. We owe them a big debt and that is the price that must be paid.

[David Lindsay]

Anyone who still doubts the sheer pointlessness of the Tories need look no further than the fact that they have allowed the Lib Dems to make the running on the Gurkha issue.

The Tories caused the problem in the first place, but they do seem to be on side now.

So the Gurkhas should be settled in the ten safest Tory wards in the country, and the consequences observed in a reality television series narrated by Joanna Lumley.

[Carl Menson]

This won't win us a single vote.

I have been canvassing on the doorsteps and not heard one single person mention the Gurkhas. Crime, immigration, Europe: yes. Gurkhas: no.

[AJJM]

Iain, these people risk death for our country. The least we can do is allow them to live in it!

[AJJM]

Carl - I sincerely hope that our MPs do what is right. Not what wins votes!

[Iain]

"I'd argue that it isn't all about numbers. Mostly I'd argue that with matters of immigration it's more to do with content of character. "

But it is about numbers when we are a bankrupt country, with little to sell the world and an unsustainable population that we can't feed, to be adding 100's of thousands of people is nothing short of madness.

"To limit those who have served the country, and by that, are of sound character from entering the country,"

I would agree with you, but that wasn't the contract struck with them when they signed on, and yes they have a better claim to be here than most of the millions the incompetent British establishment have let in, but the incompetence of the British establishment isn't an argument to let even more people in!

[Norm Brainer]

Is it good news? On the World at One I heard that there are 45,000 pensions being paid, if that is correct and 5 dependents gain enter per pension, we are talking of 225,000 people

What if 25 dependants per person come in?... then it would be over a million.

They worked for us abroad, so why won't they work here anyway - we're only crowded with the dependant dependants, of which there are plenty that have done nothing for our country (that includes non-immigrants!)

Of course this is good news, and because it's the right result not just because it's giving brown medicine that's long overdue.

[Claretta]

Carl Menson, what a dispiring comment. Do we only care about what wins votes, not what is right? If that is our philosophy, then we are as bad as Labour.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Gordon Brown was defeated despite posting his own enforcer, Ian Austin on the lobby to try and strong-arm Labour rebels into betraying the Gurkhas.

Brown's bullying thankfully did no good, with several Labour MPs laughing in Austin's face.

Gordon Brown is a deeply unpleasant and flawed man. I hope others are looking forward to harnessing their hatred of this piece of pond life into their campaigning as much as I am.

[Will B]

'But it is about numbers when we are a bankrupt country, with little to sell the world and an unsustainable population that we can't feed, to be adding 100's of thousands of people is nothing short of madness.'

It's not -all- about numbers, it'd be a sad day when we use numbers to make excuse to stand by and let our convictions crumble.

We are neither bankrupt nor do we have nothing to offer the world. We are in the middle of a deep deep recession, yes. But we -will- come out of this, we have the courage, conviction and will power to do so and I think we'd actually have a little bit more courage and conviction with Gurkhas here producing with us rather than being in Nepal under Maoists.

'I would agree with you, but that wasn't the contract struck with them when they signed on, and yes they have a better claim to be here than most of the millions the incompetent British establishment have let in, but the incompetence of the British establishment isn't an argument to let even more people in!'

I agree, but it's clear that the people who the government and the legislature are here to serve have come to the conclusion that the contract is unfair when taking into consideration the full scope of the world.

And no, incompetence doesn't serve as a good excuse for a policy, but a will to right wrongs and provide just a semblance of fairness to this country does.

[Tanfield]

These guys deserve to be allowed into our country with their families. A far greater number of people who have come in recent years do not !

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Will B, if the numbers are a problem, let's chuck out half the scumbags already here who want to destroy the country.

Labour's immigration failure is not an excuse to keep out brave people who deserve to live among us.

[Will B]

Cleethorpes, how eloquently put!

We can't indeed allow people to remain in the country if they are seeking to actively harm it.

Just in the same way that we can't allow the government to remain excluding from the country those who have actively sought to defend it.

[Vote to Legalise]

Why were the government so opposed to letting the people live here in the first place? They have probably contributed more to the UK 90% of the local population have, why the effort to deny them the right to live here from the government in the first place?

[Iain]

Will the right to settle here also be extended to the families of Ghurkha soldiers who have died? Died in combat? died of old age? One generation back? Two? Three?

[Will B]

Iain, no one has called for that, and I don't believe anyone would. No one on the 'homeland' side of the contract is suggesting the above and no one on the 'Nepalise' side of the contract is suggesting that.

But what both sides of the contract are calling for is some respect for those alive who've fought for us. It's the government who stood in the way of that.

[Glosmale]

Well As Laurel said to Hardy, thats another fine mess youu ve got me into
This must some up what Darling is telling Brown
Never have we had such a joke of an un elected PM, a man with no backbone, a national , worldwide joke

If anyone does find Browns backbone could they please return it to No ten,
But they must return it by May 2010 as this person will be walking the streets of Glasgow

[Iain]

"But what both sides of the contract are calling for is some respect for those alive who've fought for us."

But those who have died have also fought for us, should we be denying their families the right to settle here?

[Will B]

That's not the issue Iain. Commonwealth citizens have a right of abode after 4 years of military service, and so it should be the same with the Gurkhas. I've not debating over exact details, the principle is the issue. But if that's something you'd support then you're more than welcome to campaign for it.

[Martin Wright]

Cleethorpes Rock @ 17.45 "Gordon Brown was defeated despite posting his own enforcer, Ian Austin on the lobby to try and strong-arm Labour rebels into betraying the Gurkhas."

No one is "betraying" the Gurkhas. The pre-1997 soldiers were never promised right of settlement here. The issue is whether we should retrospectively grant them a right that they never previously had. How generous should we be?

In my view we should try to help as much as possible. Clearly cases where age,service-related injury or illness are involved should get priority.The 20 year length of service originally demanded was excessive. But there inevitably have to be some limits. I'm sure you are aware of the effects of chain migration from the Indian sub-continent. Also once we make an exception for the Gurkhas, what is to stop new groups making claims using Judicial Review and the HRA? E.g. any one abroad who has ever served in our armed forces. And then what about non-Britons who served in the Merchant Navy?

Let's have some rules that get a balance between recognising loyal service, giving priority to needy cases, yet don't degenerate into a free-for all.

And one point from previous immigration policy is perhaps to set an annual quota with the most needy cases getting first place in the queue

[R Anon]

Surely your heading should be "Lib Dems and Tories ....." Give the Lib Dems credit and no more of that childish Nutty Nick stuff. We have a party of real substance...more to come !

[Christopher M]

We have already upheld our end of the Gurka contract by paying them extremely well (in local terms) with full pension etc

We never promised them the right to live in the country. Why should they all of a sudden be given this gift?

With all the countless dependents it will only add to the numbers in the country.

[Leon Bancroft]

Question: With the Government defeated on this vote, IF Brown loses the vote on MP's expenses tomorrow (likely), COULD a vote of no confidence follow for Brown?

Do the Maths: Two defeats in quick succession would be unprecedented and underline Brown's crumbling authority. It's a real possibility - Brown out in a week!?

[Vote to Legalise]

"This won't win us a single vote.

I have been canvassing on the doorsteps and not heard one single person mention the Gurkhas. Crime, immigration, Europe: yes. Gurkhas: no."

That's the problem with politicians and smarmy little politicos, they only care about what's in it for them. Right and wrong don't come into it, it's all about where the votes are.

[johnfromcamberley]

If the BBC is to be believed, one Labour MP actually voted both for and against the motion. Talk about abstaining emphatically!

[P Sixsmith]

It just shows us all how arrogant and out of touch this government and Gordon Brown has become.

I think we should all write letters to the national and local press urging people to do this simple thing come election time -

“Vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Labour!”

[Ashton]

Note this analysis story from the BBC conveniently cuts out all Tories from the Victory photo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8025658.stm

[Super Blue]

The three most worthy potential immigrant groups over the past thirty years have been:
1) Ugandan Asians expelled by Amin. Bashir Khanbhai was from one of these families.
2) Zimbabweans persecuted by Mugabe.
3) Gurkhas, especially since their historic base in Hong Kong was taken away by the Chinese.

[Joyce Hiveld]

Ayo Gurkhali!

[Anthony Scholefield]

I am glad to see that there is now some questioning of the wealthy liberal idea of settling Ghurkhas in the poorer areas of the UK adding to competition for jobs and requiring enormous sums in provision of extra roads schools hospitals etc.After all they are not going to buying farmhouses next to David Cameron-they are going to make life harder for poorer English people.
Gurkhas are brave soldiers but are unlikely to contribute even average wages settled in the UK.There is no guarantee that their descenmdants will integrate as their culture is completely different(I once taught Gurkas).Remeber what happened to the loyal harkis settled in southern France-they did not integrate.

Of course ,if you sling out the same number of islamists then I am on.

[Tristan Price-Williams]

This is a wonderful result. Of course it's good to slap Brown down, but surely the main reason for celebration is that these guys, who were prepared to fight and die for the UK should be allowed the right to live in the country they fought for, and this is a big step along the way.

To have any other situation is despicable. So, well done to David Cameron and Nick Clegg and to Angus Robertson and other party leaders who did the right thing and to Joanna Lumley for her hard work too.

Shame on these people who voted with this heartless government.

[Ross Warren]

Zimbabweans persecuted by Mugabe?

I take it we are talking about Rhodesians.
I agree some (a small number) have an absolute right to reside in the UK. The same is true of the Gurka's and not just their officers. How very divisive and wrong to play class politics with such a deserving group of men. Thank goodness that outrage can still have an influence on Governments.
This has been a useful win for Conservative politicians and bloggers who spoke with almost a unanimous voice. Of course on the scale of importance the virus is possible more of a problem, but other than being as vigilant as possible there really isn't an awful lot that we can do to avoid what is coming. What will be will be.

[YMT]

Good! about bloody time.. even the Romans gave citizenship to soldiers. Why this was so difficult I can't understand.

[Yet Another Anon]

Good news in these days that Defence is neglected and armed forces personnel are neglected and defence undervalued and underfunded.

The Gurkhas have a long and distinguished service for Britain since 1815.

It's just a shame that the main parliamentary parties seem to be limbering up to do a bit of a further hatchet job on Defence, which already has half the budget it should do, but on this issue good for Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Keith Vaz, Diane Abbott - and all the others who voted against the government on this one.

There has been much talk of what to put on plinths in Trafalgar Square, they could do far worse than put up a statue of a Gurkha and other military statues as well, not as a substitute for properly funding the Armed Forces equipment and pay, and the Nuclear Deterrent, but as an addition.

[Yet Another Anon]

even the Romans gave citizenship to soldiers
The Romans were very good to their soldiers, they expected a lot and they rewarded them in return.

Most of the Roman Army wasn't even Italian, most people of Rome never left the city, Roman soldiers were well fed, equal opportunities based on results in the main.

[resident leftie]

Under Labour, all Gurkhas then employed were granted right of abode. Before that (under the Tories, if you remember) they didn't. Now the Tories have the bare-faced hypocrisy to vote for 100,000+ immigrants to be allowed into the country, after all their posturing on immigration. Many, many immigrants have served this country well including doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers and cleaners. But oh, no, unless they are in the army, which always makes Tories lips tremble and come over all patriotic, they shouldn't be here.

I'm all in favour of immigration, and I'm happy they will be allowed here, but this is nothing more than political expediency and opportunism by the Tories.

[Freddy]

@Yet Another Anon

In France, if a foreigner serves in the French Foreign Legion he can claim CITIZENSHIP after only 3 years. When the French need troops for combat, the Legion is used first of all. If any foreigner serving in the legion is wounded in battle he can claim citizenship - the so called law of spilt blood!

In my estimation the Gurkhas are excellent soldiers - the decorations awarded over the years are testimony to that - they are particularly adept at jungle warfare.In the British Army we have a Gurkha brigade which includes a Gurkha engineer, and a Gurkha logistics unit. If I was defence minister, I'd double the numbers! India has about 4 times as many Gurkha troops as we do!

I think that the government position on this matter is totally unjustifiable. Once again Gordon has messed things up. At PMQs his performance was dismal - he rambled and he was "wooden and perfunctory." On the Daily Politics they were amazed at the amount of correspondence that they had had from the public on this matter. As some of the newspapers have been running campaigns, I think that it is safe to say that it is a popular issue. Cameron's stance on this matter was, therefore, correct. Although I dislike most Lib Dem policies, the reality of the situation is that the Conservatives need good working relations with them. Presumably, when MPs' expenses are being discussed our MPs will be voting with theirs again.

What is Cameron up to? I don't know - but I do know that he has been very crafty so far!

[snegchui]

Never mind past services, let us look going forward:

Feb 15 2009

An Apache helicopter-gunship had just been blazing away at Taliban fighters up ahead when the Afghan farmer ambled up to the Gurkha soldier in the field for a chat. He was concerned, he said, that his community was missing out on the wheat allocation which others had been getting further north.

In the midst of the mayhem the young Gurkha talked patiently to the white-bearded Afghan in a mixture of Pashtu and Urdu. The wheat situation certainly seemed unfair, he nodded, and he would pass on the complaint to the appropriate people.

The scene south of Garmsir, in Helmand, may seem somewhat surreal. But it is not unusual for the Gurkhas in Afghanistan to combine warfighting with community relations. For British forces it is a valuable way of keeping contact with the population in a conflict which will ultimately be decided on who wins the battle for hearts and minds.

[A Hutchinson]

One more nail in Labour's coffin! It's just a matter of time before a vote of no confidence brings this Government down. Sooner, rather than later, if you ask me!

[Dorothy Wilson]

"we are talking of 225,000 people. For an already over crowded country with an unsustainable population, allowing that many people entry to the country doesn't seem very clever. "

Well, perhaps we can put an embargo on all other immigration except for those people who are highly skilled and have a job to come to. After all, doesn't this figure equate to just one year's immigration in recent years?

Indeed, perhaps we could make it a condition of being granted the right to live in this country permanently that the applicant should serve in our armed forces for a given period of time.

Just a thought.

[Freddy]

@A Hutchinson

You may well be right.

[graham new]

Soon to the disspatch box for real Cant come quick enough for me out brown now Befor any more humileating results,Are you ready david?