Comparison of Divisions: Government Spending (Website) Bill — Quorum not attained — 29 Jun 2007 at 14:23 with Division No. 104 on 29 Apr 2009 at 15:49

The Government Spending (Website) Bill would have required the Treasury to create a freely accessible and publicly searchable website containing details of the expenditures by Government departments and executive agencies.^[1]

This Bill is modeled on a law that was passed in the United States in 2006.^[2][3] It was first debated by the Lords before it was transmitted to the Commons without a vote.^[4]

This vote among MPs did not reach the quorum of 40, and since the Usual Channels chose not to reschedule a debate, no further action was taken.

Earlier in the day there was a motion to sit in private in which 40 MPs did vote,^[5] and one Bill that was passed unopposed (without a vote),^[6] while another was also lost due to lack of quorum.^[7]

The lack of progress for this legislation was therefore determined by a combination of scheduling (which is off the record), the decision of whether or not to hold a vote (not apparent from the record), and the widespread lack of attendance by the MPs in the chamber even though there were probably enough of them available on the day.

It is notable that six weeks earlier on a similar Friday afternoon, over a hundred MPs made themselves available to vote through the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill^[8] to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act, following persistent inquiries for details of their expense claims.

• [1] Government Spending (Website) Bill, House of Commons, 2006-07
• [2] David Gauke MP, House of Commons, 29 June 2007
• [3] Federal Funding Accoundability and Transparency Act 2006.
• [4] Baroness Noakes, House of Lords, 26 January 2007.
• [5] Division 167, House of Commons, 29 June 2007.
• [6] Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, House of Commons, 29 June 2007
• [7] Division 169, House of Commons, 29 June 2007
• [8] Division 119, House of Commons, 18 May 2007

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