HC Deb 29 March 1920 vol 127 cc887-8
86. Mr. PALMER

asked the Minister of Health whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that, at a recent bye-election in the Wrekin Division of Salop, a considerable number of votes were disallowed, not on account of an irregularity on the part of the voters, but because the presiding officers had failed to impress the ballot papers with the official stamp; and whether, having regard to the risk of disfranchising electors owing to the carelessness or otherwise of polling officials, he will call the special attention of returning officers to the importance of seeing that the requirements of the Law are strictly carried out?

Dr. ADDISON

I am informed by the Acting Returning Officer that at the recent bye-election for the Wrekin Division of the County of Salop, ten ballot papers were rejected on account of the omission of the official mark. I am convinced that every care is taken to ensure that the official mark is stamped on the ballot papers issued to the electors. The duty is, I am satisfied, well known to returning officers, so that I see no reason at present for adopting the course suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he notices that this question is addressed to the Ministry of Health, and whether it is not time for that Ministry to be relieved of the extraordinary duty of impressing stamps upon voting papers?

Dr. ADDISON

We are doing our best to arrange for the Order in Council so that this duty may be properly allocated at an early date.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY

To whom?

Mr. DEVLIN

What remedy have the voters or candidates if these mistakes are made by officials? I know of one case where the votes were destroyed because they were not stamped?

Mr. PALMER

If the majority of the hon. Member for the Wrekin, instead of being what it was, namely, had been 9, what would have been the position if 10 votes had been destroyed in that way?

Mr. SPEAKER

That is a hypothetical question.