HC Deb 19 April 1926 vol 194 cc857-61
Mr. THURTLE

I desire to raise the question of the exclusion of my name and that of several of my colleagues from Division List No. 145 on 14th April. On that occasion I passed through the No Division Lobby, and saw my name duly checked by the Division Clerks, as also did my colleagues, and we afterwards dis- covered that our names were not included in the Division List. The question I wish to put to you is why were our names excluded from that list, and by what manner of means were they excluded?

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member mean that he passed out of the Lobby, and was not counted by the Tellers at the door of the Lobby?

Mr. THURTLE

No, I was not counted at the door of the Lobby.

Mr. SPEAKER

That was owing to my instruction. The persons who vote are those who pass out of the Lobby, and are counted by the Tellers appointed by the House. The list made by the Clerks is only an incidental matter. It has no authority so far as the House goes.

Mr. THURTLE

May I address you, Sir, on this point, as to whether it was under your instructions that the Tellers took the names of those people who did not pass out of the Lobby, because I understand, according to the Report, that you simply instructed the Serjeant-at-Arms to ask the Tellers in the No Lobby to report to the Table, and you did not instruct them to take the names of those who had not passed through the Lobby. May I ask you, therefore, on whose instruction it was that the Tellers took this information?

Mr. SPEAKER

It was on my instructions, certainly. When I was informed that certain persons who had passed the clerks had not actually voted, I conceived it my duty to instruct the clerks, when they knew the persons, and knew that those persons had not actually voted, that their names were not to appear in the records.

Mr. THURTLE

May I submit this further point? It being within the knowledge of the Tellers that there was a certain number of Members in the No Lobby who had their names ticked on the Division List, may I submit that Erskine May supports the contention that those names should be included in the Division List. On page page 359 he says: Members occasionally remain in the Division Lobby uncounted by the Tellers, and their votes are by mutual agreement included in the Tellers' statement to the, Clerk at the Table. Assuming that there was not mutual agreement, he goes on to say that, if the Tellers are not made aware that the Member has remained uncounted, the Member may take certain steps. That clearly implies that if the Tellers are made aware that Members have remained uncounted, they should include their names in the Division List.

Mr. SPEAKER

If there has been an accidental omission by the Clerk, it has always been a matter of courtesy, supposing the two appointed Tellers agreed, that the list should then be corrected.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD

In order to elucidate the point, as I understand it, the act of voting takes place when the Member actually passes in front of the Tellers out of the Lobby, and not when the Member passes the desk by the clerks. Might I ask you, then, how a Member who has committed no crime except that of not voting can be suspended?

Mr. SPEAKER

I cannot go back on that question, which was dealt with by the House last week.

Mr. MACKINDER

Are we to understand that a precedent is now established, which may be quoted in some future Parliament, that a Member who refuses to pass the Tellers and through the door may be suspended for refusing to come out of the Division Lobby?

Mr. SPEAKER

Again I must not go back on the decision of the House last week. I cannot reopen that question.

Mr. MacDONALD

With great respect., and with no intention of doing anything against your decision, may I ask for your advice, Sir, on this matter? As the incident of last week may rightly or wrongly be quoted as a precedent, could you help us in some way or other to make it clear that that must not be taken as a precedent.

Mr. SPEAKER

All I can say is that I have made a suggestion which I hope will be considered. It may avoid such an incident as occurred last week.

Mr. STEPHEN

May I ask your advice, Sir? Circumstances may be such that Members may be reported to the House when in Committee, as was the case last week. What protection has a Member got in a case like that of the matter being raised? Someone might have been included in the list of names by mistake last week, and might have been suspended. What protection is there for the Member when the Chairman of Ways and Means takes such action as happened last week?

Mr. SPEAKER

That seems to be a hypothetical case. I have heard no suggestion of that on the recent occasion.

Mr. STEPHEN

Is there any method by which the hon. Members who were suspended last week, or their colleagues in this House, can raise the question of their suspension?

Mr. SPEAKER

If there be any suggestion of a mistake, I will deal with it when it is put before me. I cannot say more than that.