HC Deb 28 July 1975 vol 896 cc1296-9
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)

I wish to refer to the adjourned debate on the Solicitor-General's motion which took place in the early hours of last Monday's sitting. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this motion would in the normal way have been accepted without discussion, but in the event a vote was called and a number of my hon. Friends were involved in voting in both Lobbies. I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members of the House for this incident.

Mr. Peyton

There are two points that I wish to make. First, I think the underlying issue of whether or not the House should deny the courts the enjoyment of Hansard needs looking at again. It is a very stupid rule. However, I hope that the Patronage Secretary will agree that votes and rules about votes, whether they are concerned with majorities or quorums, are very important matters that should not be tampered with or treated in any way lightly.

Mr. Mellish

On the question of the Solicitor-General's motion and Hansard, that is not a matter for me at this moment. It is a fact that Members have voted in two different Lobbies before now. However, I do not want to go back too far in the past. I can only say, speaking for myself, that I spend all my time trying to get as many Members as I can into one Lobby. I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of those who vote in two.

Mr. George Cunningham

As the most important aspect of this matter is how the rules concerned apply if the number of people voting in both Lobbies produces a number over 40, could you give a ruling now or at some time, Mr. Speaker, as to the proper interpretation of Standing Order No. 29(2), which clearly says: If at any time it shall appear…that forty Members are not present"? It would seem from that provision that one should not count two votes as two but only as one if they are cast by the same Member. Are you in a position to say, Mr. Speaker, what the position would be if the number of Members who voted, however composed, fell short of the number required for a quorum? If you knew, Mr. Speaker, that that was the case at the time of the Division, is it not the case that you would rule that a quorum was not present? If that knowledge came to you on the day after the vote had taken place, Mr. Speaker, would you declare ex post facto that the quorum had not been present, and declare the decision invalid?

Mr. Speaker

I shall rule upon that matter, but I will first take one more supplementary question.

Mr. Wiggin

This is a matter that was raised almost a year ago when some Members of the Liberal Party voted in both Lobbies on a Friday afternoon.

Mr. Mellish

That was because they did not know.

Mr. Wiggin

I raised the point on that occasion with the Deputy Chairman who was in the Chair, but I received no ruling. I think it would be appropriate if we could have a definitive ruling from you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I shall rule straight away. It is clear from Standing Order No. 29(2) that on a Division there must be 40 Members present for the decision to count. Included in those 40 Members are the occupant of the Chair and the four Tellers. If 20 Members each vote in both Lobbies, that does not constitute a quorum. If the matter were reported to the Chair, the Chair might order another Division and would rule, but if that moment is allowed to pass, and if the matter is raised on a subsequent occasion, that must be a matter for the House. It seems that this is the kind of thing that always crops up in July. Last July we had a somewhat similar occurrence, which was resolved by the decision of the House. I hope we can leave the matter there.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House or any Member has reason to believe that on an occasion when the question of the quorum is involved there has been voting in more than one Lobby by certain hon. Members, does it lie within the power of the occupant of the Chair to call immediately for the two Division Lists so that either you, Mr. Speaker, or one of your deputies can examine the lists, or is it necessary to wait until the lists appear in the printed record? This is an important matter, because for the Chair to call for the lists could provide a very much quicker way of resolving the matter rather than waiting for perhaps more than one day, if there is a printing backlog, before the record becomes available.

Mr. Speaker

If there was a difference of opinion about what had happened and if the matter were raised at once, perhaps it would be for me to ask for the Division Lists to be brought to me so that I could examine them and carry out my own count, but the point must be raised at once. The Chair will listen to any representations that are made at once. If there is a difference of opinion, the normal rule is that the Chair asks whether the Tellers agree. If there is a disagreement among the Tellers the Chair orders another Division to take place. That is what normally happens provided that the matter is raised at once.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that there is a difference between dealing with such a question by sending for the lists and ruling, which could result in the adjournment of the House and having a further Division which could give the opportunity for one of the parties to obtain the presence of Members who were not present during the previous Division. That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the matter could be disposed of by the Chair sending for the lists. I believe that this is a point of substance, because the results of the two Divisions would not necessarily be the same.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Gentleman is on an important point, and I shall rule on it when it happens.

Mr. Ridley

Is it not a dubious practice that hon. Members can vote in both Lobbies? Would it not clear up this matter if it were referred to the Procedure Committee, so that that Committee might determine whether we need to vote in both Lobbies on any occasion? Matters are made difficult from the point of view of recording an opinion, if hon. Members can vote in both Lobbies. Of course, they are not allowed to do so in order to try to secure a quorum. The practice of voting in both Lobbies makes matters difficult for the Chair, and it should be possible for hon. Members to make up their minds as to which Lobby they want to go into before going into one or the other.

Mr. Speaker

I hope the House will not pursue this matter for too long. This is a day to which the guillotine applies, and I want to get on with the Bill as quickly as I can. In my experience I have only known hon. Members to vote in both Lobbies when they wanted to correct a mistake. That has happened within my knowledge only rarely. I would deprecate very much it happening in any other circumstances.