When the first vote took place on 16 January on an amendment to the Assisted Dying Bill, the result was announced as 107 for the amendment and 180 against. However, this was later corrected when it was found that one peer had voted in both lobbies. In the Lords, if a peer votes in both lobbies, his or her name is removed from the division list. The result was thus changed to 106 for the amendment and 179 against.
The practice of deleting the name of the person is very different to that in the House of Commons. If an MP votes in both lobbies, their name is recorded and remains in the division list. This is utilised on occasion by MPs who wish to register publicly an abstention.
It may be that the peer who voted in both lobbies voted in one by mistake and tried to correct it by voting in another. Then again, it may be a former MP thinking that the practice of the Lords was the same as the Commons. In the event, their name remains unknown. If it was an attempt to correct an error, the peer may be relieved. If it was an attempt to register publicly an abstention, they will doubtless be very disappointed.
Is this a rare occurrence? I knew of the SO but hadn’t seen an example before (as far as I can remember). I see Hansard recorded the ‘incorrect’ figures and then added in square brackets to see col. such and such for explanation of mistake in voting figures before listing the amended names. A search of Hansard on parliament.uk shows such a note on only four occasions and in each other case it would appear to be a counting error as only one number changes. (To be accurate, on 26 Feb 2014 the correction is stated to be Contents 210; Not Contents 251 (Column 981) as opposed to Contents 201; Not-Contents 252 (Column 949) but a count-up of the Contents shows the correction to be incorrect as that shows 201 against 251 Not Contents).
James Hand: It is indeed rare for someone to vote in both lobbies as opposed to a counting error being made. One occasionally gets an error resulting from the number of peers counted by the tellers not being the same as the number recorded by the clerks.
LN, Why isn’t the name discoverable? Surely a vote – in error or not – is a matter of house record?
Surely the civilised human condition is that we live cooperatively and egalitarianly ?
Anyone “needing” to conceal their consumption, especially destructive, wasteful, or otherwise un-sustainworthy demands and “rights”, are “criminal”
and that that is not just the “view” of “John Sydney Denton Miles the only one ‘complaining'” ?
Surely those who represent and govern me, whosoever wheresoever, should have all of their demands, incomes, expenditures, lifestyling and and ‘allegiance’ commitments and situations, made publicly documentarily known, and copied to me as one of the set being represented ?