Errors discovered after a division

20.80If a mistake is discovered after the result of a division has been declared, it will be ordered to be corrected in the Journal.1 Where an error in the numbers has been discovered before the end of a sitting, the tellers being agreed on the correct figures have come to the Table and stated the corrected numbers and the Speaker has reported the numbers accordingly.2 Where, on the question for a closure on second reading of a new clause, the numbers voting in favour were incorrectly recorded as 99 and it became clear shortly afterwards that 100 Members had, in fact, voted ‘aye’, the Deputy Speaker directed that the numbers be corrected in the Journal and put the question on second reading forthwith.3 When an error in the numbers reported by the tellers in a Committee of the whole House has been discovered before the Chair has left the Chair, the Chair has ordered the numbers to be corrected accordingly.4 An error in the report of the numbers taken at a division is brought before the House by both the tellers of the lobby in which the error arose; though a statement made by one of the tellers has been accepted,5 as has the statement of the Member whose vote was wrongly recorded.6

Footnotes

  1. 1. CJ (1847) 131; ibid (1953–54) 143; ibid (1956–57) 81, 231; ibid (1962–63) 85; proceedings declared null and void as a result of error by tellers, ibid (1938–39) 95, 96; ibid (1962–63) 196; ibid (1974) 256; HC Deb (1997–98) 300, c 115; ibid (2001–02) 383, c 548; ibid (9 December 2010) 520, c 521; error declared by the Father of the House presiding pursuant to SO No 1, ibid (1999–2000) 355, c 96; HC Deb (30 November 2012) 554, c 491; ibid (10 November 2015) 602, c 247. Corrections to deferred divisions (see para 20.95 ) have been handled in the same way, see ibid (13 February 2013) 558, c 976.
  2. 2. CJ (1847–48) 102; ibid (1971–72) 444; ibid (1994–95) 48; HC Deb (1997–98) 307, c 962.
  3. 3. HC Deb (2000–01) 360, cc 1312, 1321–22; CJ (2000–01) 57.
  4. 4. CJ (1867–68) 16; ibid (1873) 223; ibid (1936–37) 243.
  5. 5. CJ (1946–47) 101; when after the tellers in both lobbies had been in error a statement from one teller for the ayes and one teller for the noes was accepted, ibid (1962–63) 196; ibid (1996–97) 48; HC Deb (1996–97) 285, c 513; ibid (9 December 2010) 520, c 521.
  6. 6. CJ (1974) 256.