IT was embarrassment piled upon embarrassment for two UK Government ministers, who, in arguably the most crucial vote this parliament, failed to turn up to support their leader.
Having voted against the Labour amendment on Syria at 10pm on Thursday, Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, and Mark Simmonds, the Foreign Office Minister, went off to a small meeting room near the Commons chamber, which ministers often use between votes. They were, it is understood, discussing the situation in Rwanda.
The key vote on the Coalition motion was expected to begin at 10.15pm. The division bells duly rang out to alert MPs but Ms Greening and Mr Simmonds apparently did not hear them.
A Commons spokesman said: "Both divisions proceeded as normal last night with division bells and the usual audio/visual indications on the hundreds of monitors around the estate."
The division bells, which normally ring out loudly, were tested yesterday morning and were working correctly, he said.
"There would have been a lot of activity there around those (meeting) rooms. It would have been clear that there had been a division on," he added.
David Cameron said his missing colleagues had apologised for their non-appearance. "I have accepted that apology. It wouldn't have changed the result," he said.
But it emerged that, in total, some 10 ministers and government aides were not present for the all-important vote, which the UK Government lost by 13 votes. Some, who were on family holidays, had permission to be absent.
The only Scottish rebel was Michael Crockart, the LibDem MP for Edinburgh West, who voted for neither the Government motion nor the Labour amendment, saying: "The risks of hasty military intervention are greater than those of stepping back from an attack."
If all the missing ministers had all turned up, Mr Cameron would only have had to persuade four more absent MPs, who included Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat President, to win the vote
Some 39 Coalition MPs, 30 Tories and nine LibDems, voted against the motion supporting the principle of military action.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article