ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)

HC Deb 26 February 1975 vol 887 cc503-42

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

rose—

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that Standing Order No. 13 bequeaths unto you two discretions. I wish to put—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I am to have points of order on how I should exercise my discretion, the whole proceeding will be counter-productive. I am well aware of the terms of the Standing Order. I have every intention of listening to two brief explanatory statements, one on each side, and considering them. If hon. Members attempt to tell me how to do that now, it will not help.

Mr. Christopher Price

I do not wish to waste the time of the House, but I should like to put one point for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the procedure of proposing a Select Committee in this way has not been used for many years. I realise that all hon. Members are aware of that. However, I should like you to take on board the possibility that frequent use of this procedure could drive a coach and horses through the time of this House, because any hon. Member could put down such a motion on any vexatious idea or principle. I should like you to bear that point in mind in exercising your discretion.

Mr. Speaker

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, but it is somewhat tiresome, because if I appear to give in to this kind of pressure regarding the exercise of my discretion it would seem that I am being told how to use it. The Standing Order leaves the matter to me. I am well aware of these factors. I intend to exercise discretion as best I can, but I must first hear the brief explanatory statements.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking for your discretion. I want to make it clear that if there is a vote against the motion, it is not a vote against the principle of a Select Committee but only against the selection that is currently set out in the motion.

Mr. Speaker

If we get to a vote, I will do my best, if there is any doubt, to indicate what it is about.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I beg to move, That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. The motion refers to the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the Abortion (Amendment) Bill so that it can proceed with its work without any delay.

As has been said, I move the motion in the terms of Standing Order No. 13, which, as far as I can establish, is a procedure rarely used in the Commons but I believe was designed for the kind of situation which has been created by the repeated objections of a small group of hon. Members to the membership of the Select Committee proposed by the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, which coincides with my choice.

Hon. Members will recall that on Friday 7th February the Abortion (Amendment) Bill presented by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) and sponsored by hon. Members of all parties, including myself, was given a Second Reading by a substantial majority—203 in favour and 88 against.

Thereafter, the House unanimously agreed, without a vote and without any dissenting voice, that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. These were clear decisions of the House, one by a massive majority and the other unanimous. Therefore, the will and the intention of the House were clearly established.

I understand that shortly afterwards there were discussions through the usual channels which led to the Government putting down the motion on the Order Paper proposing the names of a number of hon. Members to serve on the Select Committee. The membership proposed, in my view, and, I believe, in the view of the vast majority of the House, included respected and fair-minded Members. The proposed membership also reflected the opinion of the House on the merits of the Bill: some supporters, some opponents, and some who did not vote on 7th February. Four of the proposed Members were women, two of whom had voted against the Bill and the other two had not voted on 7th February.

However, as must have been obvious to everyone who has stayed late in the Commons in recent nights, the motion nominating the Members to serve on the Select Committee has been blocked by a small minority of hon. Members, all of whom, so far as I am aware—[An HON. MEMBER: "Women."]—are bitter opponents of the Bill, which, as I said, was approved in the House by a substantial majority. In my view, these blocking tactics are frustrating the will of the House that a Select Committee be established and allowed to get on with its work. It has been clear that there were these feelings. We must not allow such tactics to continue. The list of amendments to the membership of the Select Committee despite points which have been made to me about disagreements on its composition, are frivolous and demonstrate the real intentions of the objectors to delay and frustrate the setting up of the Committee.

I will give one example. The amendments propose that all the male Members on the Committee be removed, including the promoter of the Bill. I suggest that, while there might be disagreements about the right persons to serve on the Committee, it is frivolous on a Bill of this nature to suggest that not only the pro- moter of the Bill but all the male Members be taken off it.

Although it is distinctly unwise these days for any Conservative to minimise the contribution that ladies can make to the political progress of Britain, I cannot believe that the House would consider it appropriate that a Bill of this kind should be considered by a Select Committee consisting entirely of women Members and effectively packed with opponents of the Bill which the House approved by a substantial majority. It cannot be right that minorities within this House should be able to ignore the will of the House and impose their will on it. That is what is happening. We might as well propose that the Finance Bill Committee should consist only of chartered accountants and that the Coal Bill Committee should consist only of miners.

The working of the Abortion Act has caused grave disquiet in the nation. That was reflected by the attendance in the House of Commons on 7th February and the clear decision that was taken on that day. The House agreed that a Select Committee should be appointed. The only issue now remaining concerns who should serve on it. As a result of consultations, a list of hon. Members has been proposed. I believe that the vast majority of reasonable hon. Members will agree with the choice that has been made. If not, we must come to a decision so that the Committee, of whatever membership, can get on with its job.

The object of the motion is to enable the House to express a view on the membership of this proposed Select Committee so that it can get on with its work. I believe that is the intention of the vast majority of the House and that that intention is being frustrated.

3.58 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

I should like to inform the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that there is nothing less frivolous than abortion to the women Members of this House, to the women of this country, to the men who care for those women, and to their families. The use of the word "frivolous" nullifies any serious attention that the House should give to this preposterous motion.

I do not oppose the use of Standing Order No. 13. It is a very good Standing Order because it protects the rights of this House. I regret that we have fallen into a habit of thought which accepts that the usual channels shall appoint Members to Select Committees. In fact, according to the rules of the House, the whole House selects Members. That is the origin of the term "Select Committee".

In the course of my brief researches, I discovered that up to about 1817 it was not unusual for Members of Select Committees to be chosen by ballot. Had we done that on this occasion, we might have had a better result. But let us cherish the rights of the House to have some say in these appointments.

It is in some ways invidious for hon. Members to discuss the nominations to the Committee, but we must do so as a matter of duty. If it is said that the number of women—four out of 15—on the Committee represents the proportion of women Members, I must confess that my rather inadequate arithmetic suggests that we should have only 4½ per cent. of one woman on the Committee. I therefore submit that we cannot appoint the membership of Committees on the basis of that kind of arithmetic. It is not our fault that there are so few of us here to represent the women of this country, who are more than half the population.

Our request for more women on the Committee was represented by the hon. member for Cathcart and some of his hon. Friends as part of the pro-abortion lobby. We reject that entirely. We are exposing ourselves by asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] How cheap, how vulgar. By asking for more women Members on the Committee we might, God forbid, find ourselves joined by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). But they have a point of view which should be represented on the Committee.

I am not making this speech on the basis of a pro-or anti-abortion stand but on the basis that there should be more women Members representing a wide range of the opinions of women in this country. I know that there is a big division among women, but let us have women on the Committee to put these points of view.

When I first came to the House, the late Herbert Morrison said to me "You will do all right, girl, so long as you stick to women's questions." I was so angry about that that I made my maiden speech on foreign affairs. He said to me afterwards "I am sorry that you did not take my advice." I said "I did—I was trying to speak about peace." Throughout my 20 years in this House I have taken the view that there are very few questions which should be pigeonholed as "women's" questions. I do not believe that prices is a women's question or that the care of children is a woman's question. That suggests that fathers do not care about their children. Very few matters can be specifically defined in that way.

However, not one hon. Gentleman in this House has ever had an abortion or has had to contemplate having one. [Laughter.]

An Hon. Member

They have had children.

Mrs. Jeger

I want it on the record that I am shocked by the laughter that we have just heard, which obviously came from insensitive Members who do not realise the seriousness of this matter.

This is one of those unusual questions which should be discussed in a Committee consisting primarily of women Members. I do not say that they should all be Members who support one side of the argument or the other. We appreciate the heavy difficulties of those who have had to make this selection, but our point is that the motion should not be carried without a reassessment of this matter, which has caused so much concern throughout the country. It will be seen that this is a very special Select Committee.

Finally—I am not trying to be funny or frivolous, as the hon. Member for Cathcart was—if we were setting up a Select Committee on vasectomy it would be odd if it had a majority of women Members—[Interruption.] I doubt whether there would be one woman on the Committee. I hope that those who are concerned, as I know my right hon. Friends arc, to achieve a fair balance in this Committee will look at the matter again and give it the grave attention which its importance merits.

Mr. Speaker

I am grateful to the two hon. Members for their explanatory statements. Standing Order No. 13 says: Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from a Member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put either the question thereon or the question, 'That the debate be now adjourned'. My decision has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of this Bill. It is not for me to express any view upon that at all. My decision also has absolutely nothing to do with the composition of the Select Committee. Again, that has nothing to do with me. That is a matter for the House. I have to regard this as a procedural matter. I have to consider the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority.

I have come to the conclusion that, if I were to take the first alternative and put the Question on the motion at once, that would be wrong. That would be to take it upon myself to cause an immediate decision by the House. I think that the House should make this decision whether or not to decide at once itself, so I have decided to take the second choice. Therefore, I shall put the Question "That the debate he now adjourned" The debate is the debate on the composition of the Select Committee. It is on that and only that. That is the question which I think the House must decide. I must not decide it for the House by adopting the first alternative. I shall therefore put the question now "That the debate be now adjourned."

Hon. Members

Aye.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the debate is adjourned, what happens to the motion?

Mr. Speaker

If the debate is adjourned, the debate upon the motion is adjourned and can continue subsequently.

The Question is, That the debate be now adjourned. Those in favour say "Aye"; to the contrary "No".

Hon. Members

Aye.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

I think the Ayes have it, in which case the debate is now adjourned.

Hon. Members

No, No!

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the voices were collected.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government will, of course, provide some more time for this matter to be debated. I suggest that we should not debate it further today, because it will eat into a very busy programme. Certainly the Government will provide some more time to end the debate—

Mr. Teddy Taylor

When?

Mr. Short

I do not know when, but we shall certainly do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact—

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Mikardo, point of order.

Mr. Mikardo

Could I ask for your further guidance, Sir, because I am sure that we are not altogether clear? When there is the further debate to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will it be on the motion which we have just debated or on the Government's motion which is in identical terms?

Mr. Edward Short

rose—

Mr. Speaker

It will be on this one.

On the question of collecting the voices, I waited quite a long time. I put the Question twice and on one occasion it appeared that there were no Noes. However, this is a matter in which the Chair must be tolerant. If there is still some feeling among hon. Members that they want to vote on this question, then let them. This is a matter for me.

The Question is—

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Question has been put to the House once and that it was quite clearly the will of the House that this debate should be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I will hear the hon. Lady in a moment. Under the Standing Order I must put the Question again.

Question put, That the debate be now adjourned:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Speaker

Mrs. Short.

Mrs. Renée Short

(seated and covered): I was making the point, Mr. Speaker, that you had already put that Question

and that the House had decided that this debate should be adjourned. You are putting the Question for a third time.

Mr. Speaker

I believe that there was a certain amount of confusion. I think I took a right decision, but we shall see.

Mrs. Renée Short

(seated and covered): I must raise this point again, Mr. Speaker. You have already declared that—

The House having divided: Ayes 156, Noes 167.

Division No. 109.]	AYES	[4.08 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Gilbert, Dr John	Pavitt, Laurie
Archer, Peter	Gould, Bryan	Pendry, Tom
Ashton, Joe	Gourlay, Harry	Penhaligon, David
Atkinson, Norman	Graham, Ted	Perry, Ernest
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Phipps, Dr Colin
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Price C. (Lewisham W)
Bates, Alf	Hamling, William	Richardson, Miss Jo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Hardy, Peter	Roderick, Caerwyn
Bidwell, Sydney	Harper, Joseph	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hatton, Frank	Rooker, J. W.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Hayman Mrs Helene	Roper, John
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Bradley, Tom	Huckfield, Les	Sandelson, Neville
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)	Sedgemore, Brian
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Selby, Harry
Buchan, Norman	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Carmichael, Neil	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Carter, Ray	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Sillars, James
Cartwright, John	Kelley, Richard	Silverman, Julius
Clemitson, Ivor	Kerr, Russell	Sinclair, Sir George
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
Coleman, Donald	Kinnock, Neil	Small, William
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Lambie, David	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Conlan, Bernard	Lamborn, Harry	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Snape, Peter
Corbett, Robin	Litterick, Tom	Spriggs, Leslie
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Loyden, Eddie	Stallard, A. W.
Crawshaw, Richard	Luard, Evan	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
		Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Cryer, Bob	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Madden, Max	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Drayson, Burnaby	Marks, Kenneth	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Marquand, David	Tomlinson, John
Edge, Geoff	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Watkins, David
Evans John (Newton)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Watkinson, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Mikardo, Ian	Weetch, Ken
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Millan, Bruce	Weitzman, David
Farr, John	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Wellbeloved, James
Faulds, Andrew	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Welsh, Andrew
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Whitehead, Phillip
Flannery, Martin	Nelson, Anthony	Whitlock, William
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)	Newens, Stanley	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Noble, Mike	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Oakes, Gordon	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Freud Clement	Ogden, Eric	Woodall, Alec
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Orbach, Maurice
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Ovenden, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Garrets, W. E. (Wallsend)	Palmer, Arthur	Mr. John Ellis and
George, Bruce	Pardoe, John	Mr. David Stoddart.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bain, Mrs Margaret	Berry, Hon Anthony
Adley, Robert	Beith, A. J.	Biffen, John
Alison, Michael	Bell, Ronald	Biggs-Davison, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Body, Richard
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Nott, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Onslow, Cranley
Bradford, Rev Robert	Hampson Dr Keith	Osborn, John
Braine, Sir Bernard	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Page, John (Harrow West)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Holland, Philip	Park, George
Brotherton, Michael	Hordern, Peter	Parkinson, Cecil
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Parry, Robert
Buchanan, Richard	Hunter, Adam	Pattie, Geoffrey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Burden, F. A.	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Reid, George
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Campbell, Ian	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rifkind, Malcolm
Canavan, Dennis	Jopling, Michael	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carlisle, Mark	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Kimball, Marcus	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Kirk, Peter	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Clegg, Walter	Lamond, James	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cohen, Stanley	Lane, David	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cope, John	Lawrence, Ivan	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Dalyell, Tarn	Lawson, Nigel	Sainsbury, Tim
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Delargy, Hugh	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Dempsey, James	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Doig, Peter	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Speed, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	McCartney, Hugh	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Dunlop, John	MacCormick, Iain	Stanbrook, Ivor
Dunn, James A.	McCusker, H.	Stanley, John
Durant, Tony	Macfarlane, Neil	Stradling Thomas, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Emery, Peter	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Tebbit, Norman
English, Michael	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Thompson, George
Eyre, Reginald	Mahon, Simon	Tinn, James
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Marten, Neil	Townsend, Cyril D.
Fairgrieve, Russell	Mather, Carol	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fell Anthony	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Wall, Patrick
Fookes, Miss Janet	Mills, Peter	Watt, Hamish
Ford, Ben	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wells, John
Fox, Marcus	Moate, Roger	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Molyneaux, James	White, James (Pollok)
Fry, Peter	Monro, Hector	Wiggin, Jerry
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Montgomery, Fergus	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Moonman, Eric	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Glyn Dr Alan	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Winterton, Nicholas
Golding, John	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Goodhew, Victor	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Younger, Hon George
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Gray, Hamish	Mudd, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grocott, Bruce	Neave, Airey	Mr. Patrick Cormack and
Hall, Sir John	Normanton, Tom	Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker

That means that the debate continues now.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the House has now expressed itself in two votes by a substantial majority and in one vote unanimously, would it not be appropriate to move "That the Question be now put"? We could then have a Division.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Price.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

Now that we are faced, Mr. Speaker, with quite a long debate about the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—a debate which could last until ten o'clock tonight or until such time as it is closed —it might be wise to look into some of these arguments. It is quite appropriate that somebody like myself, who spent nearly two years as a member of the original Standing Committee on the Abortion Bill, should remind the House of the principles in respect of the Committee on the original Abortion Bill—principles which were adopted on that occasion, in 1966, when that Standing Committee was set up.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the original vote in 1966, when the Second Reading of the 1967 Abortion Bill took place, produced a quite overwhelming vote in favour of reforming the law on abortion. If on that occasion the proponents of abortion had claimed the right for the membership of the Committee to be exactly in proportion to that Second Reading vote, I am quite sure that the 1967 Abortion Bill would have passed through the House very much more quickly than it did. But nothing of the kind took place.

Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)

As I was one of the Members who voted for the Second Reading of that Bill in common with many others, I should like to say that we agreed to vote for the Second Reading on the understanding that the Bill would be fundamentally altered to prevent the abuses which unfortunately have arisen. Therefore, is not my hon. Friend's argument entirely specious, as so many of us who voted for it had qualifications and reservations, and, therefore, the composition of that Committee reflected all those who had voted, including those many who had voted with many reservations?

Mr. Price

I think that it is wrong for my hon. Friend to describe my argument as specious, as I am only in the foothills of it. I have not reached any plateau or peak of the argument. I regard myself as an expert on the twistings and turnings of the views on abortion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I have watched every point at which he has changed course over the years in this matter. I am an expert on his heterodox views on the matter. When I have finished my arguments, I assure him that he will be the last person in the House to say that I have been using an argument which is in any way specious—or any similar adjective.

Mr. Mikardo

When my hon. Friend advances further in his reply to our hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), will he take into account the fact that if it is true that on the first occasion some who voted for the Bill did so with reservations, that was equally true on the recent occasion?

Mr. Price

I could not agree more. I am sure that that is a very good point. If hon. Members are pondering the sort of point that they might like to make in the debate which lies ahead of us, I am sure that they will consider that to be a point which would be very important to make. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to join in what looks like being a long and very interesting debate and that they would wish to make such a point. I was on a different point before I was interrupted.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

The hon. Gentleman and I were both members of the original Standing Committee, but he will allow, surely, that since the House gave its verdict in 1967 there have been considerable changes, including the development of a racket in the private sector which has caused grave alarm. The Lane Committee has sat and reported, although the House has not had an opportunity to debate that report. All this was reflected in the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which was given an overwhelming Second Reading. What is being questioned now is the will of the House itself.

Mr. Price

I am absolutely familiar with the various points which the hon. Gentleman has made. On the other hand, I am trying to keep myself within the confines of the motion before us now. No doubt if I were to stray into such general matters as abuses and so on, it is just possible that Mr. Speaker might call me to order. If I may return to my original point, I certainly promise the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that later I shall go into those particular points.

My original point was that on the 1966 Bill there was a quite overwhelming majority in favour of its Second Reading. But the proponents of the Bill, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and his hon. Friends, of whom I numbered myself one, quite generously, in the interests of a proper debate taking in every aspect of the abortion argument, decided that they would not insist on anything like a numerical balance in the membership or the Standing Committee in 1966 which corresponded proportionately to the vote on Second Reading.

In fact, the proponents of the Bill, through all the usual channels—it went through somewhat more smoothly in those days than it seems to go nowadays—gave what one might call very loosely the anti-abortion lobby quite considerable representation on that Committee, which, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will remember, they used to the full throughout long days and, later, long nights of 1966 and 1967. It was only because in 1966–67 we had a unique and extraordinarily long Session, running from the spring of one year to the autumn of the next, that the Bill ever passed through Parliament.

The House of Commons works on precedent. We respect precedent. We accept that, having done a thing in one particular way once, there is a very good argument for following roughly those lines when next we come upon the question. Here we came to a situation in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has pointed out, we had a substantial Second Reading vote supporting the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). Those who supported that Bill did so for a variety of reasons. Some supported it because they were against abortions altogether. Others supported it because they were against abortions except in a very small number of medical cases where the life of the mother was in jeopardy. Others supported it in relation to looking after physical health but had grave doubts about the mental health aspects. Others supported it on health grounds but had great objection to the eugenic clause—and vice versa.

A vast number of those who went into the Lobby to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, whom I am glad to see to my left this afternoon, did so for the very good reason that some quite scandalous abuses were taking place in the private sector and they wanted those matters cleaned up, and in no way did they support the various other parts of the Bill which purported to introduce such words as "grave" and "serious" into the Bill, and which put upon the doctor the onus of proving before a jury that his actions had been in good faith and properly undertaken. There was, therefore, a sort of balance.

What happened after that? There was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing and, of course, the usual channels are very complicated in terms of Private Members' Bills of this kind. In fact, one of the troubles about the Government refusing to take on board the clearing up of abuses such as exist in the private sector of abortion is that—if I may use the phrase—we get our parliamentary knickers in the sort of twist that they are in today. If either of the previous Governments had decided to clear up these abuses in the private sector—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

I presume that the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are debating the selection of the Committee and not the general case of abortion, whether for or against it.

Mr. Price

I am, indeed, only too closely aware of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel absolutely certain that as I proceed, the thread of my argument will come back exactly to the selection of the Committee. In fact, that is what I was about to do just as you interrupted.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that whether he weaves a thousand threads in the course of today, nothing he does can stop us making a decision on this matter tonight and stopping the blatant delaying tactics by the miscellaneous group of wreckers in the Labour Party.

Mr. Price

We are in the middle of a debate in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has made his speech. We all listened to it with great care and noted his points. He has made certain accusations to which I do not want to reply at the moment, although I am sure that there are on the benches behind me other hon. Members who are thinking of the sort of thing they might be able to say in this debate and who may well take up the various accusations with which I do not for a moment agree.

As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened, after the Second Reading, the usual channels set to work to select a Select Committee, set up in rather unusual circumstances, in order to consider this Bill. As I understand it, the usual channels were the official usual channels—the two-party usual channels—and the unofficial usual channels—that is to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok and his most able lieutenant, or perhaps major-general-—I do not know which rank in this matter I ought to give him—who represents Pontypool.

As a result of this discussion, after some to-ing and fro-ing and lifting the numbers from 11 to 12, and then to 14 and then 15, the balance came out, on the kind of precedent to which this House is accustomed, fairly according to precedent.

What I am saying about the Committee is that we have here in our abortion precedents a far more proper precedent whereby the virulent opponents of abortion and the virulent proponents of abortion on occasions such as this can come together to produce a Select Committee which properly balances all the very fiercely held divisions of opinion within this House without getting too mathematical and neurotic about percentages and proportions, in the way that it seems is permitted by the usual channels, prompted perhaps by the hon. Member for Pontypool—I do not know; I was not privy to any of those usual channel discussions—and prompted perhaps by a feeling on the part of the official usual channels that these things should be done strictly according to precedent. Whatever the reason, it came out as it has done. The point I am making is that since we have this precedent of the generosity of the proponents of making abortion rather more free in 1966, there was a very good case on this Committee also for that same spirit of generosity, with a precedent to which this House so often generously responds.

I should like to come to what might be called the sex imbalance on this Committee. I do so with some trepidation because I am surrounded by a host of female witnesses who may be able to put this point a good deal better than I can, but I have some qualifications. I have some right to do so since my very brief speech—you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it lasted for no more than three minutes, as I promised—on Second Reading was devoted solely to this topic.

It is rather grotesque for 600 grown men—some of them very elderly, or at least getting on a bit—solemnly to pronounce on what women should do with their bodies. The difficulties that we are having with this Committee, I believe, were reflected in the selection of people to speak during the Second Reading. Of course, I make no criticism whatsoever of the selection of speakers, but as it turned out in the Second Reading on the Abortion Bill the women's voice in this House was sadly quashed. Many women wished to speak in that debate but did not succeed because of the shortness of time on a Friday. If the pattern of membership on the Select Committee is to reflect that trend again, not only will the Select Committee be unbalanced from the point of view of the proper proportions of opinion in the House, but it will also have far too small a voice from the women in this House for all the reasons of which we are fully apprised, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) in her very able speech this afternoon.

I should like to respond, if I may do so without trespassing on the rules of order—because I think this is pertinent to the balance of the Committee—to the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. He put to me the point that we should not be in this procedural difficulty today were is not for the fact of the abuses in the private sector, and I very much agree with him. I wish that the administrative matters which the Minister of State announced on Second Reading had been put into effect seven or eight years ago.

But, even more than that, we had a Bill introduced into Parliament by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) in the February-October Parliament—the 1974 rump Parliament, if I may so describe it—which had the support of the Government and could have gone through this House had it not been killed by the most virulent supporters of the anti-abortion lobby. It was not the pro-abortion lobby which killed that excellent Bill, which could have gone through this House; it was the memebrs of the anti-abortion lobby, led by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who is not in the Chamber and does not seem to have been here for some time, and we have missed her in the debate. It is pertinent that it was that lobby, the violent, virulent, anti-abortion lobby, which was responsible for the fact that there are these abuses in the practice of abortion, which are quite rightly objected to by hon. Members on all sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This does not relate to the selection of the Committee.

Mr. Price

I agree. I put that point very much in passing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member has been a very long time passing.

Mr. Price

I do not intend to trespass on your indulgence Mr. Deputy Speaker—if indeed I have been trespassing on it—for very much longer. But, if I may sum up in a single sentence, I think that the rigid mathematical basis of the composition of this Committee and the quite unjustifiable male domination of this Committee make it a quite unsatisfactory balance for a Select Committee. It is for that reason that I hope that when this question is put for decision, as I am sure it will be put either today or in the very near future, this selection, this balance of the Select Committee, will be turned down, so that we can get a very much better balance in future.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

One could accuse the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen who have attempted to wreck the Select Committee of a gross miscarriage of parliamentary procedure. It seems to me that we are witnessing a very real wrecking exercise on the part of certain hon. Members opposite. We are witnessing not only the quite legitimate use of wrecking tactics, but something that almost amounts to casting aspersions on a group of very distinguished hon. Members on both sides sides of the House. I would submit that the proposed membership of the Committee, which has been drawn up after a great deal of thought by many people, contains within it a combination of views, experience and expertise that can only serve this House and the country well in considering the matter under discussion.

I do not wish to transgress the rules of the House by debating the merits of the case for and against abortion, and I shall attempt to pass by a little more quickly perhaps than hon. Gentlemen opposite have done, because I believe that what the House wants and what the country wants is the Abortion Act to be considered by a Select Committee and proper and constructive recommendations to be made. I am glad that in that at least I carry with me every hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment.

I should like for a moment, because this is what we are debating, to look at the composition of the proposed Select Committee. I am quite certain that, if one looks at it, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that it is balanced and sensible, and I should like to advance my reasons for saying that.

First of all, I was grieved by one remark made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger), when she referred to the fact that she represented women. Of course she does. We all do. She is elected by her constituents, as I am elected by mine, and in her constituency, as in mine, there are men and women, people of all ages. They choose to send her to this honourable House to represent them, as she does with diligence, great tenacity, and all the rest of it, because we are not debating party politics here. She is the representative of her constituents and I am the representative of mine, and all hon. Members represent their constituents, whatever their sex.

It would be a gross perversion of parliamentary practice if we said that merely because an issue concerned a particular section of the community, that section of the community alone should be represented on the Committee. Only this past week we had debates on, and references to the proposed composition of a Standing Committee of the House, and certain criticisms were made. Whatever view one takes of that issue, I am sure that every single hon. Member of the House would object most strongly if every member of the Standing Committee on the Industry Bill were a trade unionist, just as every hon. Member would object very strongly if none was a trade unionist.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are both male and female trade unionists, and can he give some examples of other cases in which only the female sex is involved, as is the situation with abortion?

Mr. Cormack

The hon. Gentleman illustrates the paucity of his argument by his intervention, and here I must for a moment touch upon the subject under discussion. Many of us would say that this concerns the sanctity of human life and that every man and woman in this country has the right to an opinion on that issue. [Interruption.] Also, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) says, there are male as well as female foetuses. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the Select Committee should be composed predominantly of hon. Lady Members of this House. What the Committee should reflect, and what I submit it does reflect, is the composition of the House and the variety of sincerely-held and contrasting views on this abortion issue. That is really what it is all about.

If we look at the composition of the Committee numerically, four of its 15 members—that is a much higher proportion than in the House as a whole—are women. I not only accept that but applaud it; I think it is a splendid thing. But if we look at the people who are on the Committee—I believe everybody present would agree that if we are debating whether or not this Committee is balanced, we must look at the composition and the individuals—nobody who has spent any time at all considering the issue of abortion and the way in which it has been debated in the House and in the country over the years could dispute the absolute right of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to be a member of it. He has spent a great deal of his parliamentary life, and devoted much of his considerable energy and intellect, to discussing and debating this matter. It is right that he who has devoted so much time to it should be on the Select Committee.

Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun (Northampton, North)

I have always found the hon. Member a reasonable man. If he cannot accept the argument that there should be more women on the Committee, will he accept the argument that it should consist equally of those who are for abortion reform and those who are against it so that a balanced argument can take place—

Mr. Teddy Taylor

No.

Mrs. Colquhoun

—because the situation is that 11 members of the Select Committee are against reform and only four are in favour.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

That is not so.

Mrs. Colquhoun

That is another reason why I and my hon. Friends are so distressed. This will be a deplorably undemocratic Committee.

Mr. Cormack

I am grateful at least for the opening words of the hon. Lady's intervention. Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to see her name on the list of Members of the Select Committee instead of one of the other hon. Ladies, but she is not on it. It has been decided that she should not be a member. She has alleged that there has been a cooking of the Committee.

Mrs. Colquhoun

Rigging.

Mr. Cormack

Very well, I am prepared to delete "cooking" and substitute "rigging". The hon. Member is sadly mistaken in her allegation, because the Committee should reflect the feeling of the House of Commons as expressed in the Division Lobby when the Bill was debated some time ago. It is indisputable that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members, irrespective of their party and their religious or other convictions, tend to think that the Act needs substantial amendment. There may well be a great deal of debate as to how it should be amended, but the consensus as expressed in the Division Lobby was that there should be substantial amendment of the Act. It was also the opinion of the House that the best way of achieving a balance rather than a hasty conclusion to the various debates and deliberations was to have a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)

The majority of hon. and right hon. Members voted neither for nor against the Bill. On the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, surely the Committee should consist of a majority of those who abstained. A number of hon. and right hon. Members did not vote against the Bill because they knew it would go to a Select Committee and they believed that to be the correct procedure.

Mr. Cormack

That intervention is not entirely worthy of the hon. Member's considerable knowledge of parliamentary procedure. If hon. Members chose, for one reason or another, not to vote, if they chose not to be here because they had a constituency commitment on that Friday or, in the case of some, because they did not want to be here, that was their free choice. They were able to exercise that choice by abstaining or absenting themselves. I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has done his research with his usual diligence, that some of the proposed members of the Select Committee did abstain.

Mr. Ian Campbell (Dunbartonshire, West)

It is not the case that of the four lady Members on the Committee two voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and two did not vote? Does that not mean that of the four not one actually committed herself to support the Bill?

Mr. Cormack

With his helpful, sensible and constructive intervention the hon. Member has anticipated part of my argument. Perhaps later I might deal with his point.

Let us look at the next name on the list of selection. It is the hon. Lady the Member for Warley—East or West—who is a highly respected Member and a Government Whip and is known in the Midlands—and I know because I come from the Midlands—for her independence of view and her strong judgment. I suggest that none of her female colleagues on the Government Benches could have the remotest objection to being represented by the hon. Member for Warley. I have debated matters with her on television and in other places, and I can assure every hon. Member that she will put whatever case she chooses to put with conviction and eloquence.

Mr. Christopher Price

The hon. Memsaid that he came from the Midlands. I used to represent a constituency in the West Midlands and I know that my hon. Friend represents West Bromwich, West, not Warley.

Mr. Cormack

I apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) if I got her constituency wrong, but there are 635 MPs and we are not always as perfect in our knowledge as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price).

The next name on the list is my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden). He falls into the same category as the hon. Member for Pontypool. He has devoted a considerable amount of his time and talents in this House and outside to campaigning on this issue.

Mrs. Colquhoun

He has never had children.

Mr. Cormack

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun). [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because she does her duty with diligence and good sense. She says that my hon. Friend has never had children. My hon. Friend has fathered children and is capable of so doing and he is fully entitled to a place on the Select Committee.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

I wonder whether the hon. Member would care to deal next with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who has a meeting and should hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Mr. Cormack

I shall deal in just a minute, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has courteously suggested, with the hon. Member for the triple-barrelled constituency of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). Nobody in this House could for a moment say anything other than that he has the most impeccable credentials for being a member of the Select Committee. He is known throughout the country as a pioneer on questions of social reform. It was he who brought before the House the first Abortion Bill which is now the potential subject of this Select Committee. If he needed anything else to commend him to the House, the distinguished, brilliant and scintillating speech that he made on the Second Reading of the latest Bill would have indicated his absolute right to be a member of any Committee, be it Standing or Select.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

It is hardly for me to interrupt the hon. Member when he is in this vein, and I am grateful to him for enabling me to hear these warm tributes. Will he accept that one of the points that some of us who are troubled by the motion feel is that since the Bill's promoters wanted to secure a consensus Bill it is desirable that the Select Committee should be largely a consensus Committee while reflecting every viewpoint? Those who have objected to the motion are using normal parliamentary procedure. I would have thought that the onus lay on the Government to provide that the motion could be debated with amendments in the normal way late at night. We are now being asked to accept the motion or nothing.

Mr. Cormack

That is a very valid point, but we are by the will of the House debating this motion, and, therefore, I must address my remarks to it. We are debating the composition of the Select Committee as set out in the Order Paper, and it is to that, and that alone, that I am addressing my remarks.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

The hon. Gentleman might mention a well-known game in which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) participates. One of the rules of that game concerns repetition. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is becoming somewhat repetitious in his praise. Another rule of the game suggests that he should now sit down and allow a speaker from the Labour benches to take over.

Mr. Cormack

With an air of total non-partisan impartiality, I am talking about the attributes and not about the defects of hon. Members in all parts of the House. How I can be accused of repetition by praising the hon. Gentleman, having praised the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West, I do not know.

I now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). I am delighted, as is every hon. Member, to see her in the Chamber.

Mr. Rooker

The hon. Gentleman is in difficulties now.

Mr. Cormack

On the contrary, by her vigilance and constant attendance in this Chamber, by the flashes of inspiration which she brings to our deliberations, she is entirely qualified to be a member of this or any other Select or Standing Committee. No one on the Opposition benches could have anything other than the utmost confidence in her total competence to deal with any of the intricate matters which may arise. She brings to the task of deliberation the forensic mind of a trained barrister.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

The hon. Gentleman must surely be aware, having perused the amendments, that the whole House shares his opinion of the forensic qualities of the hon. Lady, because none of the amendments suggests her removal from the Committee.

Mr. Cormack

I am glad to have that warm, unanimous endorsement of the sentiments which I have just expressed. The hon. Gentleman and I have often, in a playful way, crossed swords on certain matters, but have supported each other on others. My rejoinder to him is that part of my hon. Friend's qualification to be on the Committee is that she is part of the balance of a balanced team. The team would lose in its balance if she remained on and certain other hon. Members came off. I am certain that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree with that.

We now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). Nobody can suggest for a moment that he has not earned his place on the Select Committee. He is far more capable than any other hon. Member of discussing at length any subject that is the cause of concern, be it national or local. He will be a counterweight.

An Hon. Member

With friends like him, the hon. Gentleman does not need enemies.

Mr. Cormack

My hon. Friend would be a counterweight to those who would perhaps expedite too hastily, in the view of some hon. Members, the proceedings of the Committee. With my hon. Friend on the Committee, we can have a total assurance that every aspect of this many-sided, deep and complex problem will be discussed with due deliberation and concern. I believe that my hon. Friend, who so ably wound up the debate three weeks ago, has earned his place on the Committee.

We now come to the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). She is universally regarded as one of the most able female politicians in the House. She has sat in the House for many years, and has served it well. All the causes which she has embraced, she has embraced with a due sense of mission and moderation, an unusual combination. She deserves a place on the Committee.

We now come to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who is a distinguished Roman Catholic. Nobody could deny the right of the Roman Catholic Church to have one or two members on the Committee, because many Members are Roman Catholics. Coupled with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions merely prolong speeches. I am good for another couple of hours.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope not.

Mr. Cormack

Your implied aspersion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, grieves me considerably. I had thought, from the attention with which you were obviously following the proceedings, that you were hanging upon every word and hoping that there would be many more to come.

With my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford, I couple the hon. Gentleman with whom I was proud to stand at the Table a little while ago, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). He is a devout and distinguished Roman Catholic.

Mr. Rooker

The hon. Gentleman has missed two hon. Members out.

Mr. Cormack

I will come back to them. It is appropriate that I should pair the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. Nobody can deny the right of the Roman Catholic Church to have distinguished Members on the Committee.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to fall foul of him when he is dishing out kind words, but I am not aware that the Roman Catholic Church put up candidates in the last General Election. Hon. Members are here as Labour or Conservative Members or as members of other parties. If people hold a view on a non-party matter, they may hold it for a variety of reasons, but if my party had a line on this problem with which I disagreed I would vote against it, as I have voted against it in the past on matters which I regard as matters of conscience.

Mr. Cormack

The hon. Gentleman merely underlines his own credentials for being on the Committee. I made similar remarks when talking about the presence of women on the Committee. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman will not disagree that there are a goodly number of Members who are professing and devout Roman Catholics, as he is. This is an issue of conscience and not party politics. Because the Roman Catholic Church has a very strong, definite and, I believe, in many ways commendable line on this subject, it is right that there should be Roman Catholics on the Committee to ensure the balance of the Committee and the balance of views. It is in that context only that I refer to the hon. Member's religious beliefs and to the beliefs of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford. I express pleasure that they are on the Committee. The Committee would be the poorer without them. It will be the richer for their participation in its debates, which must of necessity be long and detailed and deal with the many complex aspects of this deeply human subject.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us what we can do to protect ourselves against the ersatz eloquence of the hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I myself have spent a lot of time wondering about that.

Mr. Cormack

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is the last person to ask for that sort of advice. If I have learnt anything of the art of ersatz eloquence and of the ability to hold the House enthralled, it is because I sat for four years on the Government Benches while so many able practitioners in the art displayed their talents from the Opposition benches.

Mr. Russell Kerr

The hon. Gentleman is too kind.

Mr. Cormack

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I suggest that every remark that I have made has been entirely in order and has in no way detracted from the reputation of the House or from any one of its individual Members.

In going through the list I must refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Of course, on any Committee on which he sits he will bring his own highly individual and considerable talents.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar (Belper)

Yes, individual.

Mr. Cormack

The hon. Gentleman echoes my very word. How splendid it is that my hon. Friend should have individual talents and that we should have such an idiosyncratic member of the Committee. On many of the moral issues that have been debated in the House he has taken an extremely forthright line. I choose my words with care. I remember the long debates that took place, largely at the instigation of my hon. Friend, on vasectomy. He showed the House at that time—[Interruption.] It is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I sometimes believe that evil is in the ears of the listener. No one who witnessed the feasts of eloquence which emanated from my hon. Friend when he stood at the corner seat below the Gangway could say that he has not established a real right to sit on the Committee.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

A short time ago the hon. Gentleman said that he always chooses his words carefully. I remind him that he began his speech by saying that he would pass by quicker than my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). In fact, he has already taken longer. First, he has not carried out his promise to complete his remarks within a shorter time than was taken by my hon. Friend. Therefore, he does not choose his words as carefully as he thinks he does.

Mr. Cormack

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have passed by on the other side. Unlike the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, I have not spent a great deal of time talking of or alluding to the merits of abortion. I have devoted almost all of my remarks to the composition of the Committee. That is the subject of the debate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

We have plenty of time.

Mr. Cormack

Yes, as my hon. Friend reminds me, there is plenty of time. It is a great help to have my hon. Friend behind me at this stage. He has reminded me that we have plenty of time and that we can debate the composition of the Committee until 10 o'clock tonight if necessary. I give the House an earnest promise that I will sit down by nine o'clock.

We now come to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). The hon. Lady has been a Member for only a short time, but in the time she has graced us by her presence—I use those words deliberately and carefully—she has shown herself not only to be a master of debate and someone who is able quickly to absorb the complexities of an intricate subject but as someone who brings a high mind and pleasant presence to any Committee on which she sits or to any activity in which she engages. Therefore, it would be totally wrong that the hon. Lady should be removed from the Committee. I appreciate that no one has suggested that she should be removed. I suggest that she is a part of that rich pattern of balance that goes to make up the Committee.

Mrs. Helene Hayman (Welwyn and Hatfield)

Some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, and the manner in which they have been phrased, reinforce my fears about the male chauvinism that exists within the House. I return to what the hon. Gentleman said a little earlier when he was talking about the people who are trying to wreck the Committee. He suggested that they are people who are resentful in some way because they are not on the Committee themselves. As a member of the Committee—it was with some difficulty that I came to be a member—I believe very strongly that the composition is not satisfactory, even though my graceful presence, as the hon. Gentleman described it, could adorn it. I make the point forcefully that some members of the Committee are not happy with it as well as those outside the Committee.

Mr. Cormack

I am sure that when the hon. Lady reflects upon her opening remarks in her intervention she will realise that I can hardly be accused of male chauvinism. After all, I played a modest but public part in supporting the claim of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to be where she is so rightly installed at this moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member has defended himself enough now. Perhaps he will return to his catalogue.

Mr. Cormack

Yes, indeed I will. The only thing that grieves me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I cannot extol upon your own many virtues in going through this catalogue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Try.

Mr. Cormack

My hon. Friend asks me to try, but that would be out of order. I think it can be said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are all delighted that you are in the Chair at this moment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

Is my hon. Friend aware that had it not been for the fact that we are having this excellent debate and my hon. Friend's excellent contribution we might have had to wait for many weeks in suspense without knowing whether or not the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) would be able to serve on the Committee? Further, is my hon. Friend aware that the value of this debate is that we can make a decision here and now and either let her get on with the work or stop her?

Mr. Cormack

As we would expect, that is a most constructive intervention. The very reason that I and my hon. Friends shouted "No" was that when the Lord President indicated at the Dispatch Box that Government time would be made available for an adjourned debate he was quite unable to say when it would take place. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for that. I appreciate the difficulties under which he has to operate. The fact is that we are having a debate now and, as my hon. Friend has reminded me, we have plenty of time.

When the Lord President was at the Dispatch Box—and we listened carefully to what he had to say—he was not able for the best possible reasons to indicate when we could resume the adjourned debate. That is what prompted us to call a Division. Many Labour Members entered the "No" Lobby. As I stood outside I said to my fellow Teller that there could not be a broader and more splendid cross-section of the House than came out of that Lobby.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

A spectrum, perhaps.

Mr. Cormack

My hon. Friend assists me by adding to my vocabulary.

I return to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield. When she intervened she said that she did not feel that the Committee was balanced. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to express her opinion in the Lobby tonight. Perhaps she will be able to do so on her feet in a little time. It seems that the hon. Lady is too modest. Any Committee of which she is a member cannot be underrepresented as far as her sex is concerned.

Mrs. Hayman

Oh!

Mr. Cormack

I am sorry that the lion. Lady takes these well-meaning remarks in such a churlish manner. I can assure her that they are meant sincerely.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

May I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This is an extremely serious debate. It is a matter that concerns not just the Members of this House but every woman in the country. To have this superficial claptrap is a disgrace to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. All that I am able to rule on is whether the hon. Gentleman is in order or out of order. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Charles Irving (Cheltenham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dun-woody) referred to women's being concerned. Is she suggesting that in this matter men play no part?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) aware that many of us who voted did so with the express desire of seeing the Committee get on with the job and that many of us are concerned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. What the hon. Gentleman thinks, knows or believes is not my business—for which I am duly grateful.

Mr. Cormack

We have heard many things from the Chair but never such a fervent prayer.

I am in no way delaying proceedings on the Bill. We are debating the composition of the Committee. The debate on the Bill, be it in Standing Committee, Select Committee or any other Committee, cannot take place until the Committee is set up. The Committee cannot be set up until a vote is taken tonight. In the same way as hon. Members who put down the motions that led to the debate, I am doing no more than exercising my parliamentary rights and those of my hon. Friends.

Let us come to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

Before the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)—for whom I have a great respect—continues with this charade, which seems to be a cross between Leonard Sachs's "Good Old Days" and Hughie Green's "Opportunity Knocks", will he realise that this is a serious matter? He is treating the subject with considerable flippancy and levity and not imbuing it with the seriousness it deserves.

Mr. Cormack

To talk about the merits of colleagues on both sides of the House is hardly being flippant. If some hon. Members have listened to my remarks with good nature and good humour and have expressed that by the odd laugh, that is not my fault.

It is important that a Committee to discuss a Bill of this nature should have among its members someone with a detailed medical knowledge. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), representing as he does his constituents and not the medical profession, will bring to the proceedings the cumulative wisdom and experience of many years as a practising doctor. To remove him would be to diminish in significance the composition of the Committee and would be scandalous.

I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). He has been in the forefront of many of the more enlightened social movements, and any group of hon. Members from the Opposition benches which did not include my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking would be the poorer. His membership is entirely justified.

I come now to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White). Who can say that the promoter of the Bill, who has done such a signal service and has sacrificed a great deal, is not entitled to a place on the Select Committee? I remember seeing him in a corridor of the House, surrounded by thousands of letters from all over the country, attempting to deal with them without the proper secretarial assistance we all should have. He of all people, the servant of the House in bringing before us this measure and using his good fortune in the Ballot for that purpose, is fully entitled to a place on the Committee.

What Select Committee would be complete without a father figure? I come finally to the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whose skill and ministerial experience, if not without equal, is not excelled on the Government benches. He is an elder statesman of vision and moderation who will be able to contribute a great deal to the Committee's deliberations.

I begin to get the feeling that I may perhaps have said enough about the merits of the many members of the Committee to convince the House beyond peradventure that its composition could not be bettered. I rest my case there. We have here 15 hon. and right hon. Members, four of whom are women. They represent a cross-section of opinion and they come from all classes of society and all walks of life. They represent both sexes and have eloquence, skill, grace and dignity. No better Committee could be submitted to the House for its approval, and it would be a shame and a disgrace if any members of the Committee were criticised and removed. I hope that their names will remain properly on the Order Paper, that the Committee will soon begin its valuable work, that the country will see that this subject has been treated by these hon. Members with proper concern, and that we shall have some sensible amendments to the Abortion Act.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question out, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mrs. Colquhoun

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that under Standing Order No. 30 it is an infringement of the right of the minority to propose that the Question be now put, because there is a minority attitude on the Government benches which the filibustering has prevented from being heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In reply to that point of order, the House itself will decide whether the Question will be put, but when the Question is moved the Chair has discretion whether to accept it. I accepted the motion, and the House will now decide whether or not the Question will be put.

Mrs. Jeger

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 30 the question whether the Question be now put rests with the Chair. If it appears to the Chair that such a motion is an abuse or an infringement of the

rights of the minority, it is for the Chair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. By Standing Orders I now have to put the Question.

The Question is, That the Question be now put. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Pavitt and Mr. Stoddart.

There being no Tellers for the Noes, I declare that the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Question is—

Mr. Whitehead

On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not able to take a point of order when the House has just decided that the Question should now be put.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 125.

Division No. 110.]	AYES	[5.30 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Delargy, Hugh	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Alison, Michael	Dempsey, James	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Archer, Peter	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Doig, Peter	Hatton, Frank
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Havers, Sir Michael
Banks, Robert	Dunlop, John	Hayhoe, Barney
Beith, A. J.	Dunn, James A.	Henderson, Douglas
Bell, Ronald	Durant, Tony	Heseltine, Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Hicks, Robert
Benyon, W.	Elliott, Sir William	Holland, Philip
Berry, Hon Anthony	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Hooley, Frank
Biffen, John	English, Michael	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Biggs-Davison, John	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Eyre, Reginald	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Body, Richard	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Hunter, Adam
Bowden. A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Fairgrieve, Russell	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Faulds, Andrew	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Fell, Anthony	James, David
Braine, Sir Bernard	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)	Jessel, Toby
Brotherton, Michael	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fookes, Miss Janet	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Buchanan, Richard	Ford, Ben	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Jopling, Michael
Burden, F. A.	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fry, Peter	Judd, Frank
Campbell, Ian	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Canavan, Dennis	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Kershaw, Anthony
Carlisle, Mark	Ginsburg, David	Kimball, Marcus
Churchill, W. S.	Glyn, Dr Alan	Kirk, Peter
Clegg, Walter	Golding, John	Lamond, James
Cockcroft, John	Goodhart, Philip	Lane, David
Cohen, Stanley	Goodhew, Victor	Latham, Michael (Melton)
Coleman, Donald	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Lawrence, Ivan
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Lawson, Nigel
Cope, John	Gray, Hamish	Leadbitter, Ted
Cordle, John H.	Griffiths, Eldon	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Cormack, Patrick	Grocott, Bruce	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Corrie, John	Grylls, Michael	Lloyd, Ian
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hall, Sir John	Luce, Richard
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Dalyell, Tam	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Hannam, John	McCartney, Hugh
MacCormick, Iain	Oakes, Gordon	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
McCrindle, Robert	O'Halloran, Michael	Speed, Keith
McCusker, H.	Onslow, Cranley	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Macfarlane, Neil	Osborn, John	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Owen, Dr David	Sproat, Iain
Mackenzie, Gregor	Page, John (Harrow West)	Stainton, Keith
Mackintosh, John P.	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Stanbrook, Ivor
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Paisley, Rev Ian	Stanley, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Palmer, Arthur	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mahon, Simon	Parry, Robert	Stokes, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Pendry, Tom	Stradling Thomas, J.
Marten, Neil	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Tebbit, Norman
Mates, Michael	Phipps, Dr Colin	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mather, Carol	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Thompson, George
Maude, Angus	Raison, Timothy	Tinn, James
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Tomlinson, John
Mawby, Ray	Reid, George	Tomney, Frank
Mayhew, Patrick	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Townsend, Cyril D.
Mendelson, John	Rifkind, Malcolm	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Millan, Bruce	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wakeham, John
Miller, Hat (Bromsgrove)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Wall, Patrick
Mills, Peter	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Warren, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Weatherill, Bernard
Molyneaux, James	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)	Wells, John
Monro, Hector	Ross, William (Londonderry)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Montgomery, Fergus	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	White, James (Pollok)
Moonman, Eric	Ryman, John	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Sainsbury, Tim	Wiggin, Jerry
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Sandelson, Neville	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Winterton, Nicholas
Mudd, David	Shepherd, Colin	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Shersby, Michael	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Neave, Airey	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)	Younger, Hon George
Neubert, Michael	Silvester, Fred
Newton, Tony	Sims, Roger	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Noble, Mike	Skeet, T. H. H.	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Normanton, Tom	Small, William	Mr. Teddy Taylor.
Nott, John	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Flannery, Martin	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ashton, Joe	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Newens, Stanley
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Ogden, Eric
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Freud, Clement	Orbach, Maurice
Bates, Alf	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Ovenden, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	George, Bruce	Pardoe, John
Bidwell, Sydney	Gilbert, Dr John	Park, George
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Gourlay, Harry	Pavitt, Laurie
Bradley, Tom	Graham, Ted	Penhaligon, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Perry, Ernest
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Radice, Giles
Buchan, Norman	Hamling, William	Richardson, Miss Jo
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Hayman, Mrs Helene	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carmichael, Neil	Horam, John	Roderick, Caerwyn
Carter, Ray	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Cartwright, John	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)	Rooker, J. W.
Clemitson, Ivor	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Roper, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Janner, Greville	Rose, Paul B.
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Sedgemore, Brian
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Selby, Harry
Corbett, Robin	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kelley, Richard	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Cryer, Bob	Kerr, Russell	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiteh)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Sillars, James
Davidson, Arthur	Kinnock, Neil	Silverman, Julius
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Lambie, David	Sinclair, Sir George
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Lamborn, Harry	Skinner, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Lipton, Marcus	Snape, Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Litterick, Tom	Spriggs, Leslie
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Loyden, Eddie	Stallard, A. W.
Edge, Geoff	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Marks, Kenneth	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Stoddart, David
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Evans, John (Newton)	Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Mikardo, Ian	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)	Wellbeloved, James	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Watkins, David	Welsh, Andrew
Watkinson, John	Whitehead, Phillip	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Watt, Hamish	Whitlock, William	Mr. Christopher Price and
Weitzman, David	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)	Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That Mr. Leo Abse, Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Sir Bernard Braine, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Anthony Fell, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Dr. Miller, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James White, and Mr. Frederick Willey be members of the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.

Mr. Whitehead

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, may I ask for a word of explanation, within the rules of order, on behalf of many hon. Members, who understood that the previous vote of the House was very much in favour of a wide debate on the principle involved in the setting up of the Select Committee as well as its membership. We heard only two speeches, one from each side, the second lasting 43 minutes and being a recital of the names of the 15 hon. Members who were effectively appointed to the Committee. At least a dozen hon. Members wished to speak in the debate. I wonder, therefore, on what grounds the Chair chose to accept the closure so early.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Hon. Members must realise that whoever is in the Chair must take the decision. The House, in its wisdom or otherwise, decides whether the Question is to be put. I decided that there had been two speeches of considerable length, one from each side. I am not required to give reasons to the House why I accept the closure.

Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are there not considerations with regard to the protection of minority views in the House which the Chair must always be careful to have in mind, whether or not it says that it has those considerations in mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The House cannot debate my decision to accept the closure, at least not at this moment.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I properly interpret what has happened today, which was new to most hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member may seek to raise a point of order but he may not interpret what has happened.

Mr. Buchan

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to assume, from the rulings given by the Chair, that it is possible for a Select Committee to be imposed by a snap vote of this House, whether or not in collusion with other channels in the House, rather than as a result of the judgment that emerges from discussion and debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is an old custom here that the result of a Division is accepted by the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I assure hon. Gentlemen that there has been no collusion, apart from that of back benchers? The first duty of the House is to protect the majority against exploitation by the minority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are beginning to reach the point where hon. Members are using alleged points of order to argue with each other.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I in order in asking for your guidance as to how long the next debate will be allowed to go on, since we have already lost about two hours out of the time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

My business is to begin the next debate.