§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
9.45 am§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)On a point of order Mr. Speaker. May I seek your clarification and guidance, particularly as regards the conduct of the debates on the first few amendments? I have no criticism of your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker—I think that it is wholly commendable—but there might be a good deal of worry and confusion about the way in which the debates proceed.
Perhaps I may give an example by referring to new clause 1 and amendment No. 3. New clause 1 seeks to make two changes in the wording of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, but I want to deal only with the second, because it relates to the time limit. The time limit is specifically identified in the 1929 Act as 28 weeks. The new clause proposes 24 weeks. There lies the difficulty, because subsequently we shall move in due course to amendment No. 3, which is selected, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) and others, who will be arguing for a time limit of 27 weeks, and that amendment is to be discussed with amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison)—he will be arguing for 24 weeks—and amendment No. 48, on which the argument will be for 22 weeks.
My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. In the event of new clause I being accepted, that will include 24 weeks. Will that mean that the other amendments to which I have referred will automatically fall? It is very important that hon. Members should have it clearly understood what they are voting for. If we vote for new clause 1, that means 24 weeks and the other amendments must, by definition, fall. I should be glad of your clarification of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerFirst, perhaps I may say that I spent a considerable time, as the House would expect me to do, in the selection of amendments, and I seek 930 neither commendation nor criticism of it, because this is a discretion vested in the Speaker.
The first new clause amends a totally different Act, the 1929 Act, and the other debate is, therefore, separate, and it would not fall. The debate on amendment No. 3 will still be in order whatever is decided on new clause I. That is my ruling. Otherwise, I would have bracketed them together and we would have taken them all together.
§ Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I would not be presumptuous enough to comment on the manner in which you have selected the amendments, but I am, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is, trying to help the House. In amendments Nos. 3, 2 and 48, there are various options before the House on the number of weeks at which it may be decided that, in certain circumstances, an abortion can take place.
I observe, Mr. Speaker, that you have not selected the amendment in my name—the only amendment that I have on the Amendment Paper—which clearly indicates that the time should be 22 weeks. Given what we have all read in the reports of the Committee proceedings, especially the statement made by the Government spokesman, the House would certainly want the option to decide whether it wants the period to be 22 weeks. Unfortunately, the House does not have that choice as a result of the selection.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is clearly criticising my selection. That is out of order and cannot be allowed. I have made the selection, and it is unfair to the House if we are to have an argument—for or against the Bill—about whether that amendment or any other ought to be selected. I cannot allow such a discussion to continue.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Question is put on the amendments in the order in which they are on the Amendment Paper, if the Question is put to amendment No. 3 and it is passed, I take it that the House will not then have the opportunity of having the Question put on amendment No. 2. Would you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we come to that grouping, allow amendment No. 2 to be taken 931 as a manuscript amendment to amendment No. 3 so that the House may have the opportunity of deciding on 24 weeks as well as 27 weeks? That in no way disputes your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, but it is a means whereby the House might be enabled to take the decision it might wish to take.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I want to help the House as much as I can. I will make a statement in a short while when I have considered the point that he has raised. I think that it is quite likely that it will be in the affirmative.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make the same point in relation to amendment No. 48, which reduces the period to 22 weeks? It would be unfortunate if there was an affirmative vote that precluded discussion on amendment No. 48.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall look at that and make a statement in a short while.