HC Deb 03 May 1985 vol 78 cc574-93
Mr. Leo Abse (Torfaen)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'shall', insert 'knowingly'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'procure' and insert 'cause'.

No. 4, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert 'knowingly'.

No. 48, in page 2, line 43, at end insert: '(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove,—

  1. (a) that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or to the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond his control; and
  2. (b) that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.'.
No. 49, in page 2, line 43, at end insert— '(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove that at the time of the alleged commission of the offence he honestly and reasonably believed that he was acting with the authority of the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Abse

It will be well known to the House that almost the whole of the medical and scientific community is ranged against the Bill. There are many reasons why those who comprise that community take that view, but it would take me well beyond this group of amendments were Ito adumbrate them, apart from the fact that I should incur the displeasure of the Chair.

One reason is their indignation that their dedicated work in the conquest of infertility may, by the Bill, attract the stigma of criminality. Since, despite their protests, despite all the arguments that rationally have been advanced against the Bill and despite the measured and well thought through Warnock proposals, the sponsor, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), has chosen relentlessly to pursue his course, it falls to the House to ensure that no doctors, scientists or nurses are placed in jeopardy under threat of the criminal law when, even if they were acting within the strict and rigid parameters laid down by the Bill, by inadvertence and without malevolent intent then found that they had trespassed so as to enter into the mined territory which the sponsor creates for some urgently needed research.

In his intemperate zeal, for which he is notorious, the right hon. Member for South Down has, in his Bill, placed many of its provisions in the absolutist terms that become his temperament. In vetoing, as the Bill does, anyone procuring the fertilisation of a human ovum, privately and without the sanction of some bureaucrat in Whitehall, the right hon. Gentleman seeks—and perhaps succeeds as the Bill is drafted—to draw into his net even those who, although not wilfully, may directly or indirectly have helped towards the fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro, or precipitated such an outcome, and thus had it in the laboratory, albeit for no sinister purpose and with no intention to defy the law.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are designed to make it crystal clear, by inserting the word "knowingly" in the provision, that no one should unnecessarily be at risk, even though he or she has not set out to defy what I regard as the evil law that this measure seeks to enact.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

I wish briefly to show the sort of nonsense that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse), who is a lawyer, has been speaking by quoting Lord Devlin's remark about the word "knowingly". He said: All that the word 'knowingly' does is to say expressly what is normally implied". The hon. Gentleman is indulging in an exercise to waste time, and he knows it.

Mr. Abse

The law is rarely as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He may be simple, but by the time I have finished he will see that there is greater complexity about the issue of the word "knowingly" than he imagines. I am certainly not wasting time. I am engaged in a serious debate to mitigate the consequences of an evil Bill. I intend to do that to the best of my ability.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 set out to make it crystal clear that by placing the word "knowingly" in clause 1, no one should unnecessarily find himself at risk, although we must define the law that the Bill seeks to enact. Despite the intervention, I hope that non-lawyers will bear with me and not regard me as patronising or filibustering when I attempt to explain why in the existing law there is considerable ambiguity about whether the omission of the word "knowingly" in the framing of an offence sometimes leads to the creation of an absolute offence in respect of which there can be no defence, however lacking in intent the man may be.

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

It may help the House if my hon. Friend gave some examples of where in the present law the word "knowingly" is inserted. That may help us to understand his argument.

Mr. Abse

I assure my hon. Friend that I coming to that. I understand his point, especially when a view is expressed, as it has been, that the matter is frivolous and does not need to be given considerable thought. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall spell out why we need this amendment, and I shall deal directly with the matter that he has raised.

By unhappy coincidence, hon. Members who were present will have observed that the last amendment which we debated dealt with the question of an absolute offence in the Road Traffic (Production of Documents) Bill. I cited two cases, one of which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) also cited, to explain that a rule was absolute. I pointed out how difficult it sometimes is in law to say whether that is so by citing other cases.

We must see what the position is. At first, it seems lo be simple to say that we do not need the word "knowingly". There is an old Latin tag, which I shall say in English. I had the benefit of a considerable classical education, as the right hon. Member for South Down had. I am only too well aware that when lawyers depend on their Latin, they strangulate the language. The tag says that the deed does not make a man guilty unless he has a guilty mind. At first sight, that would appear to clinch the quotation of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Nothing causes more difficulty in legal arguments than the conflict that arises when we ask whether that principle applies across the board. The tag usually applies to statutory offences. Although it has been stated that no specific requirements as to the mental element are included in the definition of the offence, in common law an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make the act for which the person is indicted an innocent act has always been held to be a good defence. However, the statute law is different, and it has frequently been suggested that the principle does not apply equally for statutory offences unless the intention is expressed.

1.15 pm

So that the House may realise that there is a need for the word "knowingly", let me give some extracts from a case. It shows, first, that the absence of mens rea—of intent—can be shown by the honest and reasonable belief entertained by the accused of the existence of facts which, if true, would make the charge against him invalid. Therefore, some would claim that the principle can be expressed thus: mens rea is the absence of an honest and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances which, if true, would make the act or omission for which the accused is indicted innocent. But, unfortunately, many cases make it clear, although they are in conflict, that many judges take a contrary view. They consider that, unless the legislator implies the principle in a set of circumstances, including the intention of the legislator, the absence of the word "knowingly" may mean that the defence which would normally be put forward to show the absence of mens rea would not apply. Indeed, that is what happened in the road traffic incidents with which we dealt earlier.

I have no doubt that we need the word "knowingly", especially since, on any interpretation of the legislator's intention, the court may come to the conclusion that the intention of the House was to make it an absolute rule.

I have little doubt that the would-be legislator, the right hon. Member for South Down, would regard an infringement of the Bill, if unhappily it became an Act, as what judges have described as an offence of a truly criminal nature. The courts are more likely to come to a different conclusion if the offence is thought to be of a trivial nature than if it is thought to be of a truly criminal character. If the legislator intends vigorously that an offence should be regarded as being of a truly criminal character, it is likely that without the word "knowingly" the offence will be regarded as absolute.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I find it hard to follow the argument. The use of the word "procure" in the Bill is intended to indicate that the offence has to be done knowingly. Amendment No. 3 proposes to delete the word "procure" and to insert the neutral word "cause". To cause something to be done does not mean that it is done deliberately. The use of the word "procure" rather than "cause" would make the hon. Gentleman's amendment unnecessary. He is not a signatory to amendment No. 3, but if that were carried I could accept and follow his line of reasoning.

Mr. Abse

I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I understand that a long debate took place in the Committee, of which I was not a member, about the word "procure". I am sure that hon. Members who endured the Committee proceedings are only too well aware of it. I have to consider the position as it is. The word "procure" is ambiguous and I shall press my amendment.

I have little doubt that the right hon. Member for South Down would regard an infringement of his measure as being of a truly criminal character as described by the judges. How adamant the courts can sometimes be when the word "knowingly" is omitted from legislation is illustrated in a Court of Appeal decision which might be relevant to the amendment. A defendant was found to have made a device that was a firearm. The court accepted that the hapless man did not know that he had created a firearm. In that case in 1981, R. v. Hussein, the court insisted that despite the defendant's lack of intent to create a firearm the fact that he had done so was enough to justify the conviction. That was not the decision of an ordinary court but a significant decision by the Court of Appeal.

In coming to that decision, the court was following another of its decisions in Warner v. the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, where, in the absence of the word "knowingly", the court found that, although the accused had an honest and reasonable belief that the firearm that he possessed was an antique and, therefore, exempt from section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, that honest and reasonable belief was not a defence. The firearm was not an antique, though the man believed it to be, and he was convicted.

There are many other such cases and they show there is a distinction between the bare statement of the offence or a description of an act and the introduction of the words "knowingly" and "consciously". If we leave the Bill as it stands, it is almost inevitable that some hapless doctor, clinician or scientist will find himself in grave difficulties.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

Even if the word "cause" were inserted instead of "procure", would not the word "knowingly" also have to be inserted to provide a defence for scientists who can cause things to happen inadvertently? We need a safeguard for them.

Mr. Abse

I believe that it is wiser to use the word "knowingly", because it has been defined time and again and examined at length in many cases. The law is familiar with the concept.

Mr. Dalyell

With our friendship of over 20 years, may I put a point to my hon. Friend? He has already spoken for 117 minutes today. Are we to have the opportunity to put a number of concise questions to the promoter of the Bill and the Minister? Many of our constituents are desperately concerned about this issue. Will my hon. Friend give us some idea of how long he intends to speak?

Mr. Abse

Our proceedings will close in the usual way, according to the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Within the time that we have at our disposal, it is necessary for me to protect to the best of my ability the medical and scientific community which faces considerable threats because of the Bill. Whatever pressure groups outside may say, there can be no question of our hurrying through the Bill.

Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

My hon. Friend has said that the medical and scientific community could be caught unwittingly if the word "knowingly" were not added. Does he agree that staff, technicians and perhaps even the woman herself might be regarded as being "in possession"?

Mr. Abse

I have suggested how circumstances could arise through inadvertence. Technicians, people working with doctors and the woman herself could be involved. However, perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to contribute later and tell us how the Bill impinges on those groups.

Those who share my view might reasonably be asked "Are you being reasonable? Why should anyone want to possess a human embryo, produced by in vitro fertilisation, except for a sinister purpose?" How could an embryo inadvertently come into the possession of a person without permission or once the authority provided under the Bill had expired?

My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) expressed some of the fears of the medical profession. The medical profession has told me and many other hon. Members that there may be circumstances when it wants to possess or repossess an embryo with which it could do great good. If the word "knowingly" were not included, the profession could find itself in great difficulty.

Pregnancies can, and frequently do, go wrong. An embryo can sometimes lodge not in the uterus or the womb but in the fallopian tube or the abdominal cavity. That is said to be ectopic. If the embryo and the implantation site are not removed they almost invariably cause the death of the mother. In the absence of surgery, the embryo could continue to grow in the fallopian tube to such a size that by about the sixth or eighth week of pregnancy it causes the tube to burst. The unhappy woman could die from internal haemorrhage.

The right hon. Member for South Down intervened in Committee, but he has not persuaded me or the medical profession that the removal or repossession of the embryo conceived by in vitro fertilisation should be regarded as a criminal offence.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the contents of amendment No. 12. It may be of some comfort to him to learn that I intended to advise the House to accept amendment No. 12. It would deal with the point that he is making.

Mr. Abse

I was merely giving an example. The right hon. Gentleman is retreating. One has only to give that example to show that women could be put at risk by the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman scurries away and says that he will concede the point. I do not find that impressive. As soon as one gives an example, he takes to his heels.

Mr. Powell

I gave an assurance in Committee that the Bill already excluded the subject matter of amendment No. 12, but that if the House decided that it wanted the matter written on to the face of the Bill, that is something that I would respect.

Mr. Abse

The right hon. Gentleman may in due course have an opportunity to include that matter in the statute. I am dealing with the Bill as it stands. No one except a monster would want to convict a doctor engaged in a life-saving exercise when a risk has been identified. I do not find the right hon. Gentleman's attitude persuasive. On the contrary, it raises my alarm still further. I gave an example and I received that response from the right hon. Gentleman. Many other examples can be given to show that the Bill needs to be radically overhauled and that there is a need for the inclusion of the word "knowingly".

Dr. M. S. Miller

I can give my hon. Friend an example of an ectopic pregnancy as I once sent a former hon. Member to hospital because she would otherwise have bled to death.

Mr. Abse

I am sure that my hon. Friend's medical experience is known to the House. His corroboration of the existence of hazards will be noted.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

It has presumably escaped the attention of the hon. Member that the Bill deals with the protection of the unborn child. Does he intend to address that matter, or will his filibuster not have time for it?

Mr. Abse

The hon. Gentleman must understand that Bills on life and death matters need the most careful scrutiny. We want, and are not afraid of, full debate. That is what we are engaged in. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants us to move along when a big chink has been found. Does not the hon. Gentleman want to save the life of a mother at risk?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman has already heard my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) concede that he will accept an amendment which deals with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot anticipate amendments further down the Notice Paper or debates that might occur on them.

Mr. Abse

I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall continue to talk about the Bill as it is and why we need to make my amendment.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I have had an operation for an ectopic pregnancy and I am satisfied that my safety would have been secured under the Bill as it stands, and certainly as it will be improved.

Mr. Abse

That is an affirmation of belief. We do riot pass legislation according to faith or affirmations of belief. We have a legislative process that enables us to scrutinise rationally. When we have irrational Bills that are prompted, as it is said, by gut reaction or, as the promoter said, out of instinct, there is all the more reason for us to apply our rationality and scrutinise them.

An inserted embryo can develop abnormally and grow uncontrollably. It can become a grape-like tumour called a hydatidiform mole. Some of those tumours are benign, and they can cause severe bleading and the woman can die from haemorrhage. Between 5 and 10 per cent. of the moles become malignant cancers and extremely dangerous to the mother.

Removal can prevent death in almost 100 per cent. of cases. Prior to removal, however, it is not known whether the embryo has been destroyed completely by the tumour or whether it is still present with the tumour. Removal of the embryo or the entire tumour, which is the product of the conceptus, would be prevented by the Bill, so somebody could be in extraordinary difficulty unless my proposed precaution is accepted.

There are exceptional circumstances in which it would be considered essential to abort the embryo that has been conceived in vitro under the Abortion Act 1967. What would happen if the embryo that had been inserted was revealed by amniocentesis to be abnormal or if the life of the mother was clearly threatened by the pregnancy? Since it would be an offence to repossess the embryo, a procedure available to the rest of the population would be denied to a woman with an in vitro conceived embryo. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) intervened to stress that, in trying to put safeguards into the Bill, we are providing safeguards not only for doctors and scientists but for the women who might be in difficulty with an in vitro embryo in their wombs.

One could ask how a person could unintentionally—it could be argued, even in these circumstances, that the doctor was intentionally trying to repossess an embryo—be in possession of an in vitro fertilised embryo after the expiry of the authority of the Secretary of State. It is well known that about one in five pregnancies is miscarried. However, before miscarriage occurs, there may be what is known as a threatened or inevitable miscarriage. Patients may show severe bleeding from the womb. Appropriate treatment to stop the bleeding is to empty the womb of the pregnancy—the embryo and the placenta—to allow the uterus to close. Once again, the medical practitioner will inevitably be in possession of an in vitro fertilised embryo without the permission of the Secretary of State. This may be construed as a criminal offence.

I know that some of these matters were discussed at length in Committee in connection with other amendments, but I believe that I am right in drawing the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill which has the impress of absolutism upon it and which, consequently, has caused so much alarm to those dedicated men and women who are trying to conquer the problem of infertility. Because of those concerns, and in the knowledge that other hon. Members want to join in expressing their belief in the need for these amendments, I plead with the House to consider carefully before putting at risk good men and women and deciding that these words, which are so small in themselves but which could be so important in their consequences, should be in the Bill.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Much of the speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) was connected with the question of an embryo that had already been inserted. As I advised the Standing Committee, that subject lies outside the terms of the Bill as it is drawn. That, however, is a matter that can be dealt with when we come to amendment No. 12, where the House may decide that it is desirable to put on the face of the Bill the interpretation of the measure. I confine myself, therefore, to the group of amendments to which the hon. Member for Torfaen referred.

I do not treat at all lightly the question of legal safeguards in favour of those who might be caught by the terms of the Bill. In the limited time available since the amendments were tabled, I have taken advice from the two Departments concerned; the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. I repeat once again that I am obliged to the Minister's advisers for the careful, ready, although strictly neutral advice which they have at all times made available to me.

It would be advantageous if the House inserted two of the amendments into the Bill. I refer to amendments Nos. 4 and 49, which I shall deal with shortly. However, it may be convenient if I deal first with amendment No. 3. In Committee this issue was the subject of discussion between myself and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It then appeared that both of us would have been glad if we could have found a word that would do the same work as the term "procure" but which did not have the unintended and, in this case, irrelevant overtones of that verb. The hon. Gentleman withdrew his amendment, but I promised him that I would seek advice as to whether an alternative term was available.

1.45 pm

I had to inform the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras in advance by letter on 4 April that the search had proved fruitless. My advice is that the only satisfactory term that will cover a person under whose direction the procedures are carried out and a person who carries them out is "procure", and that to insert the word "cause" would be an absurd narrowing of the meaning, as it would relate to the specific and direct act of causation and would leave out of account the question of responsibility, for example, on the part of the person under whose direction the fertilisation was carried out. Therefore, I must advise the House that the word "procure" should remain in the clause in order to meet the purposes of that provision.

The safeguards proposed in the amendments are of two kinds. The first pair of amendments proposes to insert the word "knowingly" in paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (b) only, respectively. The second pair of amendments, amendments Nos. 48 and 49, provide a valid defence in the event of a charge being brought under the Bill. It may be convenient to deal first with amendments No. 48 and 49.

Amendment No. 48 would provide a two-limbed defence: first, that the act was due to circumstances beyond the defendant's control; and, secondly, that he took reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. To avail himself of the defence proposed in amendment No. 48, the defendant would have to prove both limbs of the defence; and if he failed on one, the whole defence would fall. If such a defence were included, the second limb alone—that he had taken reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence—would be sufficient and satisfactory for the protection of persons who might be persons in a quite subsidiary capacity in the unlikely event of a charge being brought.

It is, therefore, amendment No. 49 that provides the most effective and practical defence, and I advise the House to accept it.

Mr. Dalyell

I wish only to make a genuine inquiry. When I was first elected to the House, the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister for Health, and I learnt much from him about parliamentary tactics in the mid-1970s. He will appreciate that I ask my question in that spirit of inquiry. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but in column 141 there is a report of a crucial exchange that was started by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who said: I am still unclear what will happen to the spare embryos. It is all very well to say that the Bill says that they will not be used for anything other than implanting in a woman. What will happen to them if they are not implanted in a woman? The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—this took place in the middle of the night—replied: As I understand it, an embryo which is not inserted and which is not used for that purpose, although it was brought into existence for that purpose, ceases to exist as an embryo. Whereupon the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said: It dies. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have assented. He is reported as saying: It dies."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 13 March 1985; c. 141.] That is a crucial matter which concerns many people. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I should have intervened earlier. I reminded the House when the debate started that we should not anticipate debates that will take place on later amendments. We cannot anticipate amendments subsequent to those before the House. Amendment No. 18 refers to the very matter that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is raising.

Mr. Powell

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your intervention has relieved me of giving the reply which I would have given in similar terms to your ruling to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Dr. M. S. Miller

I genuinely seek information. The clause does not make it an offence of any sort for a person to procure the fertilisation of a human ovum … in the fallopian tube". It defines "in vitro" as elsewhere than in the fallopian tube or uterus". Therefore, it would not be an offence if a doctor, scientist or experimenter placed a fertilised ovum in the fallopian tube. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that?

Mr. Powell

I fear that the hon. Gentleman may have tripped himself up in the posing of his question. He ended his question by using the words "if such a person has placed a fertilised ovum in the fallopian tube." In that case, ex hypothesi, the fertilisation would have taken place outside the fallopian tube and would have been caught by the terms of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Bill is concerned with IVF. Therefore, it is not concerned with fertilisation which takes place in the only two areas in which it can take place in a woman, which was the earlier wording of the Bill—namely, in the fallopian tube or the uterus. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is about what it is about.

I turn to the two amendments which seek to insert the word "knowingly". They relate to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and, secondly, paragraph (b) only. I shall deal first with "knowingly" in relation to paragraph (a), which refers to procuring the fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro". No one who has had the benefit of witnessing the remarkable technical and scientific procedures which result in fertilisation in vitro would imagine that it could be procured unknowingly. Whatever is happening when there is fertilisation in vitro is happening knowingly—is being procured knowingly. It would be inconceivable for it to happen by a mere fluke. Therefore, "knowingly" in relation to paragraph (a) is superfluous.

However, in paragraph (b), which deals with possession, a wide range of persons, who were not necessarily fully informed of the status and terms of the authority of the Secretary of State under which the fertilisation had taken place, could be held to be in possession. That is why I believe that it is a proper concomitant of amendment No. 49, with its safeguard, which provides a defence in proceedings, that the requirement of knowledge should be inserted in paragraph (b) in order to he the basis of the prohibition.

Mr. Wigley

The right hon. Gentleman has conceded that there is a danger that a number of people could inadvertently find themselves in possession and not have knowledge about it. Does he believe that the word "knowingly", even with amendment No. 49, is adequate protection? Does he accept that there will be many scientists and technicians who will be afraid of being taken to court, notwithstanding the protection given by amendment No. 49, on the basis that the word "knowingly" itself is not enough to protect their interests?

Mr. Powell

I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the purpose both of the Bill and of the clause, which is to delimit in terms of the authority of the Secretary of State the purposes for which an IVF embryo may be possessed. Therefore, we are dealing with persons who, upon the whole, will be in responsible positions and will be fully aware of the purposes for which that embryo is possesed. However, there is a marginal possibility that possession will be held to apply to ancillary staff, for example, at some stage in a hospital process. That is why it appears to me—and I am advised—that the term "knowingly" could be useful and practical in its application to paragraph (b).

Taking the group of amendments as a whole, I advise the House not to accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to make amendment No. 4, and, when we come to them, not to accept amendment No. 48 but to make amendment No. 49.

If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a point at this juncture about the acceptance of amendments in this Report stage which, it w ill be appreciated, were tabled two or three days ago and which have been available for careful study only for a relatively short period. These amendments are accepted expressly on the understanding that, by accepting them, I do not rule out the possible need for drafting consequentials or alterations to be made at a subsequent stage of the Bill. It is upon that basis that, as a matter of fact, I intend to advise the House——

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Powell

I have not been called to order by the Chair.

Mr. Hamilton

I rise on a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker will decide that, not the right hon. Gentleman.

It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he seems to be making conditions on which he will accept amendments. The Bill is now in the possession of the House as a whole. We shall decide, subject to your jurisdiction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not the right hon. Gentleman's, what is and what is not in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is true that the House will decide what amendments will he made. I thought that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was giving advance notice of the possible tabling of further amendments, which is not unusual.

Mr. Powell

It is also not unusual for either a Minister or another hon. Member to offer advice to the House. I want to be quite clear with the House about the terms on which I am offering advice in respect of a Bill of which I am the sponsor when I advise the acceptance of forms of wording in these amendments. Obviously I cannot in present circumstances commit myself to all the drafting implications of those amendments. Therefore, my advice to accept them is subject to the possibility that it may be found necessary to modify them or to have supplementary amendments made at a later stage of the Bill.

It seems to me to be no more than candid with the House, as I propose to advise the acceptance of four groups of amendments, to show the understanding that I wish the House to have when these amendments come to be made, as I hope they will be in due course.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

The right hon. Gentleman said that he wished to be candid with the House. I ask him to be candid with the public. He has called this the "Unborn Children (Protection) Bill", but he says that those words do not appear in the Bill itself and that the Bill does not refer to unborn children.

Mr. Powell

The title of a Bill is not a part of that Bill.

2 pm

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

We have listened to the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Wigley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said that he may need to table consequential amendments arising from amendments that he is prepared to accept today. Can you advise the House whether it will be in order for other hon. Members to table amendments, that will be duly considered, arising from or implied by the changes in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the House does not complete further consideration of the Bill today, doubtless it will be set down for some other day. The normal rules of the House will apply—that hon. Members may table their amendments within the normal time limit.

Mr. Crouch

I must declare an interest as I am a member of the Medical Research Council. I make that declaration because the Medical Research Council has positive views on the Bill.

As we consider these amendments, we are grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for having explained his position on the amendments, especially in regard to the words "knowingly", "procure" and "cause". I am a little surprised that, at this late stage, when we are within an hour of reaching a decision on the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should say that he intends to table amendments. We have all tabled amendments——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I said that I was prepared to advise the House to accept amendments already on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Crouch

I accept that, but it is a little late in the day, although I make no complaint about that. But it is unusual for the right hon. Gentleman to be so imprecise and to show some ambiguity. It is most unlike him, but that is a small point.

I wish to speak about matters principally concerned with the law and the understanding of the words "knowingly", "procure" and "cause", which are the subject of the three amendments. I am not a lawyer, but about 44 years ago I had my first experience in court as an amateur lawyer. I was in the Army and I was required to defend two soldiers against a serious charge of desertion. The word "knowingly" was very much in my mind and I used it as part of my defence.

If any man absents himself without leave when, under embarkation orders, he is due to go overseas on active service, he is guilty under military law of desertion. I was five days in court as an amateur lawyer defending the two soldiers, so I learnt something about the use of words— especially as lawyers use them. I realised that I had to understand the meaning of knowledge in the mind of a person.

My defence of the two soldiers—although I was not successful—was to plead that they knew that they were suffering from a serious illness that might not be treated overseas, venereal disease. Therefore, they knowingly decided to absent themselves and not board the ship because they feared that they would not receive medical treatment overseas.

I did not succeed in my plea that their knowledge should mitigate their sentence. I make that point only because as I approach the use of the word "knowingly" today, I remember using it once before.

This is not a light matter because the Bill has criminal consequences. If anyone makes a mistake in the application of his techniques or in how he proceeds with in vitro fertilisation—if he oversteps the mark set down in the Bill—under clause 2 he is at once subject to criminal prosecution.

Mr. Cash

My hon. Friend has had reason to use the word "knowingly" in proceedings. Is he aware, as I pointed out in an earlier intervention, that Lord Devlin has taken the view that the word "knowingly" is not necessary, that it is superfluous and would normally be implied in a situation of the kind with which my hon. Friend is dealing?

Mr. Crouch

It is not for me to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord, whose experience of the law is somewhat wider than mine.

Suffice it to say that from my experience as a politician and as a member of the Medical Research Council, and from what I have seen of the performance of fertilisation in vitro, I appreciate that there are areas of uncertainty. The Bill does not clarify those uncertainties. As there are criminal sanctions in the measure, we have a duty to safeguard those who practise in vitro fertilisation. After all, it is permitted under the Bill, which writes certain safeguards round it. Those safeguards are inadequate and we must get this matter right. We must not rush this issue.

Ms. Harman

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the responsibility of the House, when creating serious criminal offences which could result in imprisonment and the ruination of careers, to ensure that those offences are sound and just? What a judge might have said about what might normally happen in certain circumstances in a case involving a different offence should not divert us from our responsibility of making sure that the criminal law is fair.

Mr. Crouch

That was the point I was endeavouring to make. It has now been made much better by the hon. Lady, who is a lawyer.

Although "knowingly" is an important word, which should be added, may we be told to what it relates? Knowing what? And what is not known? There is ambiguity in the drafting of the Bill, and I repeat that it is extraordinary that a measure of such imprecision should have come from the hand of the right hon. Member for South Down.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

My hon. Friend has several times said that the Bill is imprecise, that it contains grey areas and that it is difficult to understand. Does he recall that the Second Reading of a measure to make experimentation with human embryos unlawful was passed by the thundering majority of 238 to 66?

Mr. Crouch

I am not arguing in favour of further research on the human embryo. This series of amendments is concerned with words, and the one word about which I am speaking is "knowingly". I am asking whether people who take part in in vitro fertilisation know what they can and cannot do.

The implementation of the clause, especially clause 1(1)(b), would make it an offence to have in one's possession a human embryo produced by in vitro fertilisation without the express permission of the Secretary of State. That applies equally to the possession of live, dead or non-viable embryos because no distinction is made in the Bill. We therefore need to establish whether a person knows what he is handling, what he may do, and what a person who takes part in in vitro fertilisation thinks he or she knows. Some hon. Members may think that the amendment is a trivial addition to the Bill, but it reveals a huge flaw. The difficulties in interpreting the law will be serious if we do not get the Bill right and it passes to the statute book.

I fully understand the intention of the right hon. Member for South Down that an embryo produced by in vitro fertilisation should have a special status to safeguard it from abuse. I am sure that he never meant his Bill to apply to dead embryos. However, he does not say so. The Bill is imprecise. If a human embryo is conceived in vivo it has a one in five chance, and if it is conceived in vitro it has a one in three chance of aborting spontaneously, that is of miscarrying. Although that may happen at any stage in its development, it is more common for it to occur in the first few weeks after conception than later in pregnancy. It is standard medical practice for embryos that have miscarried, especially when it is a repeated event in the medical history of the mother, to be sent to a specialist laboratory for examination to see if a cause for the miscarriage can be found. That may be done using anatomical, biochemical, histological or cytogenetic techniques—in other words, a standard post mortem.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I wish to repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill does not apply to an embryo after it has been inserted. That issue arises on amendment No. 12, about which there was an exchange earlier, acceptance of which would be merely confirmatory of the interpretation of the Bill. I thought that it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if that were clear.

Mr. Crouch

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because his comment is helpful to me. I know exactly what he means and what the Bill intends. However, there would still be a doubt in the minds of those who practise in vitro fertilisation about what they can or cannot do.

The notion of a post mortem may be considered in another way when we consider embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation. Many such embryos stop dividing after one or two divisions. That is known as cleavage arrest, and the embryo referred to is an arrested embryo. That is not be confused with arrested in vitro fertilisers, who contravene the Bill. The arrested embryo cannot give rise to a pregnancy even if it is transferred to a uterus. It is nonviable in every sense of the word. Those embryos are effectively dying, if not already dead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech may be more relevant on a later amendment.

Mr. Crouch

In a debate such as this one says many things that would be relevant at a further stage. I understand that. We need plenty of time to debate this significant Bill. The House knows that I have been calling on the Minister to make speeches on this subject for the past three months, and he has made speeches.

Mr. Cash

rose——

Mr. Crouch

No, I must proceed, and I wish to observe Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction.

I was not aware that the Minister was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if he is, I shall give him the opportunity to speak.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Crouch

That is an extremely encouraging response from my hon. Friends.

2.15 pm
Mr. Wigley

Would the hon. Gentleman clarify one aspect of his remarks? I have been following his speech with close interest. Does he suggest that someone in possession of a dead embryo or one that is in the process of dying could be guilty of an offence under the Bill, unless there is clarification of the status of the embryo? If that is what he is saying, he is opening——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The status of the embryo does not arise in the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Wigley

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question whether a dead embryo is covered by the amendment is critical. It is extremely important to the interpretation——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have reminded the House that there are other amendments, which seem to be much more relevant and which, under our rules, we should not anticipate. I have so ruled.

Mr. Crouch

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) makes an important point. The Bill is imprecise, and that is why we must ensure that it does not reach the statute book.

When you told me earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stay within the confines of these amendments, I was saying that, if embryos are placed in the appropriate preservative for microscopy or are subjected to biochemical or chromosomal analysis, information may be revealed as to why an embryo arrested during development and became non-viable. One may regard that as an early mini-post mortem with exactly the same motives as though it were performed on a dead adult or foetus. The information gleaned might enable medical scientists to prevent cleavage arrest occurring in other embryos and thus improve success at in vitro fertilisation and embryo replacement. It may also provide clues to the mechanism that may cause spontaneous miscarriages.

We need to know all those things, but we shall not know them through the Bill. If the Minister wishes to speak at this late stage, I shall willingly curtail my remarks. All that I am saying is that we must know much more precisely what is permitted under the Bill. It is not clear as it is drafted.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposer of the Bill—one of the great procedural experts of the day with whom I would hesitate to tangle—said clearly that the short title was not part of the Bill. However, clause 2(1) on page 3 of the Bill states: This Act may be cited as the Unborn Children (Protection) Act 1985. I submit to you, Sir, that the short title of a Bill is part of that Bill. Certainly it is the understanding of the hundreds of people who have written to many hon. Members. They start by saying: As you may know, the report stage"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and I understand it. The short title is part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman complained that someone said that the short title was not part of the Bill, and he asked for my advice. I thought that I gave him the answer that he wanted. Yes, the short title is part of the Bill. Nothing further arises.

Mr. Dalyell

It is not just that someone said it; the proposer of the Bill said it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Whether it was the proposer of the Bill or anyone else, I hope that I have put the matter beyond doubt. I do not see how any further point can arise. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman should persist in this when many hon. Members are waiting to address the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

I shall address the House briefly on two topics, one of which was certainly not mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). One of the reasons why Members on both sides support the amendment to insert the word "knowingly" is that certain processes can accidentally lead to the creation of an embryo, and that embryo is not intended for placement in a specified woman.

Techniques for testing ova and sperm involve bringing the two together without the intention of creating an embryo. For the sake of argument, let us accept that the crucial point in the creation of life is the making of the embryo. I personally do not accept that, but that is what the right hon. Gentleman and the supporters of the Bill are so concerned about. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that when an embryo is created by accident as a result of action taken in good faith when testing an ovum or sperm, the person who creates the embryo should not be obliged to put it into a woman.

Those responsible for running an infertility clinic might have doubts about the capacity of a man's sperm to penetrate the ovum of a particular woman, so it is then necessary and proper to do tests. Anyone who says that he does not object to in vitro fertilisation must accept that as proper and reasonable. Tests can determine whether that form of penetration is possible. If it is not, the in vitro fertilisation procedures are irrelevant until something can be done either to the ovum or to the sperm.

It might be necessary to take sperm from someone not intended to be the father of a child to see whether it has the capacity to penetrate a particular woman's ovum. The scientists and the woman concerned need to know whether something is wrong with the ovum. Such procedures should not be inhibited.

If the Bill remains as drafted, some honest, decent, humane clinician who carries out a test which by accident creates an embryo should not be obliged to insert that embryo into a woman. That would be absurd. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

Is not my hon. Friend saying that the Bill will effectively stop all research and make in vitro fertilisation almost impossible?

Mr. Dobson

I would go further. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been listening, but this is not a facile matter. It involves the fertility of many women who are desperate to become fertile. We do not want facile contributions from the hon. Gentleman.

It is not a question even of research. The sort of tests that I have been talking about are vital to the continuation of existing in vitro fertilisation techniques. When people go to an infertility clinic, humane, caring and responsible doctors have to carry out such tests if they are to do their job responsibly. It would not be proper for the House to countenance anything that inhibitied them from doing their job humanely and properly.

Ms. Harman

Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) has not given the House a single reason why the Bill should depart from the normal criminal law, that the definition of an offence must include the intention to have committed that offence? It is part of the flavour of the hysteria and irrationality of the Bill that the right hon. Member for South Down counsels us not to accept an amendment which would simply put this criminal offence on all fours with other criminal offences.

Mr. Dobson

I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is not a question of intending to do something that proves to be unlawful. Without any concept of lawfulness or unlawfulness, clinicians might find themselves in possession of embryos that they had created by accident.

Mr. Thurnham

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that research is important, because only one in 10 embryo implantations succeeds? The House should try to improve the chances of embryo implantation succeeding and not prevent the possibility of achieving an improvement.

Mr. Dobson

I agree with that extremely valid and reasonable point. The hon. Gentleman made many similar points in Committee.

Amendment No. 3 seeks the removal of the word "procure" and the substitution of "cause." The right hon. Member for South Down has explained that that proposition was considered in Committee and that he was convinced by our arguments against the use of "procure." He said that if he could come up with a better word, he would do so.

The right hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to write to me to say that he had not been able to come up with a word that met his requirements. Therefore, I hope that he will appreciate that as we——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dobson

Not at the moment.

In view of the fact that——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dobson

Not at this point.

In view of the fact that——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is the Labour Front Bench talking out the Bill?

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Dobson

In view of the fact that——

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dobson

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Powell

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division——

Dr. M. S. Miller (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important subject. There have been few speakers in the debate, none of whom was out of order. I resent the fact that the closure has been put when many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have been debating the amendment for approximately one and a half hours. It is for the House to decide whether it should bring the debate to a conclusion. I do not decide. The House decides. I merely give the House the chance to make its decision.

Dr. Miller (seated and covered)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is for the House to decide, but it is for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to decide whether to accept the closure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is is for the House to vote upon whether it wishes to proceed to a conclusion on the matter before the House.

Mr. Wigley (seated and covered)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) raised his point of order a few moments ago, he said that a number of hon. Members wished to speak in the debate. In those circumstances, why did you accept the closure before hon. Members, some of whom had tabled amendments, had been called to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If it became the practice of the Chair never to accept a motion for closure when there were still hon. Members wanting to address the House, we should never have closure motions. They would become superfluous.

Mr. Dobson (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for my ludicrous appearance which is required by the rules of the House. This situation seems to some Opposition Members curious and contrary to order. When we debated an amendment in Committee, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) gave an undertaking to try to come up with an amendment that met our requirements. He failed to do so. We have had no opportunity to make one point in favour of the amendment that we originally tabled. That seems contrary to the spirit of a Report stage which gives the House the opportunity to consider things that happened in Committee and to do something about them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not believe that any of those matters are points of order. The Report stage of any Bill is not open-ended so that every possible amendment can be tabled and every speaker heard.

Mr. Crouch (seated and covered)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have to tell the House that no tellers have been appointed for the Noes. I therefore declare that the Ayes have it.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

Mr. Wigley

That is a disgrace.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Dobson (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The House having divided: Ayes 82, Noes 157.

Division No. 197] [2.35 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo McKelvey, William
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Maclennan, Robert
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) McWilliam, John
Barnett, Guy Madden, Max
Benn, Tony Maples, John
Bidwell, Sydney Maynard, Miss Joan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Michie, William
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Mikardo, Ian
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Miscampbell, Norman
Clay, Robert Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Cohen, Harry Nellist, David
Corbyn, Jeremy O'Neill, Martin
Couchman, James Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Ottaway, Richard
Crouch, David Park, George
Dalyell, Tarn Parris, Matthew
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Richardson, Ms Jo
Deakins, Eric Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Dobson, Frank Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Dubs, Alfred Sackville, Hon Thomas
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Sedgemore, Brian
Eastham, Ken Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Fatchett, Derek Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) Sims, Roger
Flannery, Martin Skinner, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Fraser, J. (Norwood) Soley, Clive
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, W. E. Spencer, Derek
Harman, Ms Harriet Squire, Robin
Heffer, Eric S. Stradling Thomas, J.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) Thurnham, Peter
Howells, Geraint Wiggin, Jerry
Hoyle, Douglas Wigley, Dafydd
Jackson, Robert
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd) Tellers for the Ayes:
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Mr. Kevin Barron and
Leighton, Ronald Mr. Willie W. Hamilton.
NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Bray, Dr Jeremy
Aitken, Jonathan Campbell-Savours, Dale
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Alton, David Cash, William
Amess, David Chapman, Sydney
Anderson, Donald Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Beggs, Roy Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Beith, A. J. Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bendall, Vivian Clarke, Thomas
Benyon, William Clegg, Sir Walter
Biffen, Rt Hon John Corrie, John
Blackburn, John Cowans, Harry
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Cranborne, Viscount
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Cunliffe, Lawrence
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Mills, lain (Meriden)
Dicks, Terry Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Dixon, Donald Moynihan, Hon C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Murphy, Christopher
Dover, Den Neubert, Michael
Dunn, Robert Newton, Tony
Dykes, Hugh Nicholls, Patrick
Eadie, Alex Nicholson, J.
Eggar, Tim Normanton, Tom
Eyre, Sir Reginald Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Favell, Anthony O'Brien, William
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Paisley, Rev Ian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Fox, Marcus Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abdgn)
Galley, Roy Pawsey, James
Garel-Jones, Tristan Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Greenway, Harry Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Gregory, Conal Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Ground, Patrick Powley, John
Gummer, John Selwyn Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Hamilton, James (M'well N) Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Roe, Mrs Marion
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Harvey, Robert Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hayes, J. Rowlands, Ted
Hayhoe, Barney Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Hirst, Michael Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Home Robertson, John Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hordern, Peter Silvester, Fred
Howard, Michael Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Speed, Keith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hume, John Stanbrook, Ivor
Hunter, Andrew Stanley, John
Jessel, Toby Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Kennedy, Charles Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Key, Robert Terlezki, Stefan
Kilfedder, James A. Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Lambie, David Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Lang, Ian Tracey, Richard
Lawrence, Ivan Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
McCartney, Hugh Wall, Sir Patrick
McCrea, Rev William Waller, Gary
McCurley, Mrs Anna Ward, John
McCusker, Harold Watts, John
McGuire, Michael White, James
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Williams, Rt Hon A.
Maclean, David John Wilson, Gordon
McNamara, Kevin Winterton, Mrs Ann
Maginnis, Ken Winterton, Nicholas
Major, John Woodall, Alec
Malins, Humfrey Young, David (Bolton SE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mates, Michael Tellers for the Noes:
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Mr. Ian Campbell and
Merchant, Piers Mr. Peter Bruinvels.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Further consideration, what day?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

No day named.

Back to