TIME-LIMIT FOR TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY

HC Deb 06 May 1988 vol 132 cc1186-215

Ms. Richardson

I beg to move amendment No. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '26th'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '20th completed'.

No. 5, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '22nd completed'.

No. 7, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert 'end of the 24th'.

Ms. Richardson

In Committee we probed every aspect of the Bill as amended by its sponsors—[Interruption.]

Ms. Primarolo

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Will hon. Members who do not wish to take part in the debate leave the Chamber quietly and quickly?

Ms. Richardson

I apologise if hon. Members could not hear what I was saying. I was simply referring to the fact that in Committee, those opposing the Bill probed every conceivable aspect of the Bill, as amended by its sponsors. We maintained consistently on Second Reading and in Committee that there was no substantiated evidence that the Abortion Act 1967 is being abused or misused by women or doctors. Most importantly, we emphasised that all the evidence shows that the upper time limit of 28 weeks is treated with the greatest of respect by women and by doctors in England and Wales, and by women and doctors in Scotland, where there is effectively no upper time limit and fewer late abortions are performed than in England and Wales. I have moved amendment No. 2, to allow abortions up to 26 weeks. I have an amendment down for 27 weeks, as I did on the Corrie Bill, as that is the number of weeks that is nearest to 28. One has to remember that as doctors take off two or four weeks, effectively, the period is less than 26 weeks anyway.

We probed every aspect of the Bill, as amended, while we maintained our position that no change in the upper limit was required and that the time limit from the beginning of the 18 weeks was unacceptable. It became clear during the course of our discussions that the sponsors of the Bill take an absolutist and fundamentalist line on abortion. On innumerable occasions, each one of them has reiterated that he or she is opposed to all abortions and is willing to barter with women's bodies and gamble with children's lives to try to maximise support for the Bill and inflict a substantial blow on the 1967 Act, which has given women and doctors 20 years of safe and legal operations.

In choosing the arbitrary time limit from the beginning of 18 weeks, the sponsors of the Bill have sought to set the terms of the debate so that other equally unacceptable time limits have been opposed as compromises, and that their own restrictive amendments to the Bill—on foetal abnormalities, under-18 rape and incest—can be posed as concessions. I recall the way that the under-18 rape amendment, which is now in the Bill, was moved. I am sure that my hon. Friends who were on the Committee will recall that it was moved as a concession. I think that it was appalling to divide young women in that way by introducing an arbitrary period of 18 weeks.

12.45 pm

Ms. Short

My hon. Friend has said that all members of the Committee were convinced that neither doctors nor women were abusing the 1967 legislation. I put it to her that some doctors are guilty of abuse. I understand that 20 per cent. of women who have abortions after 28 weeks come forward before 12 weeks. Delay is a major cause of late abortion. It is an abuse of the existing legislation and it should be rectified, but the Bill does not seek to do that.

Ms. Richardson

My hon. Friend is right but she is referring to a different form of abuse from the one that I was addressing. It was argued by Conservative Members that doctors were abusing the Act wholesale by performing abortions when they should not. We continue to deny that. As my hon. Friend has said, there are doctors who, for various reasons, deny a woman an abortion when she is entitled to have one. Some refuse even to pass her on to a doctor who will give her proper advice.

In speaking to the 26-week amendment I want to dispel the belief that some hon. Members may have that it represents a compromise or a concession. Any legal time limit is, in practice, taken by doctors to be a minimum of two weeks less due to difficulties in estimating gestational age and fears of prosecution that might result from an incorrect estimate. My hon. Friend will recall that there was a short debate in Committee on the difficulties in estimating gestational age. Our arguments were rejected. I recall what was said by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in rejecting the amendment. She claimed that it would bring the time limit to 20 weeks rather than to leave it at 18, which is what she wanted. That was further confirmation that she wants very early abortions at the end of 17 weeks.

Doctors' fear of prosecution can only have been grossly increased by the way in which the campaign has been waged both inside and outside the House. We are discussing time limits of 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. This is how time limits of 17 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks and 26 weeks are being put into practice. if we remove two weeks from all the numbers of weeks, the result is that we are discussing 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. We must keep that in the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

The hon. Lady has referred to fears of prosecution. Does she agree that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the promoter of the Bill, has made it clear that in his view his campaign has already led to a substantial reduction in the number of women presenting themselves for abortion? Surely this is the appropriate way in which to proceed. By voluntary activity, persuasion and example, rather than an extension of the criminal law, we shall deal more satisfactorily with a sensitive and intimate subject.

Ms. Richardson

Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We feel that there are many other ways of reducing the rate of abortions at a high week level than the way that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has chosen.

I do not wish to digress, but two of my hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment to introduce self-referral for woman up to the 12th week of pregnancy—that is what happens on the continent. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Abortion on demand?"] It is not abortion on demand. A doctor must be present when an abortion is carried out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is riot suggesting that women should do it themselves. In effect, if the doctor agrees, it is abortion on request. In most European countries that is what happens. A woman may have an abortion up to the 12th week. That has resulted in reducing the rate of abortion because women find it easier to obtain one, and the Health Service provision there makes this possible.

Whatever the amendments may say, effectively we are talking about time limits that are two weeks below those listed. That point has been made strongly by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which has written to all Members of the House and is acknowledged—even by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—to be an organisation of integrity. The BPAS states that it will ban abortions under the provisions of the 1967 Act at 15 weeks if the time limits remains at the beginning of the 18th week of pregnancy, as suggested in the Bill.

It goes on to say that to ensure that they do not break the law they will work to 20 weeks for a 22-week limit and 22 weeks for a 24-week limit. This would mean that 17,000 women, using 1986 figures, will be denied an abortion and will be forced to continue with a pregnancy which could previously have been carried out legally and safely. That is what the BPAS has been forced to do. It is important at this stage to dispel the myth that has been created that late back-street abortions were not and therefore will not now be a problem.

We must remember that it took some years before women, general practitioners and consultants learnt fully about the abortion rights that came into force in 1968. At that time no funds were allocated to the NHS to set up an abortion service.

If we consider the years from 1968 we find that deaths continued not only from illegal abortions, but from illegal-late abortions. From 1970 to 1972, 38 women died from illegal abortions: three at 20 weeks; two at 26 weeks; one at 27 weeks——

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

Will the hon. Lady explain how many of those women were foreign women coming to this country for late abortions?

Ms. Richardson

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot tell him because I am not sure that the DHSS figures that we have go back that far. The figures that I am quoting can be substantiated by the DHSS and I shall give him the evidence in writing with great pleasure if he wishes to see it. I am not lying.

Between 1973 and 1975, of the 10 women who died three were 16 weeks pregnant and one was 22 weeks pregnant. Between 1976 and 1978—as late as that—four women died. One died from a self-induced abortion at 18 weeks and one at 20 weeks. Between 1979 and 1981 only one woman died of an illegal abortion and two of unspecified abortions. The illegal abortion had been carried out at 27 weeks.

Those tragic deaths included young women, single women, women with other children and women with no children. We really cannot turn our backs on that evidence. Despite the amendment that was carried in Committee by the Bill's sponsors, the exemption on the detection of foetal disability is a serious point and will remain so with time limits higher than the 17th week.

All hon. Members will have received a letter from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Although the royal colleges claim that they would settle for 24 weeks as an upper time limit, they point to the deficiencies in the Bill, apart from the time limits. Even with the amendment that was agreed in Committee tabled by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), which is alleged to cover exceptions for foetal abnormality, the royal colleges did not believe that the Bill would cover all the cases.

Mr. Thurnham

Is the hon. Lady referring to a letter that I received on 26 April from Professor Beard, the chairman of the joint committee on foetal viability and clinical practice at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in which he said: We consider that the present Abortion Act of 1967 functions well, and that if the proposed Abortion (Amendment) Bill became law it would not be in the best interests of women in this country."?

Ms. Richardson

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The royal colleges and other organisations have made it clear that, whatever upper time limit is agreed by Parliament, it will not make the Bill acceptable. All hon. Members who are minded otherwise should reflect on that.

As I have said, a 24-week limit would, in effect, be 22 weeks. That will still cause serious problems for ultra sound screening and amniocentesis tests which are the major tests for detecting physical and mental disability.

As we have heard, the amniocentesis test is not available until 16 weeks, and the results take up to four weeks to obtain. In some cases, the tests have to be repeated. A friend of mine had an amniocentesis test at 16 weeks. She waited three weeks and then had to have another before it could be confirmed that she was carrying an abnormal foetus. She eventually had an abortion at 22 weeks.

Having had an amniocentesis test, a woman would have reached 20 weeks before the results of the first test were known. Where a second test is required, the 24-week time limit would provide the necessary leeway for an abortion to be carried out under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967. No consideration can be taken into account other than the severity of the detected foetal abnormality. No consideration can be taken of the woman's circumstances, age or economic and social conditions.

I ask the House to pause for a moment. If we pass the Bill, we must bear in mind the anguish and anxiety that we will inflict on many women who would at least like to think that they had some kind of choice if they found themselves in those difficult circumstances. I admit that we discussed that point at length in Committee. However, we must take into account the mental stress that poverty and poor housing can cause to women.

1 pm

Today is Friday. When all this is over in the House of Commons, I shall be going to my surgery—in common, no doubt, with many of my hon. Friends. I know before I get there that at least a dozen, perhaps 20, housing cases will be awaiting me. People—maninly women—who bear the responsibility of the family, come along and say, "I am in a terrible state. I have three children." I am not talking about women asking for abortions. I am talking about the strain from which they suffer. Such women, with two or three children, may be living on the 10th floor of a block with the lift always out of order. I can imagine many such women, if they become pregnant again, thinking, "My gosh, I really cannot go through with this"—and who could blame them? Yet those hon. Members who are sponsoring the Bill and who intend to see it through would toss those people on one side. I think that that is cruel.

Mr. Shersby

What the hon. Lady is now saying goes to the heart of the debate. As I understand it, she is arguing that if a woman is under stress, in the difficult circumstances that she describes—and I agree that all hon. Members come into contact with women in that condition—she should then be able to obtain an abortion for social reasons, because of the stress on her family, because her home is overcrowded or for some similar reason.

Surely this is what the real argument is about. A substantial number of people feel that it is not legitimate for a woman to ask for an abortion for those social reasons.

Ms. Short

She should make her own decision.

Mr. Shersby

This the crux. Will the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) amplify that point? Will she clarify why an abortion should be allowed simply on grounds of stress or overcrowding?

Ms. Richardson

I thought that I had done so. I entirely accept that such a woman could probably obtain an abortion up to the end of the 17th week under the Bill, but we are thinking beyond that point. As has been said repeatedly in the Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere, it is not always possible to get the two doctors—or, in this case, doctor and consultant gynaecologist—before the end of the 17th week, and we are very worried. Although that may not involve a large number of women, many will feel threatened, because the Act—if we are unfortunate enough to see it become one—will be hanging over them, and they will not know what to do. I believe that the House has a duty to take into account the so-called social reasons—although in most people's terminology "social" means something more pleasant.

Mr. Alton

Not once has the hon. Lady made any mention—I hope that she will—of what happens to the child involved in a late abortion: the child that is dismembered in the course of a dilatation and evacuation operation; the child that is placed in a black sack and incinerated, as in the case of the Carlisle baby, at 21 weeks' gestation after struggling for life for three hours. Not once has she mentioned the child.

Ms. Richardson

It is necessary to weigh these matters up.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the doctor who refused to treat the foetus in the Carlisle case was a member of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child? Is she aware that when the health authority looked into the matter, it decided that the doctor had made the right decision? Is she aware that Life decided to call in the police, which meant that the woman involved had to be told what had happened and had to be interviewed by the police for three hours? Is she aware that the police finally decided that there was no case to answer? Is she aware that pressure has been exerted on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for an inquest to be held, which means that the mother will have to go and register the death of the child and will probably have to testify at the inquest?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are getting rather wide of the matter before the House.

Ms. Richardson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. it happened in his constituency. He has taken a close and concerned interest in the matter.

I shall say something about the Carlisle bably. I could not understand why the matter was not reported at the time. It should have been. If anything went wrong, it should have been dealt with in the proper way at the time. I do not understand why it should have come up so much later. FromTime Out, I understand that the hon. member for Mossley Hill—he will correct me if I am wrong—prompted the coroner to have an inquest. That seems to be rather strange. Why did the hon. Member for Mossley Hill do it recently? Why did he not do it at the time?

Mr. Alton

rose——

Ms. Richardson

If I may continue before the hon. Gentleman intervenes.

Time Out informed me that it has spoken to the coroner and that the coroner, who was drawn in at that late stage, relatively recently, on looking at the files, decided that perhaps there should have been a registration of death. It was too late to do anything about the body of the child, because he had to look at the files. Apparently, the coroner then wrote to the Home Secretary to inform him of that. As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill had raised the matter with him, out of courtesy the coroner also wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I have it written in shorthand, as it was given to me byTime Out. The coroner said: I was very startled when it suddenly appeared in the press. I only wrote to tell Mr. Alton as a matter of courtesy. Maybe I was very naive, but it just didn't cross my mind that he would announce it to the press. Interesting, is it not?

Mr. Alton

It is a public letter. It does not state in any way that it is confidential. It states: I received the police file on 21st April, and having studied it carefully I came to the conclusion that an Inquest would be in the public interest. I have posted a detailed report to the Home Office today, so that the Secretary of State may decide whether he considers an Inquest desirable. The letter is signed by Ian Morton, coroner for north-east Cumbria. His reply is rather more reliable than the shorthand notes fromTime Out.

Ms. Richardson

That does not cross what I have said.

Mr. Martlew

I talked to the coroner this morning. He is dismayed at the use that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill has made of the information.

Ms. Richardson

Again, there is confirmation of the whole matter.

I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and other hon. Members have made. What about the stress to the mother? I wonder whether the hon. Member for Mossley Hill considered, belatedly, bringing that to the attention of the coroner. I wonder whether he sat down and thought, "Well, now, we are going to have to get this woman to court." That is appalling. That woman had an abortion. As everybody says, abortions are not lightly undertaken. Often—not always, but often—they leave emotional scars. Now, because the coroner says that there should have been an inquest, that poor woman will have to go through the whole thing again.

Mrs. Gorman

On the matter relating to the baby in pieces, which was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), we have heard the story time and again. I consulted Dr. Wendy Savage, one of our leading experts. She consulted Mr. Arnie Finks, one of the world's leading experts, and he said that, before an abortion of this kind is undertaken, and even before a caesarian operation is performed, the amount of anaesthetic given to the mother has to be terribly tightly controlled because it affects the foetus. When there is to be an abortion by this method, the mother is given a full anaesthetic and the foetus is entirely anaesthetised and probably dead. The idea of the foetus alive and in pieces is an absolute travesty of the facts. It is a fact that, even in caesarian operations, to protect the foetus from the effects of the aneasthetic, the mother is sometimes not completely anaesthetised.

Ms. Richardson

The hon. Lady—whom I called my hon. Friend for the purposes of debate in Committee, but who is now once again the hon. Lady—has put the matter in perspective. It is a matter of balance. The mother's wishes are paramount. She must make the decision in consultation with her husband or the partner with whom she lives, who is the father of the child. We want such a decision to be taken in those circumstances.

Mr. Tredinnick

I should point out that the Channel 4 programme "Women in View" considered the Carlisle incident and the surrounding publicity. It found that a local journalist, running his own freelance agency, had made £5,000 from the story., which he obtained from the curate, whom I shall not name, at St. Bride's, Carlisle, who happened to be a member of SPUC.

Ms. Richardson

The further we go into this matter, the murkier it becomes.

Ms. Short

We must put this matter right on the record because the House and the Committee were misled about the nature of the disability affecting the foetus in that case. It was suggested that it was a minor skin complaint, but it was a serious condition that can lead to suffering, rupture of the skin and internal organs and to death. The woman was told that her foetus was subject to those conditions, not to a minor skin complaint. The record should not be distorted as it has been.

Ms. Richardson

That is right and we shall see what develops from that. The publicity surrounding that event appears to have been geared beautifully—perhaps "specifically" would be a more appropriate word to use—towards gaining publicity for the Bill. I deplore such tactics.

Mr. Martlew

The abortion in question took place in July 1987 and was brought to the fore on Second Reading.

Ms. Richardson

I am glad that my hon. Friend has put that on the record because I had forgotten that point. He drew the original article to my attention and I was amazed to find that the incident took place so long ago.

Mr. Alton

That is an important point. That information became public knowledge, not as a result of action taken by SPUC, Life or myself, but because the doctor and the nurses involved found the procedures so repugnant that they swore affidavits to that effect and asked for an investigation. The coroner has now said that there should be an inquest, because that would be in the public interest, and that should surely validate their action.

Ms. Richardson

I do not know sufficient——

Mr. Martlew

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should allow the hon. Lady to deal with one intervention at a time.

Ms. Richardson

As my hon. Friend is the Member for Carlisle and has taken such a close interest in the matter, I am sure that he would be able to elucidate that point.

Mr. Martlew

The matter became public knowledge originally through an article in theCatholic Herald. It was then taken up by theSunday People, which gave a distorted view. An even more distorted view was given by theSunday Mirror, which supposedly carried out an interview with the mother—which never in fact took place—in which she supposedly said that her child would be born a freak. No reporter ever talked to that lady and that comment was never made to that lady by the gynaecologist concerned.

Ms. Richardson

When we see theOfficial Report of the debate we can piece together the true facts of the Carlisle case in a way that we could not previously do. I am glad that some of the details of it are now on the record.

1.15 pm.

There have been a number of interventions during my speech, but I shall now conclude my remarks as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. The Bill is unacceptable, irrespective of the time limits. It does not take into account the social reasons that we have been discussing. Some problems are known only to those who are affected, and they should have the benefit of choice, albeit a limited choice under the 1967 Act. That is why that Act should be left intact.

A time limit of anything less than 26 weeks—which, in effect, is 24 weeks—would write off the interests of real, living women and their children in favour of the interests of an unviable foetus. We must make a decision today, and I hope that it will be the right one. From what the sponsors of the Bill said in Committee, I understand that they intend further attacks on the 1967 Act. That has also been made plain this morning. People will be forced to the defensive. I put down a marker that I will not be forced to the defensive—I shall feel forced to the offensive.

We must study the good practices of those European countries that have self-referral. We must ensure that the 1967 Act is responsive to need in every possible way, without going beyond the bounds of legality. We must ensure that the NHS responds adequately in every part of Britain. For example, it responds in the north but not in the west midlands. There must be decent, proper sex education at school and a properly funded family planning service. Funds should be made available for research into contraception so that women do not take the pill and then find, as some do, that it does not suit them, or that being fitted with an inter-uterine device does not do the trick. All those measures would make women safer. There is a large failure rate in contraception so it is no use people thinking that women are simply being careless. We must ensure genuine choice for women.

Hon. Members who want to end abortion will achieve only a return to back-street abortion. Those of us who support the 1967 Act want improvements so that there are safe and legal abortions, with back-up facilities, that allow women to live their lives with dignity and independence.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

The amendments are all aimed at the very heart of the Bill. I would prefer the Bill to limit abortions to the 18th week of pregnancy, but I made plain on Second Reading the fact that I was ready to join the search for a formula that would safeguard the position of the woman who might be bearing a child suffering from severe abnormality, and on whom tests to establish the facts had not been completed by the 18th week of her pregnancy.

That aspect was considered in detail in Committee and I moved an amendment that now forms part of the Bill. That was a genuine attempt by my hon. Friends and myself to keep faith with the House. A number of reservations have been aired, even by supporters of the Bill and it is necessary to keep faith with the House. The Bill that we now seek to amend further is not the Bill to which the House gave a substantial majority on Second Reading.

The amendments now being discussed seek to raise the limit for all abortions from the 18th week of pregnancy. We must be clear about what will be the effects of that on—if I may use the term for the first time today—the right to life of the unborn. The Bill in its present form does not change the grounds for abortion under the 1967 Act. The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was well intentioned, but the case he had in mind was irrelevant, because in all probability it would have been dealt with before the 18th week of pregnancy—very much earlier, probably.

The Bill concerns itself with the scandal of abortions for social reasons or for convenience. I remind the House that abortions under the social cause constitute the vast majority of abortions performed after 18 weeks. No less than 92 per cent. of all late abortions are carried out on foetuses, which, if they were permitted to be born, would be perfectly normal and healthy. Many of us are appalled that under the 1967 Act, 2.6 million foetuses had been destroyed by 1986. If they had been allowed to be born, most of them would have grown into healthy and normal children. Slaughter on that scale continues, and the purpose of the Bill—

Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)

rose—'—

Sir Bernard Braine

I shall not give way, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak, and owing to what has gone before, there is little time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand.

The Bill deals with only a small proportion of abortions performed after 18 weeks, when the baby in the womb is perfectly formed. It is responsive to light and to sound, and it recognises its mother's voice. It differs in no material respect from what it will be 10 weeks later when, under the law, it is protected against the crime of destruction.

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

rose——

Sir Bernard Braine

I have already indicated that I shall not give way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".] No, I must stick by my word. I did not give way to my hon. Friend, and I have a number of other points to make. I want to be brief, to give others an opportunity to speak.

Amendment No. 2 is wholly unacceptable to the Bill's supporters, and so is the amendment calling for a limit of 24 weeks. Both ignore the fact that at those gestational ages, a pre-term baby can survive. A study undertaken at Bristol maternity hospital in 1984 found that 72 per cent. of live-born infants of 22 to 27 weeks' gestation survived. That finding was published in a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled "Pre-term Labour and its Consequences". Two years earlier, in 1982, the survival rate for the same group was 43 per cent. and in 1981 it was only 29 per cent. Legislation should reflect and not ignore advances in medical science and practice. We should not be confused by the word "viability", which is not an objective pointer in terms of the right to life. It is the level at which medical technology can sustain the life of a prematurely born baby rather than the point below which the baby is not a human being with a right to life and above which he or she should be protected by law.

I should have liked to say a great deal more, but I am anxious that the Bill should make progress.[Interruption.]If the House will not listen I shall develop the case that I intended to develop. The subject of my remarks has scarcely been mentioned today. It is the right to life of the unborn. On Second Reading, the House voted in favour of 18 weeks. The sponsors believe that we have the support of the majority in the country and we should prefer the Bill to remain as amended in Committee to meet the genuine concern of the House.

The amendments provide us with a choice and we shall shortly be exercising that choice. In doing so, we should remember that the unborn child marked down for abortion has no choice. It is denied the right to be born—the right to a life before death. In those circumstances, only we can choose life and I trust that the majority of us will do so.

Mr. Steel

In considering the variety of amendments before us, it is right to pay some attention to the learned bodies that have given a great deal of thought to this issue. With the exception of one or two hon. Members with qualifications in this area, most of us are lay men and women and we are dealing with a very complicated question. I remind the House, therefore, that a number of detailed inquiries have been conducted into the whole subject of viability and we should take their conclusions into account.

The first was the distinguished committee of inquiry under Mrs. Justice Lane set up by the Government some years ago in response to continued criticism of the working of the Abortion Act 1967. On this narrow issue, that committee recommended that abortion should not be carried out beyond the 24th week of pregnancy. That was several years ago and the Government made various administrative changes in the light of that recommendation—no doubt the Minister will amplify this—which have meant that since that time very few abortions have been carried out beyond the 24-week limit. Nevertheless, the law still stands as it as created—not in 1967, but in 1929 by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.

I believe that it is the will of the House, certainly by a clear majority, that the law should reflect the changes in medical practice that have taken place since then. I believe that if we could only secure expression for it there is probably a majority in the House in favour of a 24-week limit.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Gallup poll conducted in January among 746 gynaecologists. Apart from abortion for foetal abnormality and threat to the life of the mother, they were asked what they thought should be the upper limit for legal abortions. Ninety-eight per cent. of the gynaecologists asked supported 24 weeks or below, which shows that there is no support among the medical profession—or, I suspect, in the House—for this amendment. Is it not time that we accepted our responsibility to the general public and debated the important amendments that the public want us to deal with?

Mr. Steel

I sympathise with the hon. Member. I am addressing my remarks to amendment No. 7, which deals with 24 weeks.

1.30 pm

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I believe it to be the will of the House that there be a Division, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I think it is much too early. I think the House would prefer to hear the Minister and the promoter of the Bill, together with those who oppose the amendments.

Mr. Steel

I was outlining to the House what I believed was the first substantial committee of inquiry into the issue, which recommended to Parliament and to Government that there should be a limit of 24 weeks. That committee of inquiry took place some years ago. The most recent study was conducted not by this House, but by a Select Committee of another place. Only a few weeks ago that Committee, having deliberated on a Bill to amend the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, concluded that the limit should be 24 weeks.

The third study of this matter was by a committee that included representatives of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Paediatric Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and the Department of Health and Social Security. That very important committee published a report in August 1985 on foetal viability and clinical practice. Its recommendation was clear. It said that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered viable should be changed from the present limit of 28 weeks to 24 weeks of gestation.

The committee continued: a strong argument which persuaded the Committee against recommending a gestational age that is set too low, is the certainty that fear ignorance and administrative delays will continue to be a major reason for late attendance for termination of pregnancy. These late attenders are usually the women in greatest need of help—the very young and socially deprived. That was not a committee of social workers. It was a highly expert medical committee that recommended to Parliament what should be the state of the law. We would be wise to consider its opinions.

Just before the Bill's Second Reading, the viability committee of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists circulated a statement reiterating the royal college's view that there should be a 24-week limit. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has left his seat, because this is an important argument that is contrary to his. The viability committee said: Twenty-four weeks gestation marks a … boundary below which the lungs are not expected to function. A reduction to 18 weeks"— or for that matter any other limit— has no scientific basis and would discriminate against women who may be most in need. On future medical advance, the committee said: Further medical expertise will increase survival rates rather than lower the age at which survival is possible. For those reasons the House would be wise to accept an amendment to the 1967 legislation, creating a bar at 24 weeks of pregnancy. Remembering the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) that the medical profession always operates within a two-week limit of safety, a legal statement that abortion may not take place beyond the 24th week will ensure that it will not happen after the 22nd week.

I say bluntly to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and to other hon. Members who support the Bill that, if they were honest, they would say that there is no ethical difference between an abortion at 10 weeks, 17 weeks or 24 weeks. From their standpoint, the alternatives are all equally wrong. Those of us who do not share that view have the responsibility of determining what the boundary of the criminal law should be.

I do not believe that any of the other amendments have any logical argument behind them. The 24-week amendment has the validity of scientific opinion and, therefore, of public opinion behind it. By passing it into legislation we should be keeping open the option created in 1967 for women and their medical advisers to secure safe and legal termination of pregnancy as the lesser of two evils in any given situation in which they decide to do that. That is what the House would be wise to vote for.

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone)

By coming back to the House with the amendments that we made in Committee we have kept faith. We promised particularly to take on board the issue of handicap, and by doing that and ensuring that the House—if it is allowed to get to that stage—has a choice of weeks, we have kept complete faith.

One thing has not been mentioned during the debate, yet it is the most fundamental of all. What we are deciding today is awesome. It is what is human life? When is a human being not a human being? How can we, in a supposedly civilised society, have a law that allows the treatment of two babies of identical age to vary to such an extent that the one is cherished and its life fought for and the other is disposed of as having no value? I ask only that when we vote for 20, 22 or any other number of weeks, we remember that, if we would not do to a baby in an incubator what we would to a baby in the course of an abortion, we should vote to outlaw these abortions

Mr. Alton

I commend to the House the best possible option which, from the point of view of the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, would be that of 20 weeks. We commend it because it will save lives. Twenty-four weeks is a no-change option, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and others support it.

I hope that the House will cease to hide behind euphemisms such as "products of conception", zygote, embryo and foetus, which itself means little one. But we do not recognise that little one's right to life, and that is what the Bill seeks to do. It is extraordinary that foetal brain material can be used to give another life. What does that say about the unborn child? What do we allow to happen to the unborn child? The most dangerous place for it is inside the womb. Dilation and evacuation require the crushing of the baby's skull, the breaking of its spine and its removal piece by piece, and it is a barbaric, degrading and corrupting practice to allow in our country. Prostaglandins require the baby to be brought on through a labour that can go on for hours, and it can be left writhing in agony as a result. No anaesthetics are used in these cases. This time limit was set 59 years ago. Surely, as a matter of public policy, we should be reviewing it.

No other country in western Europe allows abortions as late as we do. The average EEC time limit is 12 to 14 weeks. In Sweden, which is outside the European Community, it is 18 weeks. That is why the Bill is reasonable and why hon. Members should vote for the best possible option that is available today—the 20-week option.

Mr. Newton

On Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that abortion was an issue on which there are deeply held and wholly conflicting views, and I am sure that the whole House agrees with that. I also said then and I repeat now that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was entitled to be judged on the proposals before the House rather than on any views that he might hold about what, from his perspective, an ideal position would be. I set out at some length some of the facts about tests and about other matters which I hoped would help the House to reach a conclusion. In view of the pressure of time on the House and what I perceive to be a general desire to reach a conclusion on these matters in the public interest, I shall keep my speech brief. I hope that I carry the whole House with me on that.

In the spirit in which I approached the Second Reading debate during which I drew attention to some of the problems, it is right to recognise that the amendments to the Bill in Committee which changed its form before it returned to the House, are of some significance. They go some way to seek to meet the concerns about disability and the birth of disabled children. It is for the House to judge how far they go to meet those concerns. We should at least recognise the importance of the changes that have been made, even if there are those who feel that they do not provide the basis for consensus on the I 8-week time limit which remains in the Bill.

Mr. Wigley

Will the Minister give the Government's view on the wording of clause 1(2)(b) which says: if the child were horn it would suffer from severe physical or mental disability (the nature of the disability to be identified in the certificate)"? Will the Minister give the Government's view without further defining the physical or mental disability and the dangers of uneven practice developing in the countries of Britain? What guidance can the Department give on the satisfactory or otherwise nature of that wording?

Mr. Newton

I shall cover that point briefly in a moment. I shall deliver my speech in the order that seems sensible in the interests of consistency and brevity.

I should like to deal with the inter-relationship of the matters that we are dealing with now and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. I think that the House understands that in the Abortion Act 1967 there is no time limit whatever on abortion. It is sometimes presumed that such a time limit is set by the operation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. It is important that that should be understood, but I do not propose to reiterate the rather complex lines of argument underlying the point.

As Minister for Health I owe the House such assessment as is available from the advice available to me about the impact of the Bill on the current arrangements for abortion that are laid down in the 1967 Act. This picks up the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). It is indisputable—indeed, it is the purpose—that there would be some reduction in the number of abortions that could be carried out legally. The Department estimates that at least 7,630 fewer abortions would have been carried out in England and Wales in 1986 if the Bill as it stands had been in force. About half the women affected would have been non-residents and the remaining abortions—for very young women or those in much later life which might go ahead at present in appropriate circumstances—would have been prohibited. As I said on Second Reading, out of a total of 8,276 abortions in England and Wales in 1986 at a gestational age of 18 weeks or over, more than one third were to women under 20 and about 3 per cent. were to women aged 40 and over.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon asked about wording in the Bill. It is undeniably a matter of some uncertainty how doctors and others would interpret the Bill. It is possible that the exemption for foetal handicap, which is more tightly drawn than the present ground 4, could mean that fewer abortions would be carried out in that category. The difficulty and part of the uncertainty arises from the fact that the medical technology involved is not sufficiently refined to make it possible to foretell with certainty the degree of disability that a child would have after birth. Against that background, I cannot give the House a clear-cut or definite statement about the precise consequences of the change. It would be irresponsible of me to pretend that I could do that and I shall not seek to do so.

Ms. Primarolo

Will the Minister give way.?

Mr. Newton

No, because I feel that I owe the House a short speech. As Minister for Health and especially in view of the pressure of time, there is nothing else that I can properly say.

Ms. Primarolo

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton

I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would let me continue. I am sure that the general mood of the House is that we should proceed with the debate.

Ms. Primarolo

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton

Will the hon. Lady let me proceed?

At the end of all the arguments, I have to accept, as the House has to accept, that there is no single conclusive factual, technical or legal point which can make up the mind of the House as a whole or of any of us as individual Members.

1.45 pm

Mr. Steel

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Newton

I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman because the 1967 Act was his and it would be a proper courtesy for me to do so.

Mr. Steel

I am grateful to the Minister. I am seeking information from him, and do not seek to alter his opinions. Will he confirm that the parliamentary answers that he gave on 8 December about the time limits in other countries are correct in that in France the limit is 24 weeks, in Italy 23, in the Netherlands 24 and that the figures given by the promoter of the Bill are for the quite different limit for abortion on request in their law and are not the final limits for abortion?

Mr. Newton

I can confirm that any answers that I have given in Hansard are correct on the basis of the best information available to me. All those points, while they appear to be facts, conceal a wealth of potential argument about the exact grounds on which abortions are permitted in different countries at different periods of time.

At the end of my Second Reading speech I emphasised, and I emphasise again, that in purely personal terms, not as a Minister or as a member of the Government, I was prepared to vote for some time limit, but I did not feel able to vote for the Bill as it then stood. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has gone a long way to meet some of those concerns, and I as an individual will take that into account. However, the questions I have to ask myself as a Member of Parliament, not as a Minister—I speak now as a Member of Parliament—are broad ones. For example, do we have a balance that commands the kind of consensus support in this matter that we would like?

Secondly, if the Bill were passed in its present form, with the 18-week limit and even with the changes, would it be likely to command a balance that would lead to consensus? If the House believes, as I do, that the answer to both those questions is no, it would be right to vote for one of the compromise solutions. I shall not tell the House what I think it should vote for; it would be wrong for me to do so. But it is in that spirit that I shall decide which of the amendments to vote for.

Ms. Ruddock

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your assistance in this matter, as I am a new Member. The Minister referred to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and I would like to ask him to clarify that reference and to provide the House with information.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Ms. Short

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that the House ceases to play political games and concentrates on what is being proposed here today. We know that there is probably a majority in the House for the recommendation of the BMA that the abortion limit should come down to 24 weeks. I would support that, if we could also have exceptions for the hard cases about which we all know—late detection of foetal abnormality or the menopausal woman or young girl who does not know that she is pregnant until very late. What is on offer is enormously different. I believe—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot even hear myself speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was sitting at my hon. Friend's side and it was difficult to hear her. There is a deliberate ploy on the part of Conservative Members to intimidate or participate in conversations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I must listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), and it is even more difficult to hear what she is saying at this end of the Chamber than from the area in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is sitting.

Ms. Short

Most of the medical bodies have recommended—this has been accepted by a majority in this place—a time limit of 24 weeks. I would find that limit completely acceptable if there were an exception for hard cases.

The House must make an important choice that will affect the lives of many women and families. Present practice is, in effect, a 24-week limit. The recommendation of the DHSS is that there should be no abortion post-24 weeks except in hard cases. Only 29 abortions took place post-24 weeks in 1986 the last complete year for which figures are available to us. For the three quarters of the next year there were 19 such abortions. The House wants a 24-week limit with exceptions. The Select Committee of another place recommended a 24-week limit with exceptions. We have in practice a 24-week limit with exceptions. I beg the House seriously to note that. What is on offer is not the 24-week reform that the majority of hon. Members have said in various surveys, for example, that they want. Instead, we have a serious restriction that is based on no rational scientific or technical evidence. It has been put before us by those who are completely opposed to all abortion. I respect them for taking that view, but I cannot respect them for not having the guts to put that proposition before the House. They will not do that because they know that that proposition would not be carried. Instead, they have chosen to introduce a duplicitous Bill. They pretend that they are trying to prevent late abortion, but that is not their true position.

I should like to see a series of actions taken to prevent late abortion. That would find great favour on the Opposition Benches.

Mrs. Wise

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better if those who have handicapped children received more support? The House could provide more support. Is my hon. Friend aware that 200 of those who voted for the Bill's Second Reading had, 10 days earlier, voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children? Further, is she aware that five of the 12 sponsors of the Bill voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let us not have a re-run of a social security debate.

Ms. Short

My hon. Friend makes her own point. Half the people of our world go hungry nearly every day, yet that world produces twice as much food as the peoples of the world need. When we consider the stance that is taken by Conservative Members on international economic change that could produce a better life for the poor, I cannot accept that they are seriously committed to the beauty and preservation of human life. They are putting another agenda before us.

Those who are critical of the Bill want to do everything possible to prevent late abortion. It is gravely wrong—the Minister should take this point much more seriously than he does—that 20 per cent. of abortions that take place after 20 weeks involve women who referred themselves before 12 weeks. Delays are built into our legislation and the way in which the NHS behaves, and these result in late abortions. We could avoid that. We could remove a whole series of late abortions.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is no need for self-referral to encourage earlier abortions? I am sure that we are united in our desire to cut out the trauma of a late abortion, which is particularly horrible for the doctors, the gynaecologists, and the mother as well as for her immediate family. At a later stage, we should consider providing for the signature of one doctor for an abortion up to 12 weeks. Surely that would overcome people's natural fear about self-referral—heir fear about a woman's right to demand from a doctor an abortion whenever she wants. Such self-referral may be abused by women who use abortion as a form of contraception— particularly unpleasant way of using abortion. If we agree to a time limit of 24 weeks today—more than 160 hon. Members are in favour of that—oes she agree that an amendment at a later stage to require the signature of one doctor would overcome many of the problems of late abortion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions must be brief and relevant.

Ms. Short

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If the House wants to make one change in our legislation that would prevent late abortion, and if the sponsors of the Bill are as distressed about late abortion as they claim, we should learn from our European partners.

Sir Bernard Braine

I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I believe that there are many strands of opinion still wishing expression.

Ms. Short

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it distressing that hon. Members who claim to be deeply concerned about this matter will not listen to serious proposals that would achieve the objectives of which they claim to be in favour.

Hon. Members claim to be in favour of preventing late abortion. It is absolutely proven by medical evidence and by experience in other European countries that, if we allow self-referral—let us be clear that that means self-referral to one doctor and not women deciding for themselves without medical advice—we would prevent an enormous number of late abortions. We would prevent the distress that that means for doctors, nurses, the other medical staff and the woman.

Ms. Primarolo

I accept the distress that is felt by the medical profession, but that feeling is also shared by the woman, and she appears to have been forgotten by the promoters of the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an impossible task to prove, beyond doubt, the date of gestation? If the Bill goes through, it could result in criminal prosecutions against practitioners and women seeking abortions. In that way, the Bill is based on sand and it is opening the way to further misery.

Ms. Short

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because of the ulterior motives that lie behind the Bill, one of the terrible things about it is that it is not well constructed. The provisions contained in the previous legislation relating to doctors acting in good faith——

Mr. Alton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the House does not move to a closure within the next two minutes, it will be denied the opportunity to vote on the amendments. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has just heard the ruling from the Chair. It was given within minutes of his rising.

Mr. Alton

Further to that point of order. Therefore, I beg to move again, That the Question be now put—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I see no reason to vary the ruling that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Alton

rose——

Hon. Members

Name him.

Mr. Alton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to detain the House. When Mr. Speaker was in the Chair this morning, he said that he would take into account the time that was wasted on petitions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wasted?"] and wasted on any number of other devices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling. It is a matter for the occupant of the Chair and I have ruled.

2 pm

Ms. Short

I am trying to make a number of enormously serious points which have not been put before during the debate and I am being interrupted constantly. Therefore, we cannot have a rational debate about these very serious matters. That is deeply regrettable.

I was replying to an intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) about the position in which medical practitioners would be placed by the Bill. Under the provisions in previous legislation, if practitioners made a judgment in good faith, that was all that was required of them. That will be removed and doctors in hospitals throughout the country, who face all the difficulties where women request abortions, will face criminal prosecution in many instances if they do their very best in good faith to interpret the law and give women the rights that they understand the law to provide.

Mr. Wigley

The hon. Lady said earlier that she was in favour of 24 weeks as a reasonable and workable compromise. However, she will have heard the Minister say that 24 weeks in law really means 22 weeks in practice. The figures provided by the professionals show that whereas—[Interruption.] I understood that the 24 weeks would be reduced by two weeks. That comment has been made by many people.

Mr. Newton

rose——

Mr. Wigley

I do not believe that the Minister can intervene on an intervention.

Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) aware that over the 24-weeks limit only 29 abortions were performed in 1986 whereas at the 23-week to 24-week stage, there were as many as 1,065 abortions? To have 24 weeks in practice the House may well vote in a few minutes for 26 weeks which will be interpreted in that way by the professionals.

Ms. Short

The hon. Gentleman's point is crucial. The House wants 24 weeks in practice. In practice we have 24 weeks and there were only 29 exceptions in 1986. The best way for the House to vote for 24 weeks is to vote the Bill down.

Ms. Diane Abbot (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Short

The truth is objectively—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We do not conduct our debates in this fashion. There should be no heckling from the Front Benches below the Gangway.

Ms. Short

I shall be grateful if you will allow me a few more minutes, Mr. Deputy Chairman.

I want to make one or two more points to the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) who keeps asking about the unborn child's right to life. That is a very important question. There are competing rights. However, I put these points to the right hon. Member for Castle Point and to all those who take a very anti-abortion stance. Those people are absolutely entitled to that right of conscience and to live with it. However, they have no entitlement to impose that view on others who, in conscience, take a different view. Those people have no sublime right to tell others in this country and the majority of public opinion, which takes a different view from theirs, that the law will be changed to force their view on others. That is wrong. The minority should not abuse the law in that way. They should exercise their conscience in their own personal, moral decision-making and through their own religious convictions.

Mrs. Peacock

I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady's last few remarks. Did she not earlier suggest that consultants should not be allowed that same privilege; that they should be required to carry out abortions irrespective of their consciences?

Ms. Short

Absolutely not. All those questions are very important. I would insist on the right of anyone to take a stand on conscience, including anyone in the medical profession who does not want to participate in abortions. However, the minority do not have a right to prevent women and families who make other decisions from having their rights under the law. It is perfectly possible for us to arrange things so that the two sides do not collide. The Minister—I have already put this point to him—should require all National Health Service areas to plan the local provision of abortion facilities. They should then appoint a range of practitioners. Plenty of gynaecological work does not involve abortion. This does not mean that those who are opposed to abortion could not be appointed and promoted. That is not incompatible with the need. We can respect medical practitioners who are opposed to abortion, and extend the rights of the law to all who want to take up those rights.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the more crass and dangerous provisions of this very misconceived Bill is the suggestion that rape and incest, while they might be grounds for termination in women below the age of 18, would not be so in women above that age? Will she address that peculiar anomaly?

Ms. Short

I was coming to that. It is one of the most offensive features of this offensive Bill. How can the sponsors possibly say that a woman under 18 who is raped or sexually abused is more innocent than a woman over 18? Many women who are sexually abused or raped are mentally disturbed by the experience, in some of the most awful and brutal cases. There are known cases, to which I would refer if we had more time, of women being so distressed and upset that they did not report their pregnancy until a stage that would be too late under the Bill.

Every hon. Member was consulted about how rape could be prevented. An article in Woman or Woman's Own was, I believe, sent to all of us. It told the story of a woman in her 50s who told how she was raped in her 20s, and how it still disturbed her life. She had had a child as a consequence of the rape. She had never loved that child; she never could and never would. That is the most tragic thing that can be imagined.

The woman was telling the truth. That child, now an adult, had never been loved because the conception had been the result of a brutal and horrible rape. The Bill's provisions mean that more children with experience of being unwanted because they remind a woman of a brutal, horrible, unwanted sexual experience would be born. That strikes me as deeply disgusting, and, while I understand why some people hate the idea of abortion, I do not know how anyone could bear to put his name to a proposal to judge between those under 18 and those over 18.

Mrs. Fyfe

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that many women who were raped, whether they were younger or older than 18, would not have time to reflect on whether they could ever love a child born in such circumstances? Yet the Bill requires them to make up their minds before the 18th week of gestation.

Here again is a case of people who have no intention of listening to the arguments trying to bully and threaten their way—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend has not heard my question, I shall repeat it. Obviously some hon. Members cannot realise that a woman who has been raped, no matter what age she is, will not have time to reflect on whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady would make more progress if she were allowed to speak. We are debating this matter. I hope that the House realises that.

Mrs. Fyfe

It is no wish of mine to have to repeat again what I asked my hon. Friend, but I shall keep saying it until the House hears the point. It is important to realise that, no matter what the age of a woman, if she has been raped and becomes pregnant as a result she will not have time to consider whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances. The time limit in the Bill—[Interruption.]

Ms. Short

I agree with my hon. Friend. We shall proceed much more rapidly if Conservative Members do not make so much noise that it is impossible to hear. A long time was taken by my hon. Friend to make the same point three or four times, because it was absolutely impossible to hear her. She is absolutely right. Raped women are often deeply disturbed by their experience. They need time to come to terms with it, and they need time to consider whether they are emotionally capable of loving the child born as a result of rape. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill and his supporters do not have the right to intrude on such a deeply difficult decision.

I wish to make two other points.

Mr. Cyril Smith

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 229.

Division No. 288]	[2.10 pm
AYES
Aitken, Jonathan	Amos, Alan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Arbuthnot, James
Allason, Rupert	Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Alton, David	Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Amess, David	Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert	Forman, Nigel
Atkinson, David	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Baldry, Tony	Freeman, Roger
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	French, Douglas
Batiste, Spencer	Fry, Peter
Beggs, Roy	Galloway, George
Beith, A. J.	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bell, Stuart	Glyn, Dr Alan
Bendall, Vivian	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Benyon, W.	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gorst, John
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Gower, Sir Raymond
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Graham, Thomas
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gregory, Conal
Boswell, Tim	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bottomley, Peter	Grocott. Bruce
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Grylls, Michael
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Bowis, John	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Hanley, Jeremy
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Hannam, John
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hardy, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Brazier, Julian	Harris, David
Bright. Graham	Hawkins, Christopher
Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's)	Hayes, Jerry
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Hayward, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Budgen, Nicholas	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Burt, Alistair	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butcher, John	Hill, James
Butler, Chris	Hinchliffe, David
Butterfill, John	Hind, Kenneth
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Canavan, Dennis	Holt, Richard
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Home Robertson, John
Carrington, Matthew	Hordern, Sir Peter
Cash, William	Howard, Michael
Chapman, Sydney	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Chope, Christopher	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Churchill, Mr	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Colvin, Michael	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Conway, Derek	Hunter, Andrew
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Irvine, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Irving, Charles
Crowther, Stan	Jack, Michael
Cummings, John	Janman, Tim
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jessel, Toby
Currie, Mrs Edwina	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Curry, David	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Day, Stephen	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dewar, Donald	Kennedy, Charles
Dickens, Geoffrey	Key, Robert
Dicks, Terry	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Douglas, Dick	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Dover, Den	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duffy, A. E. P.	Knapman, Roger
Dunn, Bob	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Durant, Tony	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Emery, Sir Peter	Lambie, David
Evennett, David	Lamond, James
Fallon, Michael	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Favell, Tony	Lang, Ian
Fearn, Ronald	Latham, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lawrence, Ivan
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Flynn, Paul	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Lilley, Peter	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Lord, Michael	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Rost, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Rowlands, Ted
McAvoy, Thomas	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
McCrea, Rev William	Salmond, Alex
McCrindle, Robert	Sayeed, Jonathan
Macdonald, Calum A.	Shaw, David (Dover)
McFall, John	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
McGrady, Eddie	Sheerman, Barry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Maclean, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Maclennan, Robert	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Sims, Roger
McNamara, Kevin	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maginnis, Ken	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Major, Rt Hon John	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Malins, Humfrey	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mallon, Seamus	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mans, Keith	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Marlow, Tony	Speller, Tony
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mates, Michael	Steen, Anthony
Maude, Hon Francis	Stevens, Lewis
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mellor, David	Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Miller, Hal	Sumberg, David
Mills, Iain	Summerson, Hugo
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Moate, Roger	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Monro, Sir Hector	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Moss, Malcolm	Thorne, Neil
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Thornton, Malcolm
Mudd, David	Tracey, Richard
Murphy, Paul	Trippier, David
Neubert, Michael	Trotter, Neville
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Twinn, Dr Ian
Nicholls, Patrick	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
O'Brien, William	Waldegrave, Hon William
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Wallace, James
Page, Richard	Waller, Gary
Paice, James	Ward, John
Paisley, Rev Ian	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Parry, Robert	Watts, John
Patten, Chris (Bath)	Whitney, Ray
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Wilshire, David
Pawsey, James	Wilson, Brian
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Pendry, Tom	Winterton, Nicholas
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Woodcock, Mike
Porter, David (Waveney)	Worthington, Tony
Portillo, Michael	Yeo, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Redwood, John	Younger, Rt Hon George
Reid, Dr John
Renton, Tim	Tellers for the Ayes:
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Miss Ann Widdecombe.
Robertson, George
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Armstrong, Hilary
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Ashdown, Paddy
Adley, Robert	Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Allen, Graham	Ashton, Joe
Anderson, Donald	Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Barron, Kevin	Grist, Ian
Battle, John	Harman, Ms Harriet
Beckett, Margaret	Haselhurst, Alan
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Haynes, Frank
Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn & R'dish)	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bermingham, Gerald	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Bidwell, Sydney	Heffer, Eric S.
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Henderson, Doug
Blair, Tony	Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Blunkett, David	Holland, Stuart
Boateng, Paul	Hood, Jimmy
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Boyes, Roland	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bradley, Keith	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Howells, Geraint
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Hoyle, Doug
Browne, John (Winchester)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Illsley, Eric
Buchan, Norman	Ingram, Adam
Buckley, George J.	Janner, Greville
Caborn, Richard	John, Brynmor
Callaghan, Jim	Johnston, Sir Russell
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cartwright, John	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Kilfedder, James
Clay, Bob	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Clelland, David	Kirkwood, Archy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Knox, David
Cohen, Harry	Leadbitter, Ted
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Leighton, Ron
Corbett, Robin	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Couchman, James	Lewis, Terry
Cousins, Jim	Litherland, Robert
Cox, Tom	Livingstone, Ken
Cran, James	Livsey, Richard
Cryer, Bob	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Cunningham, Dr John	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dalyell, Tarn	Loyden, Eddie
Darling, Alistair	McAllion, John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)	McCartney, Ian
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Dobson, Frank	McKelvey, William
Doran, Frank	McLeish, Henry
Dunnachie, Jimmy	McTaggart, Bob
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	McWilliam, John
Dykes, Hugh	Madden, Max
Eadie, Alexander	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Eastham, Ken	Maples, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)	Marland, Paul
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Martlew, Eric
Fatchett, Derek	Maxton, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Meacher, Michael
Fisher, Mark	Meale, Alan
Flannery, Martin	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Forth, Eric	Miscampbell, Norman
Foster, Derek	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Foulkes, George	Morgan, Rhodri
Fraser, John	Morley, Elliott
Fyfe, Maria	Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Galbraith, Sam	Mowlam, Marjorie
Gardiner, George	Mullin, Chris
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	O'Neill, Martin
George, Bruce	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Gill, Christopher	Patchett, Terry
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Golding, Mrs Llin	Pike, Peter L.
Gordon, Mildred	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Prescott, John
Gould, Bryan	Primarolo, Dawn
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Raffan, Keith

Randall, Stuart	Strang, Gavin
Rathbone, Tim	Straw, Jack
Redmond, Martin	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Rhodes James, Robert	Thurnham, Peter
Richardson, Jo	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Riddick, Graham	Tredinnick, David
Robinson, Geoffrey	Turner, Dennis
Rogers, Allan	Vaz, Keith
Rooker, Jeff	Viggers, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wall, Pat
Ruddock, Joan	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Ryder, Richard	Wareing, Robert N.
Sackville, Hon Tom	Wells, Bowen
Sedgemore, Brian	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wheeler, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Wigley, Dafydd
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Short, Clare	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Skinner, Dennis	Winnick, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)	Wolfson, Mark
Snape, Peter	Wray, Jimmy
Soley, Clive	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Spearing, Nigel
Squire, Robin	Tellers for the Noes:
Steel, Rt Hon David	Ms. Joan Walley and Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Steinberg, Gerry
Stott, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 315.

Division No. 289]	[2.27 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Adley, Robert	Corbett, Robin
Allen, Graham	Corbyn, Jeremy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cousins, Jim
Armstrong, Hilary	Cox, Tom
Ashdown, Paddy	Critchley, Julian
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Cryer, Bob
Ashton, Joe	Cunningham, Dr John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dalyell, Tam
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Darling, Alistair
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Barron, Kevin	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Beckett, Margaret	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dobson, Frank
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Doran, Frank
Bermingham, Gerald	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Bidwell, Sydney	Dykes, Hugh
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Eadie, Alexander
Blair, Tony	Eastham, Ken
Blunkett, David	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Boateng, Paul	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Fatchett, Derek
Boyes, Roland	Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Bradley, Keith	Fisher, Mark
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Flynn, Paul
Browne, John (Winchester)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Forman, Nigel
Buchan, Norman	Foster, Derek
Buck, Sir Antony	Foulkes, George
Caborn, Richard	Fraser, John
Callaghan, Jim	Fyfe, Maria
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Galbraith, Sam
Cartwright, John	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	George, Bruce
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Clay, Bob	Gill, Christopher
Clelland, David	Glyn, Dr Alan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Golding, Mrs Llin
Cohen, Harry	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Colvin, Michael	Gordon, Mildred

Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Needham, Richard
Gould, Bryan	Nellist, Dave
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Nelson, Anthony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	O'Neill, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Harman, Ms Harriet	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Haselhurst, Alan	Patchett, Terry
Haynes, Frank	Patnick, Irvine
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Pike, Peter L.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Prescott, John
Heffer, Eric S.	Primarolo, Dawn
Henderson, Doug	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Raffan, Keith
Holland, Stuart	Rathbone, Tim
Hood, Jimmy	Redmond, Martin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Rhodes James, Robert
Hoyle, Doug	Richardson, Jo
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Riddick, Graham
Illsley, Eric	Robinson, Geoffrey
Ingram, Adam	Rogers, Allan
John, Brynmor	Rooker, Jeff
Johnston, Sir Russell	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Rost, Peter
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)	Rowe, Andrew
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Ruddock, Joan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil	Ryder, Richard
Knox, David	Sackville, Hon Tom
Leadbitter, Ted	Scott, Nicholas
Leighton, Ron	Sedgemore, Brian
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lewis, Terry	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Litherland, Robert	Short, Clare
Livingstone, Ken	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Livsey, Richard	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Loyden, Eddie	Snape, Peter
Lyell, Sir Nicholas	Soley, Clive
McAllion, John	Spearing, Nigel
McCartney, Ian	Squire, Robin
McCrindle, Robert	Steinberg, Gerry
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Stott, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Strang, Gavin
McKelvey, William	Straw, Jack
McLeish, Henry	Tapsell, Sir Peter
McTaggart, Bob	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McWilliam, John	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Madden, Max	Thurnham, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Trotter, Neville
Maples, John	Turner, Dennis
Marek, Dr John	Viggers, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wall, Pat
Martlew, Eric	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Maxton, John	Wareing, Robert N.
Meacher, Michael	Wells, Bowen
Meale, Alan	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wheeler, John
Michael, Alun	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Miller, Hal	Wilson, Brian
Miscampbell, Norman	Winnick, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Morgan, Rhodri	Younger, Rt Hon George
Morley, Elliott
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles	Tellers for the Ayes:
Mowlam, Marjorie	Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Ms. Joan Walley.
Mullin, Chris

NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Arbuthnot, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Allason, Rupert	Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Alton. David	Aspinwall, Jack
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Atkins, Robert
Amess, David	Atkinson, David
Amos, Alan	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Anderson, Donald	Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Roger
Battle, John	French, Douglas
Beggs, Roy	Fry, Peter
Beith, A. J.	Galloway, George
Bell, Stuart	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bendall, Vivian	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Benyon, W.	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gorst, John
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Gower, Sir Raymond
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Graham, Thomas
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boswell, Tim	Gregory, Conal
Bottomley, Peter	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Grocott, Bruce
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Grylls, Michael
Bowis, John	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hanley, Jeremy
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hannam, John
Brazier, Julian	Hardy, Peter
Bright, Graham	Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Harris, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Hawkins, Christopher
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Hayes, Jerry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Buckley, George J.	Hayward, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Burns, Simon	Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Burt, Alistair	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butcher, John	Hill, James
Butler, Chris	Hinchliffe, David
Butterfill, John	Hind, Kenneth
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Holt, Richard
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Home Robertson, John
Canavan, Dennis	Hordern, Sir Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Howard, Michael
Carrington, Matthew	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Cash, William	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Chapman, Sydney	Howells, Geraint
Chope, Christopher	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Churchill, Mr	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hunter, Andrew
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Conway, Derek	Irvine, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Irving, Charles
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Jack, Michael
Cran, James	Janman, Tim
Crowther, Stan	Janner, Greville
Cummings, John	Jessel, Toby
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Curry, David	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Day, Stephen	Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Devlin, Tim	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dewar, Donald	Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kennedy, Charles
Dicks, Terry	Key, Robert
Douglas, Dick	Kilfedder, James
Dover, Den	King, Roger (B'ham N thfield)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Kirkhope, Timothy
Dunn, Bob	Kirkwood, Archy
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Knapman, Roger
Durant, Tony	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Emery, Sir Peter	Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Evennett, David	Lambie, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Lamond, James
Fallon, Michael	Lang, Ian
Favell, Tony	Latham, Michael
Fearn, Ronald	Lawrence, Ivan
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Lilley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lord, Michael	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard	Rossi, Sir Hugh
McAvoy, Thomas	Rowlands, Ted
McCrea, Rev William	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
McCusker, Harold	Salmond, Alex
Macdonald, Calum A.	Sayeed, Jonathan
McFall, John	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
McGrady, Eddie	Sheerman, Barry
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Maclean, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Maclennan, Robert	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Shersby, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Sims, Roger
McNamara, Kevin	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maginnis, Ken	Skinner, Dennis
Major, Rt Hon John	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Malins, Humfrey	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mallon, Seamus	Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mans, Keith	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Marland, Paul	Speller, Tony
Marlow, Tony	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Steen, Anthony
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Stevens, Lewis
Mates, Michael	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Maude, Hon Francis	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Sumberg, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Summerson, Hugo
Mellor, David	Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mills, Iain	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Moate, Roger	Temple-Morris, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Monro, Sir Hector	Thorne, Neil
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Thornton, Malcolm
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Tracey, Richard
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)	Tredinnick, David
Moss, Malcolm	Trippier, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mudd, David	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Murphy, Paul	Vaz, Keith
Neubert, Michael	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
O'Brien, William	Wallace, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Waller, Gary
Page, Richard	Ward, John
Paice, James	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Paisley, Rev Ian	Warren, Kenneth
Parry, Robert	Watts, John
Patten, Chris (Bath)	Whitney, Ray
Patten, John (Oxford W)	Wilshire, David
Pawsey, James	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Winterton, Nicholas
Pendry, Tom	Woodcock, Mike
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Worthington, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)	Wray, Jimmy
Portillo, Michael	Yeo, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Randall, Stuart
Redwood, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Reid, Dr John	Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Nicholas Bennett.
Renton, Tim
Robertson, George

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Friday 13 May.

Mr. Alton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House considered the Bill on Second Reading, when it gave it a majority of 45 on a vote of 296 Members. In Committee, there were 30 hours of debate, 15 Divisions and 27 amendments. Now we have debated the Bill on Report this morning and it has completed its Report stage.

It would bring Parliament into disrepute if we were unable to complete the voting on the Report stage and give the Bill its Third Reading. Millions of people outside the House have followed our discussions this morning and over the months. It is genuinely a matter of great regret that the Bill cannot be completed today——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels, and his regret, but he must address himself to a point of order.

Mr. Alton

Because of these factors, and because there is so much concern that the matter should be resolved, I ask the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a statement about whether time might be provided at the end of business for the Bill to be further considered.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Proceedings on this Bill have not been concluded today. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is in charge of the Bill, has named the next private Members' Bill day, Friday 13 May, as the day for further discussion of the Bill so that there may be an opportunity for the House to take its decisions on these matters if that is what it wishes to do.

The Government's position is already clear. It is not our practice to provide extra time for consideration of individual private Members' Bills.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the statement made by the Leader of the House. Would the Leader of the House be prepared to consider, in the light of the proceedings next week and in view of the proscrastination and filibustering of some hon. Members today——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not going to have recriminations of that kind this afternoon. The Leader of the House has heard what has been said.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) claimed that the Report stage of his Bill had been completed. Will you confirm that that is not so—that the Report stage is continuing and has yet to be completed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is correct.

Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in a somewhat unfortunate position, in view of the circumstances, because my private Members' Bill is down to be discussed first next Friday. It is called the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children) Bill——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. With respect, we cannot have all that now.

Mr. Day

I want to make it clear to the House that my Bill has received all-party support at every stage. It went through Committee in one morning and was unopposed on Second Reading.

If the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) comes to the Floor of the House, I hope that the House will allow a decision to be taken on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. These are matters for the House to decide next Friday.

Mr. Nellist

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) announced that if his Bill did not get through he would enter a monastery, may we assume that the church's loss will be our gain and wish him godspeed?