None, Sir.

Can the hon. Lady tell us what is the situation in the island at the moment Can she confirm that under associated status the United Kingdom retains responsibility for its external affairs, but that the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla are responsible for internal security in the island? Can she say what she said to the Premier of St. Kitts, if anything, about the possibilities of British assistance in the event of the discontent in Anguilla breaking into active trouble?

To answer the right hon. Gentleman's last point first, we have not said anything on that to Mr. Bradshaw at the moment. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point is, as he expects, that since associated status was granted to St. Kitts the British Government are responsible for external affairs but not for internal security. The responsibility for internal security lies on the Government of St. Kitts.

The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, of what is the situation, is extremely difficult for me to answer, because we do not have any reliable facts to know precisely what the position is. It seems to be considerably confused. The facts that we do know, at least on the basis of reports we have had, but without any direct knowledge ourselves, are that the Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla reported that the warden and police have left Anguilla and the radiotelephone link with the island had been cut. Shots are said to have been fired at the hotel at which the warden was staying and at the police station, but no injuries to anybody and no casualties have been reported.

The Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla said that the Prime Ministers of Barbados, Guyana and Jamaica might offer to help in restoring order and what we have done is to ask those Governments what their views are about their offers of assistance, but we have not yet had any replies. One thing I can say quite definitely to the right hon. Gentleman is that we have asked the deputy British Government representative in the area to visit St. Kitts as soon as possible, which will be either today or tomorrow, the British Government representative being in New York at the moment.

May I help the hon. Lady and tell her that I have just received a telegram from Anguilla? I would have shown it to her before if I had received it in time. It says: The Anguillans are in complete peaceful control of their island and they consider that a referendum is essential and not forceful intervention. I hope that the hon. Lady will listen to those words and that no question of sending troops there will arise.

As I have said, we are not responsible for internal security in these islands.

As to the position in Anguilla, what is uncertain at the moment seems to be how far the events of the last two or three days are linked with earlier events or how far a completely different group of people is involved in this. There is complete uncertainty about the whole thing.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on a further programme of advance factories in development areas.

The House will recall that in the closing stages of the debate on Monday, 24th April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that I was considering another programme of advance factories. I am now pleased to inform the House that I am authorising a further programme of 30 advance factories totalling about 700,000 sq ft. The estimated cost of these factories will be between £3 m. and £3½ m.

Thirteen of the factories will be in England and these will total 265,000 sq. ft. Seven of these will be in the Northern Region. Nine factories totalling 285,000 sq. ft. are included in the programme for Scotland, where the emphasis has been placed on the western part central belt of Scotland, although I have also included a factory for the South-West and one for the North-East.

In Wales, I propose to erect eight factories totalling 150,000 sq. ft.; five of these will be in Glamorgan, two in Carmarthenshire and one in Anglesey. With permission, Sir, I will circulate a complete list of the location of the factories in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

This is the fifth programme of advance factories in the development areas which the Government have announced since October, 1964. Our last programme was announced in November, 1966, and comprised 21 factories. Altogether, including the present programme which I am announcing today, we have authorised 124 advance factories with a total area of just over 2.4 million sq. ft. Of the 94 factories in the first four programmes, 32 have now been completed, 44 are being built and 27 have already been allocated to firms.

In the present programme, the places which I have chosen in the development areas are those where there is a need to create additional employment opportunities, especially where the coal industry is contracting and where the existence of an advance factory should prove a valuable inducement to industry. Most of the factories will be built on land which the Board of Trade already owns or is in process of acquiring. I hope that most of those in this programme should be ready for occupation by the middle of next year.

Will the President of the Board of Trade answer four questions? How many people are actually at work in the 32 factories which, he says, have so far been completed? Have any Board of Trade or industrial estate factory tenants closed down or given notice of closing down since 20th July, 1966? If so, how many such factories are affected and how many jobs have been lost? Fourthly, by how much do the Government now expect private investment to fall this year compared with last year?

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot without notice give him the exact number of people employed in the 32 factories which have been completed. He might, however, like to know that over a quarter of a million people are now employed in Board of Trade owned factories in development areas—

Since the Government took office?

—altogether, over 250,000—and a little over 98 per cent. of our total factory owned space is at present occupied.

It is, no doubt, true that in any period, since last July or any other, some businesses have contracted or closed down and others have opened up. I could give the right hon. Gentleman the full details if he wished.

The total extra employment in the factories which I have announced today will be several thousand, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, experience shows that these factories often lead to extensions in a quite short period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about private investment?

That is a quite separate question. The factories of which I have spoken are, of course, Government-owned factories financed by the Board of Trade.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will be received with joy in the areas affected? I congratulate him and my right hon. Friends on the wonderful record of the Government in this respect. I am glad that he is concentrating on some of the coal-mining areas.

Will my right hon. Friend consider two problems arising out of our experience? First, will he seek to speed up the time that it takes to acquire sites and, if necessary, take all the powers which are required for this purpose, and, secondly, for building the factories afterwards? There is concern about the time which elapses between authorisation of factories and their completion.

Yes, Sir. We are doing two things to achieve those objectives. First, we are mainly building new factories, as I have said, on land already owned by the Board of Trade. Secondly, we are now buying land in advance of actual factory building so as to have further land ready at the next stage.

Will the President of the Board of Trade say how many of the factories earmarked for Scotland are to be built "on spec" and how many have definite users lined up to go into them immediately they are finished?

I am not sure that I heard the noble Lord aright. I think that he said "on spec"?

Yes.

I should explain that all the factories of which I have spoken today are advance factories built in advance of the finding of an actual tenant. I emphasise, however, that these advance factory programmes represent less than half of the total factory building which is being carried out by the Board of Trade in these areas. In the great majority of cases, we find the tenant by the time a factory is completed.

What progress has my right hon. Friend made in extending industrial sites in the new North Lanarkshire site of Bellshill? Is he aware that we could not land any very big fish there, such as a major industry, because of lack of sites? Will he also take it for granted that Scotland welcomes his statement and looks forward to more jobs as a consequence?

Yes, Sir. The Bellshill estate is, however, proceeding very satisfactorily. There is additional land there and we include another factory at Bellshill in this programme.

In welcoming the statement by the President of the Board of Trade, may I ask him whether it is a fact that only three advance factories are being provided for South-West England and that they are not necessarily in areas of highest unemployment? Will he also consider providing additional advance factories in areas like Liskeard and Bodmin, where there is high unemployment?

Three factories for Cornwall are included in the programme. Their size is, of course, proportionate to the needs of the district. I fully recognise the problem in the South-West, however, and I propose to visit the area in a few weeks' time so that I may be even more familiar with it.

My right hon. Friend has mentioned nine advance factories for the Northern Region, but he did not say whether there would be any for the Mer-seyside development district. Can he say whether any are included in the programme? Secondly, do the Government now have plans for the development not only of advance factories, but of scientifically-based industry, publicly owned and publicly run?

There are in this programme two factories on Merseyside and one at St. Helens. Of course, in letting these factories we do our best where we can to obtain science-based industries. We have had considerable success. My Department's responsibility is to build, own and let the factories. If my hon. Friend is interested in Government establishments being sited in them, he should address his question to others of my right hon. Friends.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these advance factories will help to offset the serious decline in employment in the Lancashire textile industry?

The factory at St. Helens should go some way to meet that, because it is on the outskirts. The main objective of these factories, however, is to give more employment in the development areas where the decline in coal mining is much greater than in any other industry.

While warmly welcoming the statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him to be a little more forthcoming about what he intends to do with the grey areas? Is he aware that in my part of Lancashire we are not only suffering from a complete abandonment of the coal-mining industry, the partial collapse of the textile industry and the absence of any protection by being a development area, but that we are greatly in need of new industry?

How far has my right hon. Friend gone in fulfilling the pledge which he gave to me some months ago that special attention would be given to this type of area, which surrounds the Wigan coal basin, which is grievously short of industry and should have attention and is being prejudiced by having industry sucked away to the development areas?

Order. Questions must be brief.

That was a slightly different question, with which I am very familiar, partly thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend.

What we are doing in these areas is to grant industrial development certificates very freely—indeed, in most cases almost automatically—for new industrial expansions. The area to which my hon. Friend refers also has the great advantage that mills which are being released from the cotton industry are available for new industries and are being taken up fairly rapidly by them. This is an advantage which the older coal-mining areas do not enjoy.

In welcoming the President of the Board of Trade's statement, may I ask him whether he will insert in the OFFICIAL REPORT a real progress report from the time when the first Government factory was built, giving the full history, the numbers of men and women employed and what has happened in the factories, so that the House can have a full picture of the progress and we can see in which areas Government factories have been established?

I have done that already in a number of speeches and am almost guilty—

Speeches are of no use.

I certainly would not apply that comment to the hon. Lady's speeches, but I have given some facts today and if she puts questions down I will do my best to answer them.

I should like to assure my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I assure my right hon. Friend that this announcement will be received with gratitude in the development areas and particularly in the development area in South Wales? May I suggest to him—

No.

Order.The hon. Member is a new Member. I must remind him that he may now ask a question only.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in considering the advance factory programme, he will make sure that the acquisition of land is speeded up so that advance factories become advanced in fact as well as in name?

Yes, and that is exactly what we are doing.

While welcoming the statement that one of these factories is to be in Dumfries, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that his Department will redouble its efforts to bring industries to the factories which are presently building?

Yes, certainly. We are doing so. As I pointed out in my statement, a high proportion of the factories in the previous recent programme are already allocated to firms.

In view of the special consideration my right hon. Friend now gives to the twilight areas, including East Anglia, when issuing industrial development certificates, may I ask him whether he will look at areas such as East Anglia for the siting of factories in the future?

Some people think that East Anglia is being developed too fast, but I do my best to maintain a proper balance.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what matching discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Government? In view of the high proportion of unemployment in Northern Ireland—almost one man in 10 is unemployed at this time of the year—can the Government see what new programme can be started there?

As the hon. Gentleman knows well, responsibility for building factories in Northern Ireland is that of the Government of Northern Ireland, but we work together and we do our best to help by steering suitable expansion to Northern Ireland. I think that this works well.

While welcoming the statement by my right hon. Friend of new factories to come to the Northern Region, I hope that he will bear in mind the high incidence of unemployment at Millom and Cleator Moor, where unemployment has risen. May I ask him to assure the people there that he will do something for them?

Yes, Sir. We are also building factories in Durham and Cleator Moor, as my hon. Friend knows, and there are two further factories in West Cumberland included in this programme.

As the right hon. Gentleman said that he is coming to the West Country, may I ask whether he will have time to come to Plymouth, in view of the very high rate of unemployment there?

I was in Plymouth last weekend to meet Sir Francis Chichester and I am only sorry that I did not see the hon. Lady there.

While welcoming the statement by the Government about the proposed factory at Bellshill, in my constituency, in view of the very high unemployment in Lanarkshire, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has any further plans for further industrial building in Lanarkshire?

Yes, Sir. There are further factories in this programme for Lanarkshire apart from Bellshill, but as my hon. Friend knows, this is only part of the new industrial development going forward there. There are private building schemes, and we have individual factories built by the Board of Trade for special purposes.

In view of the representations I made to the right hon. Gentleman in Glasgow about unemployment and factory closures there, can he say whether it is possible to have some of these factories in Glasgow, particularly in my constituency? Will an endeavour be made to absorb the skills created at and displaced from those factories?

I do not want to read out the whole list, but there are two factories in Glasgow. We do not make allocations on a constituency basis, but act according to unemployment and industrial needs.

Is it not a somewhat uneconomic process, in view of the situation there, to refuse industrial development certificates for the extension in Oldham of the old-established firms, so that they are compelled to move elsewhere at Government expense? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the £250,000 offices which he personally opened two years ago are now closed down and being left empty?

I am surprised that anything should close down in my hon. Friend's constituency. I had not heard of this. Our policy in the cotton areas in Lancashire is, as I have said many times, to grant industrial development certificates very freely at the present time.

As the right hon. Gentleman said that he is to visit the West Country, may I ask him whether that journey will include a visit to Weymouth and Portland, to study the unemployment situation there? Further, can he guarantee that industrial development certificates will be freely granted in that area?

My visit will not include Weymouth. It is farther to the South-West. However, we are well aware of the problems of Weymouth, and we certainly take them into consideration in any I.D.C. applications.

Following is the location of the advance factories: ENGLAND (13) Northern Region (7) Cumberland Maryport … … … 15,000 sq.ft. Workington … … … 25,000 sq. ft. Co. Durham Aycliffe … … … 50,000 sq. ft. Brandon … … … 15,000 sq.ft. Hartlepool … … … 15,000 sq.ft. Team Valley … … … 50,000 sq. ft. Northumberland Cramlington … … … 25,000 sq. ft. North Western Region (3) Lancashire Huyton … … … 15,000 sq.ft. Knowsley … … … 15,000 sq.ft. St. Helens … … … 15,000 sq.ft. South Western Region (3) Cornwall Bude … … … 5,000 sq. ft. Truro … … … 10,000 sq. ft. Wadebridge … … … 10,000 sq. ft. SCOTLAND (9) Ayrshire Kilwinning … … … 27,500 sq. ft. Banffshire Banff … … … 10,000 sq.ft. Dumfriesshire Dumfries … … … 27,500 sq. ft. Fife Donibristle … … … 15,000 sq.ft. Glasgow Hillington … … … 27,500 sq. ft. Queen's Park … … … 50,000 sq.ft. Lanarkshire Bellshill … … … 50,000 sq. ft. Chapelhall … … … 27,500 sq. ft. Uddingston … … … 50,000 sq. ft. WALES (8) Anglesey Amlwch … … 25,000 sq. ft. Carmarthenshire Ammanford … … 10,000 sq. ft. Llanelli … … 10,000 sq. ft. Glamorgan Kenfig … … 50,000 sq. ft. Llwchwr … … 10,000 sq. ft. Merthyr Tydfil … … 10,000 sq.ft. Pontardawe … … 10,000 sq.ft. Rhondda … … 25,000 sq. ft.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Miss Winifred Davies.

The House will have seen reports of the tragic death in the Congo of the British missionary, Miss Winifred Davies. While I do not have absolute confirmation of these reports, I regret to say that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Kinshasa believes that there is no doubt that Miss Davies was killed during an engagement between Congolese forces and rebels near Opienge on Sunday, 28th May.

Miss Davies was a medical missionary engaged by the World Wide Evangelical Crusade for service with the Heart of Africa Mission. She was captured by rebels when they overran the mission station nearly three years ago. Since that time, our Ambassador has done all in his power to urge the Congolese authorities to take what steps they could to secure Miss Davies' release.

We have always realised that a military rescue operation could endanger Miss Davies' life, but reports from various sources led us to hope that the rebel leader, Ngalo, might be induced to surrender if a favourable opportunity presented itself.

We could not ourselves, of course, organise a relief expedition, but our Defence Attache at Kinshasa kept in touch with the Congolese military command. On several occasions he offered to arrange the supply of material which was especially required for the particular operations they had in mind; owing to internal difficulties, however, these operations never took place as planned.

Members will wish me to convey their sympathy to Miss Davies' relatives and to the missionary society, with whom we have kept in close touch throughout.

On behalf of the Opposition, may I express our sympathy to Miss Davies's family, and her friends in Wrexham, and to all her colleagues in the World Wide Evangelical Crusade? May I also say how much we deplore the continuing violence in the Congo, in which innocent people are caught up, and our regret at the inability of the congolese Government to bring this under control?

Arising from the statement, and from the fact that British citizens have been subject to a great deal of harassment, and not only in the Congo, over recent weeks, may I ask the Minister three specific questions?

First, can the Minister say exactly what steps the British Government took to obtain Miss Davies' release, bearing in mind the fact that this lady was over 50 years of age and had been held for three years in the most difficult and possibly terrifying circumstances? I am sure the House will want to know that the British authorities did their very utmost to obtain release for her. Can he also say what has happened to her body and what steps the Congolese Government are now taking to bring to justice those who killed or murdered her?

Secondly, is it correct that other missionaries are now held in the Congo, and, if so, how many of them are British, and what steps are being taken to ensure their safety?

Finally, what representations have the Government made to the Congolese Government about Miss Davies' death, and what steps is the Minister taking to obtain compensation for Miss Davies' relatives as a result of her untimely murder?

What I think the House must realise, because it has a great bearing on what the hon. Gentleman has said, is that a large part of the Congo is in a state of chaos. There is very little law and order outside the main centres of population and this means that whatever the Congolese Government try to do they are struggling with a very difficult situation indeed.

In addition, the place where Miss Davies was killed is 600 or 700 miles from Kinshasa, in very inaccessible countryside.

We made representations on every possible occasion that whatever steps could be taken should be taken to ensure her release, but, as I said in my statement, there was always the calculation involved about whether, if we mounted an opera- tion, it would be successful, or result in the sort of outcome which we have now seen. At one stage, we believed that a mercenary operation might come off, but that failed to happen. At the end of the day, it was the Congolese authorities themselves who were doing their best in very difficult circumstances to try and bring Miss Davies out alive.

As I have said, at the moment we only have reports of her death. We have no final confirmation. We believe that her body is where it was at the time that she was killed. Working through the Congolese authorities, we will try to have it brought out. In this respect, however, no blame lies with the Congolese authorities. For this reason, it is not clear at the moment whether the question of compensation arises, but I will look into it closely and find out what is the precise position.

I cannot, offhand, tell the House how many British missionaries there are in the Congo, but, to the best of my knowledge, there are no other British missionaries held by rebels at the present time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the light of 18 months of correspondence with the Foreign Office on Miss Davies' case, I am convinced that, throughout, the British authorities in the Congo and the Foreign Office have done their best in extremely difficult circumstances to help this brave lady, and that there should be no question of blame?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his sentiments will be appreciated by those in Kinshasa.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is wide appreciation of the action by his Department? Since I gather that he cannot even confirm now that Miss Davies is dead, may I be assured that he will continue his researches to find out what is the position?

I can certainly give that assurance, but it would be wrong for me to hold out any hope. The fact that we have no real confirmation is, as I have said, because of the nature of the countryside. All that we can do is rely upon reports which we believe to be accurate.

I have had a brief statement to make.

I have a further change to announce in the composition of my Conference on Electoral Law. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Mac-lennan) has accepted my invitation to serve in the place of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands).

I have two announcements to make. One is that I have not selected the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)— That the Bill be recommitted to a Standing Committee whose composition shall reflect the alterations in opinion upon the Bill which have occurred since the Bill received its Second Reading. The second is that, on the list of my selection of Amendments, there is one alteration which I wish to make. There is a group of Amendments being taken with Amendment No. 55, and I had said that I would allow a Division on Amendment No. 11. I understand that the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) would prefer the Division to take place on Amendment No. 10, so that the list which I have had put up in the Lobbies should read that, with Amendment No. 55, we will take the group of Amendments as listed, but that Amendment No. 10 will be called for Division only and Amendment No. 11 will not be called for Division.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, if it is in order at this stage, I would like to make a representation to you on your provisional selection of Amendments. It concerns Amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 18, to leave out paragraph ( b ), which has not been provisionally selected by you. I fully accept, of course, that it is entirely within your discretion which Amendments are selected. However, I make a plea for the selection of Amendment No 18 for debate and a separate Division because of the very strong body of religious opinion which exists in the House and in the country and which regards this eugenic Clause as being in a different category from other Clauses in the Bill—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not address the Chair at length on the Chairman's undoubted right to select Amendments.

I am just coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Following the debates upstairs, a very important letter was published in The Times on 24th May from the Primate and other Bishops of the Church of England, and I ask that the whole House be given an opportunity to consider this important Amendment.

It would be a bad precedent if, whenever an hon. Gentleman's Amendment was not selected, the Chair were addressed as to the merits of that Amendment. May I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have given long and serious consideration to the selection of Amendments to this Bill. I realise the importance of the debates upon which we are now entering. All the factors, including one which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, were in my mind when I made my selection. It is quite a generous selection.

With the first new Clause ( Panel to undertake requirements of s.1 ( a )( i ) of Act ), we are taking Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, to leave out 'a registered medical practitioner' and to insert: 'or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner holding an appointment as a consultant in the National Health Service or a registered medical practitioner approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister or the Secretary of State.' Amendment No. 2, in line 7, to leave out' a registered medical practitioner' and to insert: 'or under the supervision of, a registered medical practitioner holding an appointment as a consultant in the National Health Service or a registered medical practitioner of equivalent experience approved for the purposes of this section by the Minister or Secretary of State', And Amendment No. 3, in line 8, after second 'practitioner' to insert: 'one of whom shall be a consultant holding an appointment involving the practice of gynaecology under a hospital board'.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On this immediate selection with new Clause 1, I have spoken to the Mover of Amendment No. 28, in line 22, at the end to insert: 'by a person who is or has been a consultant holding an appointment under a hospital board involving the practice of gynaecology or by a registered medical practitioner presently holding such an appointment, or by a registered medical practitioner who is currently approved for the purposes of this section— ( a ) by a local health authority which is satisfied that without such approval insufficient persons qualified by this section will be available to give a convenient and adequate public and private service within its area in respect of such treatment; or ( b ) in the case of the services by the Minister or the Secretary of State and must be carried out'. the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), which has been separately selected. He agrees that this is an Amendment of the same principle and would be agreeable to it being taken together with this first selection.

I have no objection, if the House has none. There seems to be no objection. In that event, in the first debate we will take Amendment No. 28 as well.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

It is quite clear that such a large and well attended House this morning reflects faithfully the deep-seated interest which there is in this Bill throughout the country, and it would only be right to show that the House bears testimony of it by the large number of hon. Members present.

I am one of those who have Amendments on the Order Paper to try to ensure that we succeed in having an Act of Parliament which amends the present law and makes provision for more cases in which abortion may be permitted to take place. I am a supporter of the Bill, and I mention that as there are those against who are moving other Amendments of a different nature.

The whole essence of the successful operation of this Act of Parliament, if it becomes an Act, will depend upon administration. It seemed to me quite early on that the method by which the administration was set up for the medical profession was one of the most crucial aspects because, after all, it is the medical profession who will be responsible for the whole operation of this Act and, without its assistance and guidance, we cannot succeed.

I am sure that we all agree that if abortion is to be permitted, whatever the circumstances may be, it should take place as early as possible. Generally speaking, therefore, the great majority of abortions will take place at somewhere between ten and 11 weeks. If one is to provide a very narrow range or panel of doctors able to deal with the handling of abortions, the administration of the whole scheme will fail.

May I say at once that I am not in any way wedded to the Clause as I have drafted it. There are a number of alternatives which can be considered. However, I want to point out exactly what the wording is so as to draw attention to the principle which I wish to sustain. It reads: The Minister of Health in respect of England and Wales, and the Secretary of State in respect of Scotland, shall by statutory instrument make regulations to provide for requiring a panel of medical practitioners"—? I do not refer anywhere there to the nature, the registration or the effect; the discretion is vested entirely in the Minister— to be appointed including physicians, surgeons and psychiatrists to undertake compliance with the requirements of section 1( a )(i) of this Act. The reason for moving this Clause and setting it down in this way is that I hope the Minister who is to reply for the Government will say which of these alternatives is most acceptable from a Governmental point of view. I recognise that the Government do not want to intervene in this debate on a Private Members' Bill other than to offer Departmental advice.

I have drawn the Clause in this way because I want to ensure that the Minister has a wide discretion in appointing this panel of medical practitioners and in approving them in different areas of the country so that no great delay will be involved in dealing with cases, and also so that we can have as wide a choice as possible of medical practitioners so that the National Health Service shall not be affected by a large number of cases in any one area.

I think that the main difficulty with regard to the practice overseas is to be seen best in Sweden. There they have medical boards, and the principal criticism of their service is that there is considerable delay by the panels which have been appointed. The effect of this has been extremely undesirable. In many cases abortions take place at about 18 to 20 weeks, whereas in ordinary circumstances they would have taken place at 10 or 12 weeks. There is frequently a two months' delay between the notification by the patient and the carrying-out of the operation.

If one were to have an Amendment which said that a consultant gynaecologist only shall be permitted to be one of the two registered medical practitioners on the panel, this would be a wrecking Amendment. It might not be meant to be such, but there can be no doubt that that would be the effect of it. Indeed, I go further and say that if we were to limit this purely to physicians and surgeons it would make the scheme impracticable, quite apart from the fact that in almost all cases the ordinary general practitioner is well able not only to recommend whether the case is appropriate, but to carry out the requisite operation.

There is on the Order Paper a very good Amendment, No. 28, in the name of my right hon. and learned friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson). My right hon. and learned Friend and his supporters have carefully delineated the whole scope of what they want. There is another Amendment, No. 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and myself. These Amendments are alternative and with all humility in the matter I wish to hear from the Government which one they recommend as being most suitable.

I make my plea on the principle that we in this House should try to secure the widest discretion for the Minister so that he will be able to get the widest possible panel of medical practitioners to ensure that the administration of the Bill is capable of really speedy execution. It is the necessity to be able to deal with these medical matters promptly, which is, after all, the humane consideration. It is not only a question of realising that if there is a delay of 16 to 20 weeks and more there is a danger to health; One must remember that if there is delay the mental anguish of the person concerned is prolonged. It is almost like someone waiting for trial for many weeks before it is ultimately carried out. I think we all agree that if the Bill becomes an Act its administration will be particularly important. It is therefore essential that the doctors should be drawn from the widest possible scope, and I hope that the widest possible discretion will be given to the Minister.

11.45 a.m.

I have read the debates, and I know that there have been difficulties and different views expressed by the Home Office and by the Minister of Health who is faced with the obvious difficulty of ensuring that the National Health Service continues to be well-administered while at the same time ensuring that the provisions of this Measure can be carried into effect. I think we all agree that the right hon. Gentleman will need to appoint an enormous number of homes. Much of this will not take place in hospitals. If he appoints specific homes for this purpose, it is clear that he will need to have a wide range of consultants of the psychiatric type, and it is for this reason that I have drawn the Clause as widely as I have.

I know that many hon. Members wish to speak and to deal with other aspects of the Bill. I end by saying that when it comes to a Division, as I understand it will, I would like to know the Government's view about which proposal they prefer so that, bearing in mind that guidance, and the intentions of the Bill, one is able to decide which is the most suitable of these alternatives.

I rise to speak as an opponent of the Bill. I hope that it will not receive the approval of the House, but on the assumption that it may go through I want to deal with this Clause and these Amendments on their merits.

The Clause proposes that this panel should be appointed, and what the panel will have to decide will be in compliance with the requirements of section 1( a )(i) of this Act. One therefore has to look at the Clause to see what the panel, however it is constituted, will have to decide, and that sub-paragraph says: that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or the future well-being of herself and or the child or her other children. Whatever the medical qualifications of those who will be on this panel—and the qualifications are dealt with in the various Amendments—those are not medical questions. The phrase "risk to the life" is much too wide. We all run a risk when we leave this House and cross Parliament Square. There is a considerable risk to life from traffic. The words should be, "serious risk to life".

Order. With respect to the hon. and learned Member, he must not on this group of Amendments traverse the whole Bill.

I am not doing that, Mr. Speaker, I am considering what the panel will have to decide, and that is set out in subsection (1, a ,i), which says that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or the future well-being of herself and or the child or her other children. That opens up the whole of her life position, that of her husband, that of her other children, that of employment, and permanence of employment, of her husband, if she has one, of her housing conditions, whether she has a permanent occupation of the house, or whether she is under notice to quit, and so on. There is a whole host of matters which have nothing to do with doctors at all. They are matters of interest to doctors but not matters on which doctors are trained, or in respect of which they are called upon or asked to decide.

But doctors are trained to accept their patients' word about their complaints and troubles. If a person goes to his doctor and says, "I have a pain in my left leg," the doctor does not proceed to cross-examine him in order to make sure that he has not got the pain in his right leg. Those who inquire into social conditions and into criminal activities, however, are trained to ask questions of that sort.

I must ask the hon. and learned Member to address himself to one or all of the questions before us at the moment and not to the general question whether medical men should be permitted or are qualified to carry out abortions.

Subject to what I have said, if we are going to have the new Clause, Amendment No. 28 should be inserted, because it will be necesary to have proper and full medical tribunals and not newly-qualified medical practitioners who will carry out this work.

I therefore draw particular attention to Amendment No. 28, which sets out the kind of qualifications that a person called upon to make this decision should have. If the House accepts the new Clause I hope that it will also accept Amendment No. 28.

I begin by stating my personal position. I believe that common sense and compassion combine to argue for clarification and amendment of the law. On the strength of that belief, I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill and sought, with others, to amend it in Committee. Like many other hon. Members, and many leading members of the medical profession, I had and still have very grave reservations about some of the Bill's provisions.

I believe that much of the controversy over the Bill might have been avoided if greater attention had been paid at the outset to the advice of leading members of the medical profession whose views were set out in clear and compelling fashion in the two reports of the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, published last year. These reports attach the highest importance to two questions—the question by whom and under whose direction the termination of a pregnancy will be performed, and the question of effective control over the place in which an abortion is carried out.

Many eminent specialists have told me that if those conditions had been guaranteed from the outset there would have been no need to spell out in detail the grounds on which a termination could be carried out. It was agreed in Committee that effective control should be exercised over the places where terminations could take place. But the Committee rejected an Amendment which sought to ensure that one of the two registered medical practitioners who must agree on the carrying out of a termination should be a consultant or someone acting under his authority.

One may argue about the precise form of such an Amendment, as we shall do in respect of those now under discussion, but essentially what is at stake is the question whether so grave a matter as many an abortion may be should be left to any two doctors, irrespective of their qualifications and experience.

Let the House consider what the Bill leaves out. It does not require that either of the two registered medical practitioners should have had a minimum period of qualification. It does not require one of them to be a consultant in obstetrics, gynaecology, pediatrics or psychiatry. It would not prevent two newly qualified doctors from rushing in to abort a woman where more experienced men might hesitate—provided that those two doctors did so in good faith and on premises which were properly equipped and approved by the Minister.

Since the Bill does not stop the payment of fees it is, as it stands—and I am weighing my words very carefully—an open invitation to certain practitioners to move into the abortion factory industry which we know exists. This is the fear of many sincere and eminent doctors. Some of them do not mince their words. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—which, whether one agrees with its views or not, includes some of the most eminent gynaecologists in the country—recently issued a statement saying: With the Bill in its present form, safeguards against proliferation of the racket in abortions done for large fees but dubious indications are virtually non-existent. The suggestion that the provision that two registered medical practitioners must form the opinion 'in good faith' that abortion is indicated would be in any way an adequate safeguard is manifestly ridiculous. Such an arrangement has led to the present prolific racket whereby unscrupulous practitioners working in collusion find that abortion is indicated provided the fee is large enough. Not everybody in the House will accept that; some may take the view that it is exaggerated. But there is clearly a need for some safeguards, and therefore I want to draw the attention of the House to a letter which appeared in The Times on Monday, signed by Sir John Peel, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr. Ronald Gibson, Chairman of the B.M.A., Dr. E. A. Gerrard, Chairman of the B.M.A. Committee on Therapeutic Abortion and others. Briefly, they said that they wished to make their position absolutely clear and to avoid any possibility of misrepresentation. These men, speaking on behalf of the governing bodies of two of the most representative organisations in the medical profession, said: We would, therefore, be prepared to give support to a Third Reading of the Bill only if further Amendments are made in Clause 1. …. One Amendment that they suggest is that which stands in my name.

My hon. Friend did not touch on the reasons in detail, and it is important to give the House the reasons why these eminent men take this view. First, they say that while in many cases the medical decision whether a termination should take place is relatively easy, in some cases it is not. The decision turns on the weighing of a number of interrelated factors, such as the duration of the pregnancy, the woman's obstetric history, her age, her present physical and mental state of mind, and her family circumstances.

In many cases the family doctor is in the best position to make a balanced judgment on these factors—certainly in respect of the family circumstances, but this does not always apply. The woman concerned may have no family doctor. She may have left home because of her pregnancy, and her state of mind and social circumstances may be such that her family doctor is the last person she wants to consult. But whoever she consults about what must be the most agonising decision in her life, she is entitled to ask—and to do so through the medium of the Bill—for the best possible advice, and, medically speaking, there can be no argument that this is likely to come from someone who has had long practical experience in obstretrics and gynaecology and who is experienced, in a practical sense, through a large number of abortions.

Of course, the family doctor is important. Ideally he should be one of the two doctors concerned, and under my Amendment he could be one. Of course, the consultant psychiatrist is essential wherever mental stress is a factor. Under the Amendment, he could be one of the two doctors.

Essentially, however, what we are concerned with here is two crucial decisions—first, whether a pregnancy should be terminated for the sake of the woman herself, with all that that means for her future child-bearing capacity and marital happiness; and, secondly whether a potential life should be ended. In both respects it is essential, in those circumstances, that she should have the best possible advice.

12 noon.

The second reason for the attitude of the leaders of the profession, as revealed in the letter in The Times on Monday, is that while the actual operation may be simple—if taken early in a healthy woman, I understand that it is—this is not always the case and severe complications may ensue, such as shock, haemorrhage, thrombosis and infection which, even if these do not have fatal results, can often lead to lasting ill-health, affecting future child bearing, and sterility.

A number of other related factors are involved. The longer the pregnancy, the more hazardous the operation. I am advised that the people whom we are seeking most to help—the very young woman and the woman who has already had four or five children, the hazards may be considerable. Thus, once a decision to terminate has been taken, a woman is entitled to an assurance that the operation will be carried out in the most skilful fashion.

There are two possible sets of objections, first, that, if this Amendment or any of the others were carried, we should be discriminating against the general medical practitioner and insisting by Statute that one of the two doctors concerned must be a specialist or someone specially appointed by the Minister for his qualifications and experience. Some have argued that this is a new principle and that it is wrong for Parliament to lay down that there shall be two kinds of doctors.

But it is not a new principle. It is laid down in law that one of the two doctors who sign a cremation certificate should have a minimum period of registration. We insist on medical officers of health in larger cities having the Diploma of Public Health. We lay down in Section 28 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, that, for compulsory admission to hospital, a recommendation must be made by a doctor with special experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorder. In practice many of these are consultant psychiatrists.

We are told that in other operations which are far more dangerous no discrimination is made—such as heart operations and brain operations—and we do not lay down specifically the presence of consultants with special qualifications. There are two pertinent answers to this. First, this operation differs from all others. It is the only one I know involving two lives, one of which must of necessity, be terminated. For that reason, the woman and the doctor are facing perhaps the hardest decision of all. Even if it goes right, it means the ending of a potential life, and, if it goes wrong, it may adversely affect the woman's future reproductive life and hopes of marital happiness.

Second, it is an operation which offers a lucrative income to any two doctors who choose to practice solely in this field in the private sector. Hitherto, the Government have taken the view that specialist qualifications are necessary. When the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced his Bill in the House of Lords, he took the view at first that any one doctor could be permitted to abort. He changed that view during the Bill's passage. There had to be a concurring second opinion and he finally agreed that the treatment must be carried out by a practitioner with … an appointment as registrar or in a superior capacity under a hospital board, being an appointment involving the practice of gynaecology. When his second Bill emerged from Committee, there was a specific provision that the treatment must be carried out by or under the supervision of … a consultant holding an appointment under a hospital board, being an appointment involving the practice of gynaecology. That provision was approved on the Government's behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.

It is relevant here, in view of what may be said from the Government side later, to quote his words on 23rd May, 1966: The view of the Royal College of Obstetricians, which has the support of the Minister of Health, is that the Bill should provide for placing responsibility for an operation at a higher level than a registrar. We think the answer might be to frame a provision which would require an operation to be performed by a consultant holding a post which involves the practice of gynaecology, or a practitioner authorised by such a consultant to act on his behalf. If that concept meets the view of my noble friend, we shall be pleased to assist him to draft a suitable Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 23rd May, 1966, Vol. 274, c. 1224.] I hope that the Minister will accept this or a similar Amendment, and I want to know whether he offered the same advice to this Bill's sponsor. If he has changed his mind, the House is entitled to know why.

One other possible objection is that the Amendment might restrict the number of doctors who could lawfully carry out a termination. There is, after all, only a limited number of gynaecologists and surgeons and other consultants. In some areas, with the best will in the world, it would be difficult to find a consultant gynaecologist. This is why my Amendment and the others would give the Minister power—he would, of course, consult the profession—to appoint doctors where local circumstances suggest that this should be done. I have not suggested the precise machinery which should be used, but I am told by the B.M.A. and the Royal College that they see no practical difficulty if the Minister has the will to take this step.

If we are to reform the law in the true interests of the women whom we seek to help, and their families, and if we are to carry the support of the medical profession, without whom it would be impossible to work the Bill, we have a duty to ensure that the changes which we make are both reasonable and practicable. The Amendment injects a sense of responsibility into the Bill. It has the support of the governing bodies of the B.M.A. and the Royal College, and I trust that, for the reasons which I have given, the House will accept it or something on similar lines.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he clear up a difficulty of mine? It would appear that one word in his Amendment on page 8410, the word "or", is superfluous and would make nonsense of the Clause. Perhaps it is a typographical error.

I should not have thought so, but I am not sticking on this Amendment. It would be presumptuous of a back bencher to suggest how the Bill should be amended precisely. I have been arguing the principle, which would ensure that, in circumstances where a consultant gynaecologist, surgeon or any other consultant was not available, the Minister should satisfy himself, after consultation with the profession, that persons of adequate experience would be available. The formula here is design to meet that.

Mr. Tinn rose —

The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) must be careful not to exhaust his right to speak. His intervention was suspiciously like a speech. He cannot carry on a dialogue.

On a point of order. The point that I am trying to make—I am sorry if I did not make it clearly—is that if the Amendment is carried as it is at present worded line 7 would read, when a pregnancy is terminated or".

No. "By".

I understood the purpose of the first intervention by the hon. Member for Cleveland. I think that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) understood the question put to him and answered it.

It would, perhaps, be helpful if I indicated the views of the sponsors of the Bill on this series of Amendments and new Clauses. I welcome the constructive manner in which the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) moved his new Clause. I understand what he is seeking to do. But, in the course of pointing out all the difficulties about this matter, he advanced the case against his own new Clause better than I could have done.

In this matter we have a great deal of information from other countries. It has been one of the arguments of the opponents of the Bill—and the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) declared himself to be one—that we do not have enough information to proceed with legislation. It seems odd that when we do have information, as we have in this case, from the legislation of other countries, that information should be ignored by the opponents of the Bill.

One of the pieces of information that we have is that in both Sweden, which the hon. Member mentioned, and also in Denmark, where they legislated a Bill similar to this and inserted a provision similar to that which the hon. Member moved in his new Clause, the result has been that, while the legislation has operated smoothly and correctly, there have been two undesirable side effects.

One is that there is delay in carrying out the operations. Indeed, the hon. Member mentioned this. In both Denmark and Sweden legal abortions are rarely carried out at under 12 weeks. This is most undesirable from the medical point of view. If a termination has to be carried out, then, medically, it is better that it should be carried out at the earliest possible opportunity. I submit—and I give this as a personal opinion—that it is also preferable ethically that if it has to be carried out it should be at the earliest possible opportunity after conception. Therefore, if in the experience of these countries provisions involving an excessive amount of red tape result in delay, then, medically and ethically, we should be wise to take note of that and we should decide to reject the suggestion.

Research has also shown that in Sweden the existence of such a cumbersome procedure has meant that the success of the legislation in reducing the number of illegal abortions has not been as great as those who promoted the legislation would wish, because the procedure is so complicated that the back-street abortionist can still flourish with relative ease.

That is the first observation that I would make with particular reference to the new Clause, although my general comments about the excess of red tape apply to most of these Amendments.

The second argument which was clearly made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East was that the leaders of the Royal College of Obstetricians and the British Medical Association have indicated support for his Amendment. That is true. It is equally true that other bodies have expressed opposition. The Royal Medico-Psychological Association, in a letter to The Times and in a meeting which they had with some of the sponsors of the Bill, stated that it was strongly opposed to bringing in legislation of this kind. I have had over 200 letters from individual general practitioners throughout the country with specific reference to any suggestion of legislating as to who may or may not perform such an operation, protesting about any suggestion that I might accept such a provision.

It was the unanimous view of the doctors who served on the Committee charged with reviewing the Bill that they would be opposed to any such provision, because it would be a new principle in our law for Parliament to dictate to the medical profession who may or may not carry out a certain operation.

12.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East tried to answer that objection. He said that the reason for making an exception in this case was that we were dealing with an operation which would extinguish potential life and which carried possible risks to the life of the mother. He said that it was an exceptional case. I cannot accept that argument. We have heard from doctors that the operation involving the application of forceps at the delivery of a child is a dangerous operation. A caesarean operation involves the life of both the child and the mother and is highly dangerous, but there is no Act of Parliament which states that only certain doctors may perform such an operation. The medical profession use their common sense in these matters, and any practitioner who undertook an operation for which he was not qualified and experienced would be guilty of negligence.

I do not think that we should bring the law into this subject at all. There is no dispute that this is a serious operation and there is no dispute that in some instances, such as those given by the hon. Member, it may be more serious than in others. However, I think that we can leave it to medical practitioners to decide when they are or are not qualified to carry out this operation and to advise whether the operation should be carried out.

The hon. Member tried to meet the objection raised in the Committee to his original Amendments, which limited those who could carry out the operation to consultant gynaecologists. He has extended it in that the Amendment in his name today refers simply to "a consultant". He therefore admits that the operation could be carried out by people other than consultant gynaecologists. He has in mind consultant surgeons. In trying to meet this objection which was raised in Committee—I recognise that he has done this very fairly—he has opened up what seems to be a complete nonsene.

If we were to accept his Amendment, it would be possible for an eye consultant or an ear, nose and throat consultant to perform this operation. He would answer that that is ridiculous and that it would not happen in common sense, but that is precisely my argument against accepting any of these Amendments. The medical profession has its own ethical and medical standards and there is no need for us to intervene with legislation of this kind.

The hon. Member referred to the "abortion factory racket". The evidence that we have suggests that this racket is carried out by people with the highest qualifications.

Finally, I submit that it is necessary, in a Bill of this kind, to introduce certain safeguards, and that we have done. For the first time there is a legal requirement of a second opinion; no one doctor can act on his own. Secondly, there is the requirement for notification of the operation to the chief medical officer of health. Thirdly, and importantly, the Committee inserted a further safeguard which was not present when the House gave its approval to the Bill on Second Reading in that there is now in the Bill—it was not there when the House last discussed it—a provision for control over the place where the operation may be carried out. These are three essential and new safeguards which do not exist in the present law.

I submit in all sincerity that to tie up the Bill with any more red tape will seriously undermine the effect of the reform that we are seeking. On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I advise the House not to accept any of the Amendments.

The new Clause and the Amendments under discussion have two factors in common. They require, first, some limitation on the class or category of doctors who shall be legally authorised under the Bill to terminate a pregnancy, and in all cases Health Ministers are required to assume responsibility for that selection by one means or another. It might, therefore, be helpful if I were to intervene at this point. I should like to deal mainly with these two broad issues which, as I say, are common to all the Amendments.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and other hon. Members said that it is desirable that the Bill should broadly have the support of the medical profession. We all accept that. The medical profession will have to work within the framework of the Bill as it emerges from Parliament. It is a fact that the profession, or the leading elements of it, have expressed the wish to have some restriction of the category of practitioner who is to be empowered to perform this operation. It was largely in deference to the views expressed by the leaders of the profession that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary commended to the Standing Committee an Amendment which was designed to secure such a restriction.

I emphasise at this point that what we are really talking about is that limited category of terminations which will take place outside Health Service hospitals. I think that all the supporters of the Bill hope that, as a result of this Measure, if it is passed, the majority will take place in Health Service hospitals and that, therefore, automatically women who go into Health Service hospitals will be under the care of consultant gynaecologists for this operation. We are, therefore, concerned only with those places which are to be approved by the Minister which are not Health Service Hospitals.

Further to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about these operations taking place in National Health Service hospitals, can he say whether those hospitals have the beds and facilities available to do these operations? Is he aware that for a considerable time I and many hon. Members have been writing to him about trifling operations such as tonsilitis not being able to be carried out because of the lack of beds and facilities?

A very large number of gynaecological beds are at present occupied by patients who have had illegal and unskilled abortions which have gone wrong. At least, we would hope that that pressure on gynaecological departments would be reduced as a result of this Measure. The issue was thoroughly debated in Committee.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie) rose—

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I do not want to take too long in giving this explanation.

Despite the support of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, the Amendment was defeated. There were probably several strains of opposition to the Amendment which coalesced into that vote. There were, for example, those who thought that it would be too restrictive, those who feared that, in some parts of the country, there were consultant gynaecologists who disapproved of the whole practice and that, therefore, women would be deprived of the opportunity of having perfectly legal abortions under the Measure, and those who erroneously saw the Amendment as no more than an example of a professional restrictive practice. However, the Amendment was defeated.

This Amendment and the new Clause seek, as I see it, the same end product, but by a different means. The methods proposed to reach this objective are such that I very much hope that the House will not support them because these proposals would place a new responsibility on the Health Ministers—certainly, a responsibility which I would not wish to assume. That is the difference between this Amendment and the one which was discussed in Standing Committee.

Mr. Braine rose —

I do not want to delay the House. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.

This would be the responsibility of making invidious comparisons between doctors and of approving, in my capacity of Minister of Health, or the Secretary of State's capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland, those who, in our view, were competent to perform a termination of pregnancy. This is something which no Minister has to do for any medical procedure at present. It is no analogy for the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) to talk about what happens to medical officers of health or to refer to the Medical Health Act in respect of cases involving psychiatrists.

These are objective criteria. If this Amendment, or one of this series of proposals, was accepted it would be impossible to exclude subjective criteria and it is clear, from the speeches that have been made, that the intention would be that subjective criteria would be imported into this distinction.

The right hon Gentleman now rejects the principle enshrined in these Amendments. Will he explain why the principle of placing responsibility on gynaecologists was accepted by Lord Stonham during the debates on Lord Silkin's Bill last year and why the principle was accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee on this Measure?

If the hon. Gentleman were listening to what I am saying he would not need to intervene so much. I have said that that is not before us now. What is before us is a series of Amendments, all of which would require the Minister to approve practitioners for certain procedures.

The right hon. Gentleman has said several times that that would be the effect of each of these Amendments. Is he aware that my Amendment, No. 28, does not place any responsibility on the Minister, but places it in the same place as the Mental Health Act places it, namely, on local health authorities?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment refers to … a registered medical practitioner who is currently approved for the purposes of this section … by a local health authority which is satisfied."…. The same principle is, therefore, imported into his Amendment and—

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose —

Sit down.

I will not give way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose —

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

I want to be as brief as I can and explain, as I have been trying to do, why I find this series of Amendments unacceptable. There are, I am advised, defects of drafting in them and particular difficulties in all of them; but I do not think that the House will want me to go into those matters now. I would rather deal with the main objections from my point of view.

Before resuming my seat, I wish to comment on the attitude of the profession. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East was mentioned in a letter to The Times, which was signed by a number of leaders of the medical profession. It was, I believe, one of four changes which the signatories to the letter said they would like to see made in the Bill on Report. Since the letter was written, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have seen most of those who signed the letter. We have seen the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and other signatories and we have discussed the position with them in the light of Amendments tabled by the sponsors of the Bill.

I do not want to anticipate the discussion of subsequent Amendments, but it was perfectly clear that the main objection which the leaders of the medical profession had to the Bill as it emerged from Committee was the concept of well-being in the Clause defining the grounds for termination of pregnancy. While I do not for a moment suggest that those who signed the letter to The Times would not still prefer some limitation on the category of practitioner, in the context of a Bill which does not include well-being, I believe, and I have reason to hold this view, that their desire for this limitation would be substantially less strong.

Mr. Braine rose —

No. I will not give way.

I am making it perfectly clear that I accept that at any rate the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists would like a limitation of this kind. The British Medical Association, however, is not quite so unanimous on the subject. Indeed, it would be most unusual if the medical profession, on a matter of this kind, was able to speak with one voice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has seen a Gallup Poll which gives the views of a scientific sample of general practitioners on the Bill as it emerged from Committee, which takes a somewhat different view.

Mr. Braine rose —

I have told the hon. Gentleman that I wish to be brief. I have given way to him.

In all these circumstances, I hope that the House will not seek to place a duty on Health Ministers which no Minister has been asked to shoulder before—the responsibility of making invidious distinctions between doctors; a responsibility which I would find quite unacceptable.

12.30 p.m.

I am a little troubled by what the Minister has just said. I do not want to say more than a few sentences, but I must tell the House that what has principally troubled me about the Bill from the start has been the danger of a racket developing. That is something which I am perfectly certain both the sponsors and the opponents of the Bill wish to avoid if they can.

This is not a purely imaginary danger, because all of us who have taken an interest in social affairs over the years know that such a racket exists now. There is no question about it. I mean, by a racket, not the back street abortionist, but the professionally qualified abortionist who evades the law. This is a reality and a real danger, and if the Bill is to have a respectable future and not do a great deal of damage, the racket must be prevented if it is possible to do so.

To my mind, the principal effect of the Bill without the Amendment—and it will, indeed, be an effect of the Bill with the Amendment—will be to take out of the jurisdiction of the courts and put on the conscience of any two medical practitioners conscientiously applying the criteria prescribed by the Bill—whatever emerges from this Report stage—the question whether an act of termination is or is not a criminal offence. Whatever else may be said about the Bill, if we can prevent a racket this is probably an advance, because leaving to the ultimate decision of a jury what is or is not legal is not one that I personally accept with any degree of comfort.

Therefore, in any view of the Bill, that provision certainly demands serious consideration, and very well may command a good deal of acceptance if the criteria are right criteria. But in so far as it takes away from the courts—a jury and a judge—the right to determine legality or illegality, and puts it only on the conscientious view held in good faith by any two medical practitioners, this is in itself a departure from procedure which is unprecedented, I think, in the law in this or any other country.

Whether a man doing an act of termination will or will not be committing a criminal offence will in future depend on the honesty with which he approaches his problem. From the juristic point of view—and we are, after all, professional legislators—this is something that has not been attempted before.

The Minister has said, and I quite see that what he said has considerable force, that he does not wish his conscience to be saddled with subjective criteria in deciding between doctor A and doctor B. There was force, also, in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) pointed out—that his Amendment No. 28, at any rate, leaves that matter to the local authority, which is a collective body, and does not saddle the unfortunate conscience of the Minister with it. I can see objections to both attitudes, but my whole attitude to the Bill will very largely be coloured by whether it contains adequate safeguards against a racket. I do not believe that at the moment it does.

Although I see great force in the argument that no one wants to put in the Bill any administrative machinery that would cause terminations to take place at a later period of pregnancy—because that is medically most undesirable—as a Member of Parliament I want to see something workmanlike come out of our discussions. At the moment, I think that the Bill is defective, and will create an organised qualified racket precisely of the kind that I am sure that the House as a whole would wish to avoid.

Before my right hon. and learned Friend sits down, would he not agree, from his long experience in office, that there are other cases in which a Minister is required to draw up a panel of practitioners of a particular kind—

A Minister?

Yes.

Medicine?

I say "Minister". Not necessarily in medicine but in other professions a Minister is required to draw up a panel of practitioners from whom the various committees will be formed, but although this may to some degree involve a question of conscience—

Order. We are now on the Report stage, and the hon. Member has spoken. Interventions must be brief.

I certainly do not want to review the whole spectrum of legislation. It is probably true that there is no exact analogy with the medical side, and for the reason I give—that we are breaking ground legislatively—I do not think that it is a conclusive objection. But there are numerous cases of all types of appointments for one purpose or another outside this sphere where panels are chosen by Ministers who, I am quite sure, are affected in their choice by both objective and subjective criteria.

We have now reached a very narrow point. As I understood him, the Minister did not depart from the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary in this House, and expressed on a previous Bill in another place, that it is desirable that there should be some limitation on those who either advise on or perform an operation which, while on occasion it may be simple, still involves very great issues and very considerable risks.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it would be very invidious for him to make that selection, but if it is right that there should be a limitation on the doctors who are to advise on or perform this operation, it should not be beyond the wit of the Ministry and of the House to find a sufficiently wide scope of doctors who will have the knowledge, experience and skill to see that the women involved get the best possible service. To this extent, those who take the view that there should be some such restriction should vote for new Clause I, always bearing in mind that it will have to be materially improved in another place.

If the Minister considers that it is invidious for him to make a selection, there are many other ways in which the selection can be made. My proposal is that the local health authority should do it. The Minister shakes his head, and I appreciate that there may be disadvantages, but local health authorities already undertake the duty in relation to mental health under the Mental Health Act, which provides that no person can be compulsorily admitted into a mental hospital except on the advice of one of the concurring doctors, being a doctor approved by the local health authority. That is a very good example of the way in which serious decisions can be limited to a group of the medical profession.

I do not suggest that it should be very narrowly limited. The matter is eased when one realises that my proposal is that one should have a fairly wide selection, that it should not be too narrowly confined, and certainly not be so narrowly confined as to create—as would have been the result of what was drafted by the Ministry and proposed by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in Committee—very great difficulty of shortage of supply.

The Minister is right in saying that we are concerned here with the private sector. The National Health Service will obviously see to it that this operation is done in a manner that is satisfactory, so we need not trouble about that. We are therefore concerned with the private sector, and, above all, with the danger of rackets mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

I personally think that this question has two aspects. One is the main principle—should there be a limitation? The second, which is detail only, is: if so, how can it be brought about? I believe that the decision to terminate involves a very difficult balance of judgments.

One of the real divisions over the Bill is between those of the supporters of the Bill who believe that, on the whole, abortion in general is quite good and should be available as frequently as possible—and, indeed, often when the woman concerned alone thinks that she needs it—and those who, like myself, support the Bill and are anxious to see an improvement in the law but who think that every abortion is, in a sense, a defeat for the human race, acceptable only because it avoids a worse defeat.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think, then, that local health authorities should also be able to decide who should perform a hysterectomy?

No. This confusion has already arisen—that, because there are other difficult operations where there is no distinction, it does not matter and it can be left in the air, so to speak. However, this wholly ignores the risk mentioned by my right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone of the racket. This is the difference. There are very large sums of money indeed to be made from women who urgently need an operation, which will be lawful if a doctor can persuade a jury that he did it in good faith, however wrong-headed he may have been. This distinguishes serious operations to heart or to mind, or hysterectomies, because they are not the sorts of operation that people want to pay large sums of money for. They do not want to have such operations unless they have to. To this extent, there is a very great distinction between the type of operation with which we are here concerned and the ordinary type of operation.

I do not necessarily say that local health authorities are the right ones. I put them in because I realise the difficulties of the Minister. It may be that it ought to be a combination of local health authorities, the medical profession, and the Minister himself, on a joint panel. I should be perfectly content to see some such organisation, which could very easily make a selection of those who shall and those who shall not perform this operation.

Further, most professional people know very well that in their professional lives there are certain activities which seem very easy to the beginner and which may often be easy but in which there are very substantial risks that the inexperienced do not know of, do not recognise, and do not understand. This is an aspect which troubles me greatly about this particular form of operation, because I think that it was conceded in Committee that it is an operation which has a high risk, both of mortality and of morbidity.

I recognise that there are many occasions when it is perfectly simple, but even an operation which appears to be very simple and quite straightforward may go wrong. This was one of the reasons why in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary recommended an Amendment which would have placed a limitation upon the doctors who should perform such operations.

I know not if the figures be accurate, but Dr. Donald Robertson, Lecturer in Anatomy at Edinburgh University, has stated that the death rate for mothers is at least 1 in 2,000 and that the complication rate is 30 in 1,000, some of the complications being very serious, involving not only the physical condition of the mother, her sexual future and her reproductive capacity, but also on many occasions her morbidity and mental and nervous reactions.

Although I concede that there are many doctors who state that this is a simple operation on a great number of occasions, with very little risk attached to it, I nevertheless believe that, because there is a high risk of mortality and morbidity, it would be much better to place this operation in the hands of those who are skilled, experienced and knowledgeable—not necessarily gynaecologists. I am quite willing to see a psychiatrist introduced for the mental disorder cases.

12.45 p.m.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that very similar difficulties could be quoted as being the risks in the confinements which would have resulted if those terminations of pregnancy had not taken place in these women? In other words, the risk in this operation is probably of the same magnitude as that which always arises when a confinement takes place.

I certainly do not accept that this operation is the equivalent to the ordinary confinement risk, in either mortality or morbidity. If it is limited only to the women who raise these problems, that may well be so. However, that does not relieve us of the necessity, both in cases of confinement and in cases of legal abortion, of providing the very best possible treatment.

The best way to do this is by limiting those members of the profession who shall undertake this operation, though the limitation I would put on would be very broad and certainly would be sufficiently wide to ensure that in every area, including remote country districts, facilities would be easily available. I cannot believe that, if the principle is accepted, there will be any difficulty in arriving at a result which will allow selection between members of the profession to be made.

I should have much preferred to see those who take the view on the main principle vote in favour of the Clause, in the realisation that it may well be that improvements can be made in the House of Lords as to the manner in which selection is to be made.

The Minister seemed to indicate that the medical profession as a whole was not wholly in support of this idea of distinction. I remind him that at any rate the official Councils of the two main bodies—the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—in their letter of 1st June—yesterday—say this on this issue: The changes which the two Councils wish to see in the Bill are in their view essential if its operation as an Act is to have the support of the large majority of the medical profession. We shall ignore that majority and official view at our risk and peril.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that those who purport to speak for the gynaecologists represent only a small minority of the 500 gynaecologists in this country, and that on no occasion has there been a poll of the gynaecologists to discover precisely what they think about the Bill? Therefore, those who purport to speak for the gynaecologists do not represent the whole profession.

12.45 p.m.

I rise to move the Amendment in my name and—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment has been selected for discussion with the new Clause now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman can talk about his Amendment. He cannot move it.

I rise to discuss my Amendment.

I must, first, comment upon the remarks made by the Minister of Health. I found his speech one of the most unsatisfactory and evasive, not to say dishonest, that I have ever heard in the House. The point was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) that, if the Bill were passed, it would put the National Health Service under intolerable pressures. This very serious point was met by the Minister with the debating point that the hospitals in the Health Service were full of people suffering from the effects of illegal abortions.

That is the sort of reply that one might expect from a partisan of the Bill like the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), but not from the Minister, who is responsible for the health of the country and for the medical profession.

The objections which the Minister raised to the Clause were most unconvincing. He was faced with a task; he had to explain this extraordinary change of front which has come about since the Committee stage, because in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health spoke and voted in favour of an Amendment in very similar terms to the Clause and to other Amendments on the Notice Paper. Why has there been this change of front?

Will the hon. Member give way?

I shall be more courteous than the Minister was to me and I will give way.

Since the hon. Member sets such store by honesty, perhaps he will modify his statement that the Amendments considered in Committee were very similar to those on the Notice Paper today. I have pointed out the complete difference between the two sets.

That is the Minister's view, but I think the principles of the Amendments in Committee and those on the Notice Paper today are the same. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said, there is a difference in achieving the principle but the principle is the same. If the principle was approved upstairs in Committee, it is the duty of the Minister to find means by which that principle can be translated into language which is acceptable to him.

In his speech, the Minister used as an explanation of his change of front an unwillingness on his part to accept responsibility for appointments he would have to make under these Amendments, but surely the Minister must accept responsibility. If he accepts responsibility for the Bill—and although, in theory, he is neutral we know that, in practice, he is not—he should be prepared to accept responsibility for a necessary safeguard. He cannot behave like Pilate and just wash his hands of the whole thing when it comes to practical considerations. I am sorry to have had to speak so strongly to the Minister, who is a very mild man—like myself—but I felt it necessary to put that point as strongly as I could.

I consider the Amendment I have tabled, all the Amendments for that matter, most vital improvements to this badly drafted Bill. If one of these Amendments could be accepted by the sponsor it would go a very considerable way to meeting objections which I have against the Bill. I hope that he will reconsider the matter. He has reconsidered other matters in the course of the passage of the Bill. Perhaps he will reconsider this in the course of the debate after the arguments have been deployed.

The importance of this particular medical Amendment arises from the fact that there are so few limitations and safeguards in the Bill as it now stands. I know that it is proposed to limit the Bill still further at a later stage in the debate, but we cannot know now whether those Amendments will be carried or defeated. We have to consider the Bill as it now stands when we are considering the Amendment before us at the moment. It is the only major safeguard which has been proposed and which is being discussed.

While it is true that under the Bill the Minister must designate places other than National Health Service hospitals where abortions can be carried out, once that designation has been made there is no control in the Ministry over who uses those places which are designated. That is a very important gap which these Amendments are intended to fill.

I agree that as regards National Health Service hospitals there is one problem, but as regards the places designated by the Minister there is a completely different problem. In those cases the position is that any doctor, however inexperienced, can carry out an abortion provided he can secure the agreement of one other doctor. This is a very grave situation indeed, because an abortion operation is not a simple, easy operation. It can in many cases be a very difficult and dangerous operation.

I am not a doctor and, therefore, I speak with a certain reserve on this subject, but there is a very strong body of medical opinion which I have studied which indicates that an abortion is not the simple operation which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) would have us believe.

I quote from the report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, published in the British Medical Journal on 2nd April: Those without specialist knowledge, and these include members of the medical profession, are influenced in adopting what they regard as a humanitarian attitude to the induction of abortion by a failure to appreciate what is involved. They tend to regard induction of abortion as a trivial operation free from risk. In fact, even to the expert working in the best conditions, the removal of an early pregnancy after dilating the cervix can be difficult, and is not infrequently accompanied by serious complications. This is particularly true in the case of the woman pregnant for the first time. Because of this, many gynaecologists consider that a safer approach is often by way of an abdominal operation. For women who have a serious medical indication for termination of pregnancy, induction of abortion is extremely hazardous and its risks need to be weighed carefully against those involved in leaving the pregnancy undisturbed. Even for the relatively healthy woman, however, the dangers are considerable.

Would the hon. Member accept from me that, while I accept that there are occasions when this operation could be dangerous, exactly the same circumstances could apply to any operation carried out by any doctor? Any operation could be met with the conditions the hon. Member has described in this case.

I would accept that, coming with the authority with which it is given, but I do not see how it affects this particular argument because this is a very special kind of operation. It is not an operation in the ordinary run of events. It is an operation which involves the lives of two people.

What we are discussing here is surely the medical implication of the operation. That is the only argument to which I am applying myself at the moment. The hon. Member maintains that on occasions this can be a serious operation. I am not contesting that. I am saying, however, that on occasion any operation can be a serious matter.

I fully accept that and I would not dream of trying to pit my minimal medical knowledge against that of the hon. Member. What I am pitting against him is the considered view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It is a statement which any serious responsible person must regard as a matter of the gravest importance.

There is this further consideration on this most vital Clause: unless we have a safeguard of this kind the way will be open for unscrupulous doctors to run the sort of racket which has been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I am not saying that the majority of doctors will have any truck with any such thing—of course they would not. The majority of doctors, like the majority of lawyers, are honourable men, but there are individuals in both professions who are dishonest and it is extremely important that they should not be given scope for the practice of their dishonesty and the undermining of the social welfare and health of the nation.

I conclude by referring, once again, to the vital position of the Minister of Health in this matter. He referred to a poll which had taken place. He said that there had been a Gallup Poll and that in that poll the majority—I think that it was 69 per cent.—of general practitioners favoured the Bill as it is now drafted and, therefore, favoured the exclusion of the Amendments concerned. But it is very important to add to that one fact that of the 1,800 practitioners who were polled only 1,100 replied.

Therefore it is not a representative sample, and little reliance can be placed upon it. What we can place reliance on are the express views of the medical profession speaking through its official bodies, through the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the B.M.A, and reaffirmed in The Times last week. If the Minister of Health is to be worthy of his position those are views of which he must take account.

1.0 p.m.

Watching this debate are various learned doctors who will have been deeply disappointed with the speech of the Minister of Health this morning. There is a much larger number of members of the medical profession outside the House who will also be grievously worried over what he said. They may look upon it as a politician's speech, and, without wishing to denigrate any hon. Members and the calling we follow, I suggest that although the right hon. Gentleman is a politician he is at the moment primarily the Minister of Health and not a politician. Therefore, it was most disappointing that in his speech this morning he gave no indication of the responsibility he bears, or that he was ready to take on such responsibility.

I cannot understand his soothing point that because termination will take place in a hospital, and in a hospital there are consultants, women will have a consultant's help. If that point is valid, why does he oppose the Amendments? The whole aim behind them all is to give the women the best possible care that the Health Service can afford her. If that is to happen anyway, why does he so strongly object to accepting the Amendments?

It must be made absolutely clear that there is still very great opposition from the medical profession, members of which have contacted hon. Members because that particular point is not enshrined in the Bill. The Minister was less than honest when he suggested that because possibly—who knows?—"well-being" may come out at a later stage in the debate the medical profession was perfectly happy about this, or was at least more ready to receive it. But it is not happy about this point. Let no hon. Member be in any doubt about the way in which the medical profession views the importance of having people who are qualified—by which I mean also qualified by experience—to suggest when terminations are necessary and to carry them out.

It has been suggested that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has not spoken with any voice on this. In fact, it recently took a poll, in which 192 against 5 stated clearly that they had the gravest possible reservations about the Bill. It is utterly untrue to suggest that the obstetricians and gynaecologists have not spoken clearly and very authoritatively on this point.

I want to spend a few minutes dealing with some of the points made by the Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). He suggested that he will not accept this series of Amendments because they would lead to a delay. Obviously, nobody could quarrel with the suggestion that delay is medically unsupportable in many cases. He said—

Order. There are too many private conversations going on in the House and below the Gangway.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that such Amendments as we are now discussing would draw out the period in which a woman could get an abortion and that we should therefore not accept them. He spoke of experience in other countries such as Sweden, and the panel system which is used there and which has been advocated here this morning. But surely if what he says were so the B.M.A. and the members of the medical profession would not have continued to urge so strongly that the safeguard we seek should be written into the Bill? The doctors are well aware—nobody better—of the danger of delaying the operation, and if this were a valid point I cannot believe that they would have gone ahead with their requests and pleas that their point of view should be taken note of and that some sort of safeguard should be built into the Bill.

The hon. Member says that we have stringent precautions here which have never been known before. For the first time ever two doctors will have to pronounce. But the validity of that point falls to the ground when one realises that we have not had any legislation before anyway. Therefore, how could there have been any other regulations beforehand? All that we have had in this country is case law and not legislation. It is entirely misleading to suggest that the Bill somehow magically tightens up the situation. It does not; it opens it out. The three safeguards on which the hon. Gentleman laid so much stress and which he said do not now exist could not now exist, of course.

Many reasons have been advanced as to why the Amendments are necessary and good. Some people have said that they will help to make sure that the illegal abortionist does not flourish, and we all support that I have spoken of the wish in the medical profession for these things. But let us not delude ourselves. The overriding important reason for moving the Amendments and hoping that they will be incorporated in the Bill is to protect the health of the pregnant woman. Above all, that is the most important thing.

Not enough has been said about the importance of protection in health of the woman who seeks an abortion. The operation has been presented in some quarters as a simple little affair, no more dangerous or troublesome than at the least the removal of a splinter and at the most the evacuation of an appendix. There has been quite a lot of talk about that important point this morning. Is it a dangerous or a simple operation? Sometimes it is dangerous and sometimes it is simple. But to suggest that it is always simple and that we can therefore legislate on that assumption is very dangerous, because an abortion is always a delicate matter and quite frequently is dangerous.

The G.P. is a skilled man. Nobody would deny that. But, his skill ranging as it does of necessity over all the ailments to which the human body is subject, he would be the first to say that he does not have knowledge in depth of all the immensely complicated sphere of medicine. That is why he is called a general practitioner. He knows sufficient to recognise when a condition is arising which it would be better to refer to a consultant. If I had to have a skin-grafting operation, a sinus operation, or a piece of bone treated, I should not be altogether happy for a G.P. to do it. He might well do it in an emergency, and it has been asked why doctors, because they do abortions in an emergency, should not do them all the time.

I cannot accept that point of view. The G.P. is not an expert in gynaecology, and it is not a bit of use pretending that he is. If I wanted one of the operations to which I have referred, I should go to a plastic surgeon, an E.N.T. specialist or an orthopaedic surgeon. It does not make sense to say that because any of those operations might have to be carried out by a G.P. in an emergency one should therefore legislate that on any occasion they could be carried out by a G.P. What is more, I would go to those specialists almost invariably because a G.P. had sent me. The G.P.s themselves will say "Yes, you need to see a consultant".

This is an important point, because G.P.s are trained to recognise a condition which lies outside their scope and are the first people to refer their patients to specialists. Make no mistake about it: the G.P.s will not want to carry out abortions themselves. I am sure of that. The medical profession has made it crystal clear. The decision and the operation should involve a consultant. The medical profession has said this over and over again.

In Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking for the Ministry of Health, urged the Committee to accept an Amendment which sought, as does the present series of Amendments, to ensure that there would be a limitation on the class of doctor performing the operation. When this point was mentioned earlier this morning, the Minister of Health violently shook his head. I have with me the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The Parliamentary Secretary made an extremely well reasoned and able speech in which he urged that a consultant should participate in the decision. The hon. Gentleman said: Sometimes I think we get a little preoccupied with the interests of the profession and tend to forget that a large part of outside opinion appears to be that women would want to go to doctors who have some gynaecological experience and practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 8th March, 1967; c. 394.] I am sorry if the Minister of Health has not read what happened in Committee. I assure him that the representive of his Ministry was quite clear in his support of the principles behind these Amendments.

My hon. Friend may have forgotten that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health further said that he was making those observations at the express request of the Minister.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reminder. He is quite correct. There was no doubt about the clarity with which the Parliamentary Secretary made the point.

We thereupon had an interesting discussion, because the right hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), who is Minister of State, Home Office, would have none of it. The Committee gazed fascinated as the Ministry of Health and the Home Office were, figuratively speaking, locked in combat. The right hon. Lady won. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was defeated. The consultant was not brought in. He is not included now. I hope very much that he will be.

Whatever may be desired by the Ministries, whatever may be thought best by consultants and whatever may be the express wish of the G.P., I am concerned above all with the health of the pregnant woman. There is no doubt that she would be best served by having the benefit of specialist advice.

Occasionally, an abortion is a simple matter. I do not deny that there might well be occasions when G.P.s could carry it out with success. The Bill, however, makes the mistake of legislating with rose-coloured spectacles. Because some cases would be simply enough for a G.P. to treat, it pretends that all cases are as simple as that, that we will legislate on that basis that all abortions are simple and do not need a specialist.

Imagining that they know better than the medical men who have advised them and who have begged and pleaded that a consultant should be one of the tiny team deciding the issue, the sponsors of the Bill have gone blindly on, and are, apparently, continuing to go blindly on and are refusing to see or to listen. It is not a scrap of good of them saying comfortably that when a complicated case turns up, it can always be referred to a specialist. They must realise that it is almost impossible to be sure whether a case will be simple or difficult.

1.15 p.m.

This is the crux of the matter. What starts as a perfectly simple termination may in midstream, as it were, suddenly turn into the most desperately dangerous situation and an extremely troublesome matter for any doctor to deal with. What then? Does the Ministry say, "We are very sorry. We rather hoped that it would all be so simple that this would not happen"? It is bound to happen unless sufficient safeguards are written into the Bill as we would all wish.

I cannot think that because there are not a large number of consultants or gynaecologists we must, therefore, for the sake of the woman, say that she must be satisfied with a less experienced man and cannot be provided with an expert. That is not the way that this House should legislate. It should say that the woman needs a specialist. It is, therefore, the responsibility of us all to see that she gets one.

Earlier in the debate, it rather seemed as though the Minister had not bothered to read the Amendments. At the outset, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) sought guidance about which of the Amendments would be acceptable and good. I am sure that if any one of them were suggested, we would all support it simply because we are all trying to do the same thing. We are all trying to protect the woman. These are not wrecking Amendments. They are put forward by people who are concerned about the woman. On that basis, I beg the Minister and the sponsor of the Bill to think again and to accept what the doctors, who have responsibility to carry these things out, and the medical profession, which has to take responsibility, wish should be done.

The contribution by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has aroused in me support for the Amendment, and that is no mean achievement. His argument of the inbuilt dangers of a racket developing in the carrying out of abortions should be treated with great seriousness, because it is a practical possibility.

It is not inconceivable, for example, that a woman who seeks abortion approaches a medical practitioner, who listens to her case or examines her and gives his conclusion that it is not a case in which he should agree to abortion. The woman, desperate to have an abortion, then turns to another doctor, who has been recommended to her as one whose conscience might be considerably eased according to the size of the fee which might be payable. That is a great danger.

If two medical practitioners decide that a woman is not a fit case for abortion, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent her from seeking out two other medical practitioners who might take an entirely different view. As soon as we permit a situation of that kind—remembering that medical practitioners are not a race apart; they are merely human beings with the weaknesses and foibles of their fellow citizens—in which other doctors might be able to decide that their consciences would in the circumstances permit them to recommend an abortion, all that we would have achieved would be that we had taken it out of the back streets and put it into the front streets and given it an air of respectability, and the money payable for the back-street abortions would then pass to professional people in the medical profession.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health surprised me this morning in his resistance to the Amendment. He seems to base his objection to it on the fact that he does not want to have upon his shoulders the responsibility of selecting the people who would be recommended as suitably qualified to make recommendations for abortion. I wonder, therefore, how my right hon. Friend reconciles himself to his responsibility for a scheme which, I think, is even more criticised in the medical profession, namely, the award of special merit payments to consultants, carried out by an unknown body which has to assess for reasons best known to it why A is to receive £5,000 and B is to receive only £2,500 and somebody else is to receive nothing at all. Surely in a situation of that kind, and having accepted that kind of responsibility, it ill becomes my right hon. Friend to say that he refuses to take this additional responsibility which, I can assure him, would rest much more lightly on his shoulders than the one to which I have just referred.

No one, not one of the Amendments, calls upon him to accept the responsibility. I doubt very much whether I would agree with a local authority being the responsible body to make recommendations as to suitably qualified practitioners, but I see no difficulty whatsoever in machinery being devised whereby there can be a responsible body charged with the duty of making such a selection, and which would be generally acceptable to the medical profession.

With that brief intervention I urge the House, in the light of what we have heard in the debate, that it should support some form of selectivity.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) that this is primarily a medical matter. I think it a pity that there has been introduced into this question the arguments pro and against the Bill as a whole. I was disturbed, and disappointed, when the Minister of Health rejected out of hand, in a rather slighting way, the considered views of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the British Medical Association. I think it unfortunate that he paid so little attention to their views, which I myself believe to be right.

I should like to see the law on abortion clarified. I would like to see termination of pregnancies carried out under the National Health Service. I fear that the attitude of the Minister and of the hon. Gentleman sponsoring this Bill will, as the hon. Member for Shettleston said, make many more expensive abortions carried out by perhaps less desirable members of the profession.

At present, in my county termination of pregnancy operations are being carried out satisfactorily in National Health hospitals, except that the Minister has not provided sufficient facilities for them because there is a time lag in the gynaecological wards in the hospitals in the area.

I have here the views of 28 out of 29 of the gynaecologists who serve the Leeds Regional Hospital Board. They say that in their view

"our present practice of terminating a pregnancy where well-established medical indication exists will be unchanged if the Bill passes into law and we do not expect to terminate more pregnancies than before."

They go on to say: In our view, the Bill will not reduce the number of abortions carried out by the unqualified.

This seems to me to be the nub of the whole of this question. If there are not at the same time sufficient beds required for this increased load for the termination of pregnancies and for the very large number of gynaecological cases, which cannot be treated quickly, I am afraid that by the Bill there will be an increased expectation by the mother that she can be relieved of pregnancy, but there will not be the facilities available for her—except by the unqualified, or, if you like, for the qualified abortion carried out by the medical racketeer.

That is why I personally believe some form of Amendment on the lines of this one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) is desirable. I can see the Minister's difficulty of not wanting to be the judge between one medical practitioner and another, but I would have thought it not beyond the wit of Parliament and the medical profession to have devised a form of words which would have saved us from the dangers of racketeering, which, I believe, are inherent, unless we can put in some Amendment like this, and which would help the Minister to secure that as many as possible of the terminations of pregnancy are carried out in the National Health Service, and not otherwise.

Mr. C. Pannell 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 184, Noes 116.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:

The House Divided: Ayes 124, Noes 187.

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The House has just seen fit to reject a safeguard which in their wisdom and experience the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists thought necessary, and it has done so on the advice of the Minister of Health who changed his mind between the Committee stage and today. I was profoundly shocked by this abdication of responsibility on the part of a Minister who is charged with the duty of protecting the nation's health. So be it, but in my view that makes this safeguarding Clause all the more important.

The Clause was first suggested by the British Council of Churches at its last meeting in April of this year. While the Council was agreed—as I think practically everybody in this House is agreed, and the leaders of the medical profession are agreed—upon the need for a reform of the law, it was deeply concerned with the Bill in its present form, and even if the Bill is amended, as it may be, to take account of some of these anxieties, one would expect that within a few years of its coming into operation there will be a need to look at its provisions afresh.

The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), said earlier today that we had quite a lot of information about abortion in this country. I beg to differ. I am advised by the B.M.A., and, indeed, by every responsible gynaecologist and obstetrician to whom I have talked about this matter, that one of the difficulties hitherto has been the dearth of reliable information upon which to base both medical and social policy. The estimate of the number of illegal abortions—which are not merely the back street abortions, but those that are self-induced—varies from 30,000 to 200,000 a year. That is a pretty wide variation by any yardstick, and if we take the latter figure, it means that in this country today there is one abortion for every five live births. I do not accept that figure. I sense that it is unreasonable, but I just do not know. It may be exaggerated, but it may not.

We know the number of therapeutic and septic abortions carried out in National Health Service hospitals. We know something about the length of stay. We know the number of deaths arising directly from abortions—happily there do not appear to be very many—but we know nothing at all about abortions carried out outside the National Health Service. We know very little indeed about the pattern of morbidity. It is true, of course, that the notification provisions in the Bill will provide us with a great deal of information which we lack at present, for example, the grounds on which terminations are carried out, and the hazards of the operation. We shall learn a great deal about that. We shall discover the demands which all this will make on the skilled personnel in the Health Service, on doctors and nurses. We shall discover the demand for beds and theatre facilities. We may well learn a great deal about the trend in social attitudes, but as to the present trends and what they are likely to be when a more permissive law is enacted, we are legislating here today largely in the dark.

It is understandable, therefore, that against that background many leading figures in the medical profession, and many of the leaders in the Church communities, have argued that before passing this Bill we should have had a Royal Commission to establish both the facts about abortion in this country, and the results of comparable legislation in other countries. If, however, the House rejects that argument and feels that Parliament ought not to wait, and that we should be prepared to grasp this nettle firmly, then it is reasonable that the Measure should be reviewed in not less than five years' time from now.

We have agreed to reconsider, at the end of a similar period, our decision to abolish hanging for murder. Is it too much to ask that we should review a decision which inevitably means increasing the destruction of potential life? That is what the Bill is about. If it is not about that it is not about anything.

The hope of the sponsors of the Bill is so to change the law that many abortions which take place at the moment illegally—either in the back streets or, self-induced, by some poor, unfortunate woman, driven to desperation—shall be brought within the framework of legality. That is the aim and justification of the Bill. It is clear that if the Bill serves any useful purpose there will be a substantial increase in the number of legal abortions and, therefore, in the destruction on a large scale of potential life.

We can be certain of only one thing if the Bill is passed: it will be expected that abortions will be more freely obtainable under the National Health Service. One reason why the Minister of Health took the line he did this morning may be that he thinks it will all be taken care of in National Health Service hospitals. Nobody in his senses believes that this will happen. With the present pressures being brought to bear upon the hospital service it is clear that if there is an increasing demand for abortion it can be satisfied—certainly in the initial stages—only in the private sector, and that if it is to be satisfied under the National Health Service without detriment to the large number of women who need other forms of gynaecological treatment there will have to be a large expansion in the facilities of the National Health Service.

But if abortions are to be more freely obtainable in the private sector this is bound to affect public and medical attitudes in a variety of ways. Whether the Bill is amended or not in regard to its social provisions it is likely to lead to a sharp rise in demand. This will lead to increasing pressure upon the limited resources of the hospital service.

Expectations might therefore be aroused which could not be fulfilled within the National Health Service. Many people in the medical world believe that this could lead to a rise in the number of illegal abortions. It is certain to lead to a very sharp rise in the number of legal abortions carried out in approved nursing homes in return for fees. For those reasons it is imperative to put a duty upon the sponsors of the Bill and upon the Government to review the whole matter after a reasonable period.

But there is another and compelling reason why we should insist upon a review. The frontiers of medical knowledge are constantly being advanced. One of the great joys of those who have been associated with the Ministry of Health or with health generally is the sense of adventure in medical matters—the feeling that the war against disease and ill health is being waged constantly and relentlessly. New problems arise, but other problems are being overcome because of the skill and inventiveness of those engaged in this work. It is an exciting process.

In Committee we were told repeatedly by its sponsors that the Bill should be drafted in a form which made it possible to take account of changes in medical techniques. It was suggested—and I believe that this is correct—that it may be possible to induce abortions by means of drugs and without the need for any surgical operation. The risk to health may be reduced, and one must hope that something of this nature comes about. But one can envisage two possible lines of development—first, that an abortion which would involve processes which do not require the provision of a properly equipped operating theatre—and we are entitled to assume that that would be a minimum requirement that the Minister would lay down in any Regulations issued in respect of the control of premises—might easily be carried out in the patient's own home, and, secondly, that new techniques might raise new hazards. It does not always follow that the introduction of a new technique is immediately successful. It may raise new dangers.

I am choosing my words very carefully. I have discussed the matter in great detail with those best qualified to know, and I am told that the inducement of abortion by certain chemical substances which I will not name carries with it considerable chance of causing grave abnormality in the child in the event of the pregnancy continuing. Whether or not this is so there are hazards involved. Certainly there are possibilities that techniques will change, perhaps quite rapidly. Certainly there will be an increasing demand for abortion. Certainly the passage of the Bill will raise expectations all over the land which hitherto could have been satisfied only by some unfortunate woman going to a back street abortionist.

One thing is clear: in countries overseas where permissive abortion has been encouraged by legislation, experience has subsequently shown the necessity to review and amend the law. I hope that we can learn from that experience. I do not need to go into the question in detail; other hon. Members have studied the matter and will wish to speak about it. Overseas experience suggests that an early review is vital.

If, therefore, we are to give the Bill a Third Reading we should recognise that it is bound to be followed by considerable changes in public attitudes, mental attitudes, techniques and demand, the extent of which we cannot now judge. We should insist upon a review after a reasonable period.

I want briefly to indicate my attitude to the new Clause. I do not quarrel with the general proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that the results of the passing of the Bill will be to provide us with much more concrete information about the whole subject of abortion—because of the Regulations for notification—than we have had up to the moment. I also agree that it is possible that at some future time Parliament will wish to make alterations to what would then be the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

But the examples given by the hon. Member were examples of changes which might be made to make abortion more easy and not to make it more restrictive. The question of the development of new techniques and the possibility of a pill being developed which makes it unnecessary to have operations carried out in approved nursing homes and operating theatres, is a matter which is controlled not by the Bill but by Regulations made under it. These can, of course, be altered from time to time as the Ministry of Health sees the need.

2.0 p.m.

Changes which have been found necessary in the legislation of other countries have made the administration of abortion easier. I do not see that, in the near future or in five years, any substantial alterations to the Bill would be required. But the new Clause is not about abortion at all but about a matter of wider principle which should be the concern of Parliament as a whole. Parliament is sovereign and we should not impose on our successors the obligation of particular legislation.

The hon. Member suggested that the Bill's sponsors should be required to review it in five years, but, of course, they will have no power, even if the new Clause were passed, to do so. There is no guarantee that a private Member would have luck in the Ballot or would wish to deal with this matter anyway in 1973. Therefore, the responsibility could fall only on the Government of the day.

It is just possible that in 1973 my party will not be in power, but if it were, I as a member of a Liberal Government would feel that there were other matters to which that Government should pay attention and that they should tinker with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act only if there were clear evidence that it required amendment. Otherwise, they should get on with putting through more important legislation.

To take the hon. Member's case, if things went well with him, he might hope that, in 1973, he would be Minister of Health. Would he, in that situation—no doubt with ambitious plans for the Health Service and future administration of health—like to be told in 1973 that he must go through the whole process over this Bill, which has taken Parliament a year, whether necessary or not, in the fight of the information then available? That would put us in an extraordinary position.

We must leave Parliament free, of course, to amend this legislation if subsequently, as a result of the Regulations which we have provided for notification, it proved necessary. That would be the situation if we simply passed the Bill. Parliament could alter it at any time in future if necessary, but it would be undesirable in principle to extend what I consider was a mistake over another Bill and require Parliament to review it in five years, because the same arguments could be applied to every piece of legislation.

I support the new Clause, which requires that the Bill shall expire on 31st December, 1973, unless Parliament otherwise determines. There have been some remarkable conversions this morning, not least the attitudes taken towards this operation for the termination of a pregnancy. All through our discussions, we were told by people who said that they had knowledge and information that the operation was very simple, and that there were hardly any risks. Most of these people now say that it is a very serious operation.

We were also told by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that we who oppose the Bill had not produced the right kind of information. He has just said, however that there is a dearth of information. I say to him, with great respect, that the only reliable information on the subject about which he speaks was produced by me—and not easily, but after a considerable amount of research into this very complex subject, which was exercising our minds so greatly in that long and almost interminable Committee.

However, having produced that, what we are now asking is that we should look at the figures collated over the next six or seven years. It is important that hon. Members should have some idea of the effect of these figures had they been available this morning. I had expected the Minister, who replied rather inadequately to such a serious point, to produce some evidence about what the position would be and the effect on National Health engagement both within and without hospitals.

The hon. Member made no attempt to gather the figures which so many hon. Members have worked so diligently to produce. Hardly an hon. Member has any idea of the figures for Sweden. Sweden has been quoted glibly this morning, but no figures have been produced. Has any hon. Member any idea how many unwanted pregnancies are legally terminated for every 100 live births in any Continental country? I will give way to any hon. Member for an answer—

The figure for Denmark is one in 200.

Would the hon. Gentleman expand on that?

That is the figure.

The position is this. I can give the figures for legal abortion rates and this has some effect on the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument about whether we should examine the Bill again in six years. How different our opinions might be when we go into the Lobby if we had this sort of figure.

These are authentic figures from a completely unbiased source. They are the figures of Liverpool University. The Professor of Gynaecology and Obstetrics there is a man of high repute in his profession, nationally and internationally. I have often thought, incidentally, that the names of other gynaecologists have been treated with scant courtesy in Committee and sometimes in this Chamber, and that it would be as well if we applauded the work of some of these men to keep our homes and families and country right.

Not least among them is the man I am quoting, Professor Jeffcoate, of Liverpool University—

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the new Clause deals with duration and I should be grateful if he would relate his remarks to the new Clause.

I am trying to point out to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I will also obey your Ruling—that it is essential that the House should review its decisions this morning at some later date. We are taking a decision without this knowledge. Therefore, with great respect, perhaps I may be allowed to run quickly through these figures, which may help. No one in the House, either in the Ministry or elsewhere, has produced these figures, which are of great benefit—

I should point out to the hon. Member that I am not objecting to the figures, but simply asking that he should relate them to the new Clause.

We should have some idea what the effect would be this year, next year or the year after of an estimated number of operations which could take place in this country. No one has yet offered any estimate of the number of legal or illegal abortions which have taken place per 100 live births. There has been no attempt to give any figure. In Poland, the figure for legal abortions for every 100 live births is 23. In Yugoslavia, there are 25 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Czechoslovakia, there are 42 legal abortions for every 100 live births. In Bulgaria, there are 53 legal abortion operations for every 100 live births.

The figure for Hungary is staggering. In a country with a population of 10¼ million, there are 123 legal abortions for every 100 live births. Is that not a startling figure, and is there any Member of the House who could look at that figure impassively without laying his hand on his heart and saying, "This must not happen in this country"?

Would the hon. Member accept two points—first, that several of the countries that he mentioned have no adequate family planning provisions, and, secondly, that in Hungary the law is simply abortion on request and the medical profession may not refuse to perform abortion if requested? That is quite different from the proposal in the Bill.

I do not concede for a moment that the hon. Member is right. His answers are too slick and too suave. I am dealing with practicalities.

The hon. Member cannot dismiss these figures lightly. They are outstanding and alarming figures. We are giving our people ample opportunity in family planning and in every other respect. It might give the hon. Member, who has pursued the Bill so assiduously, food for thought. As has been suggested by the new Clause, he should try to find out what will be the combined effect of family planning and of abortion. He might be prepared to see whether the figures in 10 years' time are larger than they are today.

Has the hon. Member the figures for Japan, where family planning is possible and where every kind of gadget for that purpose is used, but where, nevertheless, the abortion figures are astronomical?

The hon. Member comes from the same city as myself, but there is no collusion between us on this matter, although I happen to have some figures relating to Japan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) does not intervene. I have not all the figures for Japan, but I have some. I will give two figures for Japan and then stray no further into that aspect.

One figure is for the recurrence of unwanted pregnancy where abortion takes place. This is the sort of information for which the hon. Member was asking. In fact, 20 per cent. of people who had abortions had a recurrent unwanted pregnancy within six months and 50 per cent. had a recurrent unwanted pregnancy within 18 months. Moreover, there were 161 deaths from induced abortion and 350 cases of perforated uterus.

Had these figures been available to hon. Members in Committee our task would have been a great deal easier. That is why I suggest that we should correlate all this information over the next few years so that the House can take a fresh look at the whole of the legislation that we are passing.

The opinions of many people on this matter have come to light only in recent months. When this legislation is passed, if it be passed, we shall achieve a greater degree of knowledge not only from other countries but from our own. It has been said that there are no figures relating to National Health Service hospitals, but one figure has been given about a sample of 10 per cent. of doctors who were said to be in favour of this Bill. In fact, there is another 10 per cent. sample inquiry based on the National Health Service hospitals. In the year 1961—these are figures which the House should know and realise are important—there were 69,000 abortions. There were 2,300 therapeutic abortions and 2,900 septic abortions. That figure rose consistently until 1964, when there were 75,000 abortions, 3,300 therapeutic abortions and 2,000 septic abortions.

All of this information was not available in Committee and we had a very difficult time trying to persuade hon. Members in Committee to give us information. Indeed, there were times when we had scant courtesy from them. Now I take the opportunity to convey to the House the results of much hard work before the House takes any further decision. These figures illustrate the immensity of the problem—a problem which starts with the serious nature of even a single abortion.

I started by condemning people for saying that this was a simple operation. It is anything but simple. I will conclude by trying to convey how necessary it is to look at the position in five or six years' time. The expert gynaecologists who are doing the job from day to day in the hospitals are vitally and immediately concerned with what we are doing today. Let us give them some hope that the position will be reviewed at least to some extent.

It must be reviewed if we get a plea from the heart such as that in a letter which I shall quote. When I was asking for this information from Ministers it was not available in Committee and I had to look elsewhere for it. I visited every hospital from which I could get information and I visited clinics. I obtained as much information as I could about the whole problem of pregnancy, from conception to abortion. I did all that because of the paucity of the information which had been given to us in Committee.

2.15 p.m.

I have here a letter, dated 6th March, from Professor T. N. A. Jeffcoate, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Liverpool. This most experienced man writes: I now have a little more information about the risks of induced abortion in respect of subsequent pregnancies. This was mentioned in the discussion at the Liverpool Medical Institution last week. It is concerned with experience in Sweden and the figures are not yet published but they are reliable. A large number of cases in which the uterus ruptured during pregnancy or labour have been collected from Swedish hospitals. As a result of this accident 18 per cent. of the affected women die. In approximately 20 per cent. of the cases, at least, the cause of the rupture of the uterus in labour is weakness of the scar which was left as a result of the induction of abortion in a previous pregnancy. The weakness of the uterus which resulted in rupture was only due to an abdominal operation in a few cases. In most cases it was the result of simple operative treatment to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. These comments deal with only one of the subsequent hazards of induction of abortion, but I thought you might like to have the figures in case you can make use of them at some stage. He adds a postscript: Perhaps I should add that those women who do not die from rupture of the uterus are nevertheless seriously ill and have to have a major operation. This, in most cases, means removal of the uterus completely and therefore no further childbearing. Rupture of the uterus also almost always means loss of the baby in the affected pregnancy. I have supported the Labour Party all my adult life, but I did not expect the Government to provide extra time for this Bill. I wish to be completely honest about this. I consider it disgraceful that they should have taken this departure of providing Government time for a Bill of this kind, particularly when considering what is happening in the world. I am discussing this matter as an ordinary working-class layman and to think—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise this matter on this new Clause. He may find an opportunity to raise it later. He must address his remarks to the Clause.

I will not carry your patience beyond endurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret the attitude of the Minister this morning and I am thoroughly disappointed with both the Minister and the Government over this issue.

I support the new Clause. I was interested to hear the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I assure him that the sentiments he expressed are shared by many of my hon. Friends.

When we were debating the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, the hon. Member who is sponsoring this Bill, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was probably still at school. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] in those days we were talking about back-street bookies. Today, we are talking about back-street abortionists. In those days, we were worried about the problems being caused by back-street bookies operating against the law and I recall the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), now the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, referring to bookies standing behind the dock gates. Those of us who come from the North spoke of how bookies' runners operated in the mills and factories.

We had the feeling at that time that the Betting and Gaming Act would put everything right. I challenge those who debated that Measure at that time—and I regret to say that I was a member of the Standing Committee—to say whether they conceived what would be the result of that so-called liberalising legislation. Out of it has come increased gambling and gaming, with bingo halls and the rest. I fear that out of the so-called liberalising Bill which we are now discussing will arise even greater evils than arose out of the Betting and Gaming Act.

Obviously, the horrible practice of back-street abortions must receive our attention and we must do everything we can to remedy the situation. However, we should not use this problem as an excuse for introducing legislation which, I believe, will ultimately lead to abortion on demand. Do not let us allow the present problem to lead us along the path of some Communist countries in which there is abortion on demand.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a long way from the new Clause, which does not oppose the Bill but merely seeks to introduce a review period. He must address his remarks to the Clause.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not a sufficiently experienced speaker to appreciate these finer points.

We are legislating in the dark and I urge the sponsor or the Government—I do not know who is in charge of the Bill at this stage—to accept the new Clause because there are many aspects of the Measure about which we are not clear. By accepting it we will have an opportunity of reviewing the whole matter in five years' time. Between now and then statistics can be collected about whether our worst fears have materialised or whether the advantages claimed by the sponsors of the Bill have been realised. It would appear that the sponsors of the Measure have little confidence in it if they are not prepared to allow it to come before Parliament after a five-year experimental period.

Those who consider that the Measure is going too far will agree with the sentiments expressed in a leader in The Times this morning, for those sentiments advocate what is proposed in the new Clause. The writer reveals truly and adequately how many people are uncertain about the terms of the Bill.

I hope that we will not pass the Bill in its present form. Five years is sufficient a period before looking at the matter again. I beg the sponsors of the Measure to heed what is being said by those who support the Clause and to allow the Bill to have the further consideration that will be required in five years' time.

The new Clause embodies a thoroughly bad principle. This House should be reluctant to pass legislation with the terminal date dependent on further action by Parliament at a future time.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to the conditional provision for the abolition of hanging. The difference between hanging and this Measure is that the Government would have to take action on the termination of an Act of Parliament suspending capital punishment because the Government must erect the scaffold to restore the status quo ante, because the Government must provide the executioner and the Government cannot evade their responsibility in that connection. They can, however, in this.

There is no need for the Government or Parliament to do anything at the end of five years. They do not have to erect the scaffold. The Measure could lapse and, indeed, the new Clause states that it should lapse unless Parliament decides otherwise. How are the Government to decide otherwise?

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose —

No. I will not give way.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) explained that the Bill depends on private Members' initiative and up till now—indeed, until this day—it has depended on private Members' time. No Government have dealt with this problem in 100 years. Governments shirk all moral issues that arouse deep questions of conscience and religious differences. Hon. Members know that, and sometimes I feel angry when I hear them suggesting that the normal process of private Members' procedure should be left to deal with important matters of this kind. "Cynical hypocrisy" is my comment about that.

Let us consider the practical aspects of the matter. Suppose Parliament does nothing about it; that no private hon. Member is successful in the Ballot, or, if he is successful, he chooses some other subject and the Government of the day, even though the hon. Member for Essex, South-East might be the Minister of Health, decide to do nothing. Conservative Governments usually find it easier to do nothing, rather than something, especially in a matter of this kind. The Measure may lapse. What then? Presumably—and there are some distinguished lawyers present—the provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, would be restored.

2.30 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken about that. They are not abolished or amended by this Bill. They are still in force under the Bill. They would not need restoration.

I thought that that was the legal position, and I am glad to have confirmation of it. The 1861 Act would be the only Government Measure left. If that is so, we are restored to the position in which abortions in certain circumstances, on the opinion, given in good faith, of one registered medical practitioner, is enough. Abortions could be performed in places not designated by the Minister of Health, because the 1861 Act makes no provision for where abortions shall be performed. If the Measure were allowed to lapse, we would be restored to the present position, with all its imperfections and all its scandals, and I am sure that that is not in contemplation when the House is introducing reforming legislation.

We see how dependent on action to be taken by the Government of the day the future of our abortion laws would be. The back-street abortionist would then, perhaps, be restored to his kingdom, because the safeguards in the Bill would go as well as its liberalising Clauses. Indeed, if hon. Members in some quarters have their way, still more safeguards would be introduced—and they would all go if the Measure were to lapse at the end of five years.

I am sorry to find myself in such disagreement with my hon. Friend the member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), but all he said about the figures has nothing to do with this new Clause. The House can take note of the number of legal abortions done in accordance with the provisions of this Measure, and notified in accordance with its provisions at any time. It need not wait for five years, or it might feel it desirable to wait for seven years. This is a thoroughly bad constitutional proposal in any case, and I do not think that it has any merit, either, because the end of five years is not necessarily the time at which a review would be suitable. A review might be needful before then, or it might be more suitable later than that.

If the House were to accept this new Clause it would leave the future of the abortion laws in an extremely uncertain and precarious position.

Mr. Braine rose —

I do wish that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East would relax a little. He does not realise how off-putting his fidgety behaviour is. Now I see the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) getting fidgety. This is the first speech I have made on the Bill at any time, and I hope to be listened to with reasonable attention and without hon. Members showing signs that they cannot bear it any more—

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest to him that if he omits personal remarks and confines himself to the merits of the new Clause he will find that no one fidgets, whether they support or criticise him.

I will not provoke any further conversation on that. I suggest that Eon. Members do not see themselves as others see them—[ Interruption. ] I am prepared to listen to any personal remarks at any time—

Order. I think that we might now get back to the new Clause.

I was about to conclude, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Member tried to interrupt me.

I can conclude in just about a sentence by saying that to leave the abortion laws in such a precarious position would be a bad thing, and some extremely compli- cated legal questions would arise at the terminal date if Parliament had not by then renewed or amended the Measure, or introduced fresh legislation. This new Clause would create a thoroughly bad constitutional position practically, and on every other ground it would make a very messy end to this legislation.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) put forward two main reasons why this new Clause should be rejected. The first was that this is a Private Member's Bill and that it would be wrong to require the Government of the day in five years' time to reconsider it as a Government Measure. The second was that most of the objections mentioned in this debate could easily be dealt with by amendment in the light of experience and did not require the Measure to fall as a whole. With the leave of the House, I want to draw attention to a matter which exercises my mind considerably and might well concern the Home Secretary and the Government of the day in five years time. It is a matter on too broad a basis, and one that raises considerations too broad to be dealt with by amendment to the Measure as time goes on.

I understand the main plank in the argument of the sponsors of the Bill to be that the country is faced at the moment with large numbers of illegal abortions annually, and that the best way to cope with this situation is to bring it into the open by permitting abortions in circumstances in which they can be controlled and supervised by the State under the National Health Service. It is therefore argued that this is a humane and enlightened Measure, and of benefit to our society as a whole, and that there is no need for constant review.

The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Hiley) has referred to our experience in liberalising the gambling laws. Although I had not the privilege at that time of being a Member of this House, I followed the arguments in that case very closely. They were precisely these: make an illegal act legal, control it, and we will do away with the evils. Today, the Home Secretary is most anxious about the present state of gambling, and about its impact on the moral thinking of the population. This is the effect of a liberalising Measure. We now have before the House a liberalising Measure dealing with a matter far more important than gambling. It deals with the attitude of society to humanity itself; the attitude of man to man, and of man to life. That is what we are considering today.

What will be the impact of this Measure on our society? Is it an impact that will require reconsideration in five years' time of what we are doing today? It is a well known principle, hallowed by antiquity—dating back to the days of Aristotle—that great parts of the population in any society derive their personal code of morality from the law of their land. Their personal morality is dictated by what is permitted or not permitted by the law. In this case, we are saying that something that has not been permitted by the law in the past is now to be permitted. What effect will that have on the moral outlook of our society; on our view towards humanity, and on our view towards human life?

There is an answer to this. These are in a sense rhetorical questions, but experience in other countries has shown what in fact happens. The experience of those other countries argues very strongly for caution on our part and the necessity for thinking very carefully of the steps we are taking and of giving ourselves the right to look at this situation again in five years' time.

Constantly throughout the debate reference has been made to the report of the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I am surprised that this report tends to be denigrated by proposers of this Measure. I say I am surprised because one would have thought that a body such as this has within it the experience which most hon. Members do not and cannot possess. Therefore hon. Members should look with great attention at what is said in it. In the report there is reference to what has happened in other countries which have permitted abortion. The very point which concerns me is made when it says: the legalization of abortion alters the climate of opinion among the public and even the Courts of Law. The result is that even criminal … Acts which will remain even after this Bill is passed— abortion becomes less abhorrent and those guilty of the offence receive punishments so light as not to discourage them and others in their activities. The total effect is that women are increasingly ready to have pregnancies terminated and potential criminal abortionists are less reluctant to help.

Order. The hon. Member is going into the merits of the Bill itself. He must get back to his argument, which I follow

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this is the experience of other countries, is it possible for it to be our experience? If so, is not this a matter so grave, having such an impact on the fabric of our society, that it is only right that we should follow the advice given in this new Clause to give us the right in five years time to look at what we have done to see whether our experience is the same as that of those other countries?

Should we not see whether we are creating a situation where not only naturally does the number of legal abortion operations increase, but the number of illegal operations not merely does not decrease but perhaps increases? If it increases or even remains static, we shall have failed in what we are trying to do in this Measure. In five years' time we shall know whether or not we have failed. This is the importance of a new Clause of the type we have before us. These are considerations which cannot be dealt with in the words of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by amendment in the light of experience as experience of the Act goes along. It is something which goes to the very root of the matter and the very right of the existence of the Act itself.

In Japan, we are told, there are still one million illegal abortions and the legal abortions are on the same level. The experience in Hungary and Czechoslovakia has been that illegal abortions have not decreased despite the fact that legal abortions are permitted very liberally. These are matters which go to the root of the Bill and matters which give great concern. It has been admitted throughout the debate today that there are still vast unknown territories covered by the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke of the rackets that might be likely to arise should the Bill be passed in its present form. Five years will tell us whether he is right or wrong. If he is right, the Home Secretary for another reason would want the Act to be terminated after due time.

We hope that a little caution will be induced among the proposers of the Bill and that they will not be so frightened of the consequences of what they are doing that they are not prepared to have it looked at again by this House in five years' time.

2.45 p.m.

Despite the expert guidance of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and that of your deputies in the Chair, the debate has occasionally shown signs of being a sort of Second-and-a-half Reading debate. I assure you that I do not propose to follow any of those precedents, but that I shall confine myself in these few remarks narrowly to the new Clause itself.

This Clause, as was admitted by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), is very much based on the precedent of Section 3 of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965. I must point out that the Clause, if it were carried, would be a great deal less precise than Section 3 of that Act, because it does not stipulate how Parliament should so determine after a period of five or six years. Secondly, it does not provide exactly what the law should subsequently be if Parliament then determined that it did not wish the Act to continue in force.

It is highly arguable whether it is in general principle desirable that there should be a proliferation of this sort of Section 3 provision which the House decided in rather exceptional circumstances to put into the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, 1965. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. David Steel) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) deployed some powerful arguments on the general point with which I feel a great deal of sympathy. I certainly do not think that it would be desirable if, in general, our criminal law were to be on a provisional basis on which everything had to be for five years and to be renewed after the end of that period.

That point apart, and without in any way wishing to take a dogmatic position that the law relating to abortion might not need looking at again after some period in future—I would not wish to contest that view, we might well have new evidence and wish to see how the Act was working—I think that the position in relation to this Bill is not comparable with that in relation to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act.

It is not comparable primarily for this reason. There is, I think, fairly widespread agreement in the House, whatever our differing attitudes to this difficult problem of abortion, that the persent law in relation to abortion is uncertain and in many respects unsatisfactory. The position about the death penalty was not uncertain. People could have strong views about it, but it was based upon a Statute passed by the Government in 1957, and it was fairly clear what it was intended to do. There was not a general view that the position was uncertain. There was a difference of opinion as to what should be done about it.

It would be unsatisfactory, whatever our views may be about abortion, that we should put into the Bill, if it were passed, a provision that, after a given period of five and a half years, we should automatically revert, if the House at that time so wished, to a position which is almost universally recognised as being uncertain and unsatisfactory.

Furthermore, there would be considerable difficulties unless detailed provisions were made in the Clause, which they certainly are not, for transitional provisions for the proceedings which were already in force, but which had not been completed at the time when the five and a half years were up.

The House should bear in mind that, were the Clause to be passed as it stands, the Act could conceivably lapse even without debate in five and a half years' time. It could, in any case, if the House were so minded, lapse on the basis of one debate, and without anything being put in its place.

It would be wrong that I should seek excessively to guide the House, except to tell hon. Members how the Clause strikes me from the point of view of the workability of the Bill. I do not wish to put forward the view that we are, or will be, saying the last word about abortion in whatever Bill we pass, if we pass a Bill, during the course of these debates. However, it appears to me that this provision would not be the right way to secure an adequate review, if an adequate review were thought to be necessary.

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) raised the parallel of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. I do not regard this subject as in all respects analogous with that of betting and gaming. But, even allowing for that difference, while certain unsatisfactory features of that Act, now very widely recognised, cause me very great concern indeed, my problems in relation to this subject would have been in no way eased had the 1960 legislation lapsed automatically in the course of 1966. Indeed, they would have been made a good deal more difficult. In the case of the Betting and Gaming Act, where undoubtedly experience has shown that certain changes are necessary, it is overwhelmingly desirable to replace it with new and improved legislation, rather than to let it lapse and for us to revert to the position as it was before the previous Act.

In my view, very much the same considerations, whatever our differing views about this subject, would apply to this difficult question of abortion. It is clearly for the House to decide, but I cannot advise the House that it would make the Bill more workable to accept the Clause.

I had not really intended to embark on this Clause. I intend to say only a few things about it, which I think I can now do within the rules of order, having regard to what the Home Secretary has said. It is obviously true that, if Parliament can make a workable job of any Bill, it is, in general, undesirable that it should put a time limit to that Bill, because then it should be satisfied with its efforts. We all know that Parliamentary time, under our present system of legislation, is not an easily come-by commodity. Whether it is public time or private Members' time, it is equally difficult.

I must say this in view of what the Home Secretary has said. I think that it has a direct bearing on the Clause. although I still remain fairly neutral about it. If the sponsors of the Bill make their point and carry the Bill through Parliament, they will have created a state of the law which will demand the attention of the Government long before the five years are up.

If I may say, without trespassing on the rules of order, in one sentence why I think so, it is because the Bill, whatever else it does, does not repeal Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, which seems to me to be wholly inappropriate to the social and medical conditions of today. When the sponsors of the Bill superimpose, as they will by the product of the Bill, if they get it through, a further engraftment on a basically unsatisfactory state of the law, I do not think that the situation can be tolerated for five years.

The advantage of the Clause—I repeat that I remain fairly neutral about it—is that it will be made necessary for any Government to do that before the five years are up. This is without prejudice to the arguments advanced by one of my hon. Friends about the consequences of legislation, which must in this field be to some extent problematical. Hon. Members on both sides of this controversy who think that, whether one favours the Bill or whether one does not, we shall have created a state of the law which can last for even as long as five years without a proper codification and revision are living in a fool's paradise.

Although personally I would for that reason slightly prefer the Clause to be inserted, I do not want to take an unduly controversial view about it. I see the force of the Home Secretary's argument. I have said what I have said because, on the results of Divisions hitherto, it looks as if the Bill will go through. I hope that the Home Secretary, who is, after all, the guardian of our legislative structure about criminal law, will take note of what I have said.

I am particularly pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because for some months now I have had the feeling that, if I do not have the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill, I will burst. The Bill is not a new phenomenon. Early in March, 1966, prior to the General Election, there was another Bill along the same lines.

Order. May I warn the hon. Gentleman that he may have to burst if he cannot keep his remarks in order. He must address himself to the Clause we are discussing?

I agree; and I will abide by your Ruling, which is, as always, very generous, Mr. Speaker.

There is something to be said for a period of duration. If it is good occasionally for individuals to have to cool their heels, I believe that it is good for Parliament occasionally to stand and stare and to visualise what the passage of a Bill such as this can involve. An hon. Member opposite said that Parliament is sovereign, and one can readily concede that. But with the widest stretch of imagination one cannot concede that Parliament has dominion over life or death, and one must take issue with him on that point.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) tried to reduce the temperature somewhat. I was also pleased when in answer to a question yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House informed my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that the House intended to debate these very vexed problems in entirety and to see that no issue was burked in relation to the Bill. We have been glad to have all along the line the assurances that the issue would be well and truly debated on its merits.

But it did not escape my notice today that my right hon. Friend who posed that question yesterday was very keen to move the Closure. I am also sorry to observe—

3.0 p.m.

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's feelings about the Bill. He will have opportunities of expressing them at different stages of the debate. For the moment we are discussing whether the Bill, if it becomes an Act, shall last for just over five years or not.

I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker, that we are not at this moment debating an issue of fundamental and momentous importance. But it is important enough, because Parliament should give due and careful consideration to the matter and we cannot do that unless we devise ways and means of taking a look at the result of legislation with every passing day. That is why I am prepared to advise caution, why I say, " festina lente" —"hasten slowly." That was what Parliament was prepared to do over the "hanging" Bill. We said that we would observe the reaction, and its effect during a five-year period. It was abhorrent to Members of Parliament that we should agree out of hand, without any thought of revision at any time, to judicial murder.

My hon. Friend said that we did not need a scaffold. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was the right hon. Gentleman."] Yes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby. I would not demote him for the world. But we do not require a scaffold to murder an unborn baby. That is why we should say that we must ponder on what legal abortion will involve.

Some hon. Members today appear to have been inclined to give some credence to the national opinion polls, but they can be used to serve one's purpose. Even in recent months there has been a tremendous change of opinion in the House and, because of that, one is led to the thought that perhaps the people in the country will not be too pleased if so much indecent haste is revealed in our deliberations on this all-important issue.

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Clause.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence. I have not altogether disregarded your admonitions. I always pay particular attention to what you say to me, but now, thank goodness, for the next few minutes I can be in order.

What I ask—and I pose the question with great concern—is why we, the mother of Parliaments, are so unwilling to accept the safeguards which are embodied and implicit in the Clause.

Why are we so hell-bent on opening the floodgates? The Government also must at all times, and particularly where such great and momentous issues are involved, give themselves the opportunity of reflecting from time to time. Any Government will lose favour if they resolutely refuse to adopt a cautious attitude in such important matters.

One can be sceptical with justification. We have been advised so wrongly by our own friends We were informed by Ministers of the Crown that the attitude of the Government was one of strict impartiality. The time-honoured procedure of the House has been disregarded absolutely. It may be a good and proper thing from time to time to change the rules and procedure of the House, but when it is apparent that the rules and procedure of the House, which have been designed and calculated to facilitate the passage of business at all times, are to be changed for a specific purpose—

Order. The hon. Member must take note of what the Chair keeps saying to him. I do not criticise the observations that the hon. Member makes, but they are out of order on the Clause.

As you have said, Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly about some things. I always give due regard to opposite opinions.

I think it was Voltaire who said: I detest your opinions, but I will defend them to the death".

Order. Voltaire is out of Order on this Clause.

I shall defend to the death my right to say what I wish to say in the House of Commons. That was what the people of Preston, South sent me here to do. The opposition was tremendous, but I overcame it and I think that I am competent enough to overcome any opposition that may be directed at me here today.

Order. The Chair is serious. The hon. Member is free to speak in the House and to express his opinions on the subject which is being discussed. We are discussing whether the Bill is to last for only five to five and a half years. The hon. Member must address his remarks to that.

I am grateful for your kind guidance, Mr. Speaker. I do not look upon you as the opposition. I look upon you as a friend indeed.

My right hon. Friend—I could not quite understand what he was trying to convey—said that this was a sort of Second-and-a-half Reading debate. I have been a long time in local government, it took me a long time to get here and, perhaps, I am not as quick on the uptake as I should be, but I am trying to become a mature Parliamentarian and endeavouring to keep always within the rules of debate. When, however, my right hon. Friend said that this was a Second-and-a-half Reading debate, the thought crossed my mind that that might be because it was such a half-baked Bill.

I cannot find any fault at all with a provisional basis. Some of our laws are so archaic, so wrong, and productive of so much evil in the country, that I do not think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should frown so definitely on some provisional legislation. I think that it may not be a bad thing. Certainly, this legislation could well and truly have been deferred without any great loss to anyone at all in our country.

I am delighted to see the Attorney-General in his place this afternoon as well as the Home Secretary. I rise only to pose to them this very simple question. I do not support the new Clause. I am against it. However, the House is now deciding the moral issue, and when that issue has been decided, and the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will then be for the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General to recognise that they will have on their plate a really serious administrative problem.

Are we to be met in the future with the argument that this matter of abortion—as, for example, the matter of divorce—is one which the House must deal with in private Members' time and is not a matter for Government legislation? I want to know the answer to that. When we come to the conclusion of what, no doubt, will be the lengthy debate we shall have here, and the conclusion of debate in another place, and the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will be for the Government of the day to amend that Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity if they think it right so to do.

I sound this note of warning. At the beginning of the day, when I moved an Amendment, and moved it constructively, I hope, I did not draw attention to the very great dangers in our criminal law, but I can tell the House, with, if I may say so, a not inconsiderable knowledge of criminal practice, of what goes on in abortion cases. To my own personal knowledge there are, for example, two well-known doctors who are conspirators for the purpose of giving abortion certificates, which takes place regularly. This will extend.

I have no doubt that if there is no sort of safeguard with regard to the medical profession the Attorney-General and those others concerned with the administration of the criminal law will very soon find that the Bill, when an Act, will require amendment—and it is not the sort of subject we should have to try to deal with again on a Friday, and it will doubtless be very difficult to get another 300 Members here on another Friday.

Therefore, although, on balance, I dislike intensely having a five-year period for legislation, nevertheless I would hope that we can have an assurance that, if the legislation is passed, the Home Office will keep wide awake in its very great responsibility for administration of the criminal law and justice.

3.15 p.m.

We have had an interesting debate. I shall be brief. I have a great respect for the Home Secretary, but I must say that I was completely unimpressed by his argument. Of course, it is unusual to require insertion in an Act of Parliament of a provision of this kind. Of course it is true that Parliament can review its legislation at any time—subject, of course, to the very important consideration which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has just raised. But the Home Secretary, I fear, did not address himself to what is really at issue.

I shall not now repeat the arguments I adduced in introducing the new Clause, save to say, first, that the need for it was made all the more imperative because of the rejection of the safeguard which the leaders of the medical profession have asked for and which even the Minister of Health himself thought necessary right up to the Committee stage. I will come back to that in a moment, because the House has not given sufficient attention so far to the extraordinary somersault of the Minister of Health, who is responsible for safeguarding the nation's health on this vital issue.

The second argument is that, in a matter of high social importance with considerable consequences for the happiness and health of countless thousands of women, it is manifest that we are legislating in the dark. The speech of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) deserved a much wider audience. Experience has shown that in countries overseas which have liberalised their abortion laws and where, east of the Iron Curtain, little or no regard is paid to religious considerations, it has been found necessary to revise those laws.

The hon. Gentleman reinforced my argument thaat there is a considerable dearth of information, and no one accepted his challenge on that. However, there is one item of information upon which we have some knowledge. In the United Kingdom, there is one area where therapeutic abortion is carried out in hospitals by consultants in good conditions and in circumstances where the standard of obstetrics is as high as any one could wish. In Aberdeen, the number of therapeutic abortions carried out is six times the national average.

If the Aberdeen model were to be adopted for the country as a whole, in present circumstances it would impose an impossible burden upon the Hospital Service. The Minister of Health knows that, and it may be that it is that knowledge which causes him to seek to wash his hands of responsibility—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to his own Clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) had spoken earlier on this Clause. He did not ask leave of the House to speak again and it was not given to him.

Order. When a Bill has been to Committee upstairs and it comes back to the House, the hon. Member in charge of an Amendment has the right to speak again.

Mr. Speaker, I promised to be brief, and I shall keep my promise.

The relevance of what I have just said is that we are today dealing with a vital stage in the passage of a Bill which, if its sponsors are correct, will lead to a substantial increase in the number of therapeutic abortions. Since in large measure these will not be carried out in National Health Service hospitals, because the physical resources do not exist, it follows that they will take place in the private sector in return for fees. That is the logic of the Bill which its sponsors and the Minister of Health have failed to bring out, except by default.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was quite right when he said that the Minister of Health and the Home Secretary will have to take physical control of the situation long before the five years are up—

indicated assent.

I am glad to have the agreement of the learned Attorney. Whatever may be the constitutional disadvantages of inserting a provision of this kind in the Bill, by accepting the Clause the House is demonstrating for the first time in the passage of this Bill the importance which Parliament attaches to the provision of adequate safeguards. It will be demonstrating that we have learned something from foreign experience, and it will perhaps be serving notice on the Government, and future Governments, that matters of high social importance such as this should not be left to private Members, but should be dealt with by the Government themselves. I feel bound to advise the House to divide.