Select Committee on Science and Technology Twelfth Report

Formal minutes

Monday 29 October 2007

Members present:

Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair
Mrs Nadine Dorries Chris Mole
Mr Robert Flello Dr Bob Spink
Linda GilroyGraham Stringer
Dr Evan HarrisDr Desmond Turner
Dr Brian Iddon

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Scientific developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Draft Report, proposed by Mrs Nadine Dorries and Dr Bob Spink, brought up and read, as follows:


This minority report seeks to engage with three specific issues:

1. Whether the legal upper limit for abortion of 24 weeks should be reduced on the basis of the scientific evidence about neonatal survival and fetal sentience.

2. Whether there should be a liberalisation of the law on first trimester abortion, especially with respect to nurses' involvement, premises or the requirement for two doctors' signatures, on the basis of scientific evidence on safety for women of the abortion procedure.

3. The implications of the above for the care, counselling, support and provision of fully informed consent to women seeking abortion.

We also wish to highlight misgivings about how those giving oral evidence to the committee were selected and how ideological and financial interests have apparently shaped what has been included or ignored in written evidence submitted by specific organisations and individuals.

We regret having to table this minority report but we feel it has become imperative because of the failure of the committee to properly engage with these key issues.


Abortion is a controversial issue and whilst this enquiry focussed specifically on scientific developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967 almost all of those submitting written and oral evidence have ideological or financial vested interests in the abortion issue. Whilst this in no way precludes these organisations and individuals giving evidence to the committee as interested parties or implies that they are unable to present this evidence in an objective and balanced way, it is important that the committee ensures that all scientific evidence relevant to the enquiry has been fully considered.

Those giving evidence can very broadly be considered as occupying one of two camps:

1. Pro-liberalisation - Resisting a lowering of the 24 week upper limit or any clarification of the law with respect to abortion for congenital abnormality and favouring liberalisation of first trimester abortion with respect to nurses' involvement, premises or the requirement for two doctors' signatures.

2. Pro-restriction - Favouring a lowering of the 24 week upper limit and reduction of abortions for fetal abnormality and resisting liberalisation of first trimester abortion with respect to nurses' involvement, premises or the requirement for two doctors' signatures.

We are concerned specifically that:

1. Whilst the written submissions to the Committee were essentially evenly divided between those coming from pro-liberalisation and pro-restriction perspectives, those chosen to give oral evidence did not reflect this. Of the 18 witnesses chosen, 13 were pro-liberalisation and only 5 pro-restriction. This seems unfair given that public opinion is very much in favour of reducing the number of abortions.

2. People were asked to give evidence who had not submitted written evidence (see especially Drs Neil Marlow and Maria Fitzgerald). This has led to loss of public transparency.

3. Some witnesses who have been given prominence in the Committee Report included very few, if any, scientific references in their written submissions (See especially Derbyshire and RCN submissions).

4. Some key witnesses who would have given a contrary view to the RCOG consensus, especially on upper limits, were either ignored or not invited to submit evidence (see especially Professor Stuart Campbell and Dr KJ Anand). It was also unfortunate that there was no serious engagement with a wider range of non-directional specialist counsellors with experience of both pre and post abortion counselling.

5. The committee's expert advisors were not neutral but brought to the committee vested interests and minds made up on some of the key issues (such as upper limits).

6. The committee has given too much credence to the RCOG and RCOG guidance, whilst not raising any questions about the RCOG's impartiality. This should have been much more fully explored.

7. The committee asked for people to declare interests, saying that revealing them would not prejudice the committee; but this was used to attempt to undermine in the national press the credibility of witnesses who had given written and oral testimony. This episode is unprecedented as far as we are aware in the proceedings of Parliament and has brought the legislature into disrepute; we will consider referral to the Standards Committee and the Speaker.

8. A number of the key institutions giving evidence to the committee did not consult their grassroots members and have not formally made their evidence available to their members (especially RCOG and RCN).

9. The committee was inconsistent and selective in its use of international comparisons; using them liberally with respect to nurse and home abortion for example, but downplaying or ignoring them with respect to fetal sentience, neonatal survival, mental health, preterm delivery and breast cancer.

10. As this is the science committee we regret that weight has been given in its report to evidence on both sides that has not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. These 'findings' should be removed from the report and should not be used to inform Parliament (eg. EPICure 2, Dr Ellie Lee, UCLH neonatal survival rates).

Neonatal survival rates

We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed information about Wyatt's evidence, which was passed by him to the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure given that witnesses were told by the committee that any disclosure of personal interests would not prejudice the hearing of their evidence.

There have been at least ten international studies on neonatal survival of extremely premature neonates published since the year 2000 which we can supply to the committee.  The most important points are that:

a) Survival is very variable from centre to centre.

b) Survival is higher with birth in tertiary centres.

c) Survival is higher with proactive management.

The EPICure study cannot appropriately inform policy making about upper limits for the following reasons:   
a) The EPICure baseline of assessing babies born at a particular gestational age which show signs of life at birth, rather than those live babies which are admitted to intensive care and receive treatment, is misleading and does not give an accurate assessment of the likelihood of survival with good neonatal care or provide a good basis for international comparisons.

b) All pre-term births happen for a reason and are usually indicative of a pre-disposing medical problem, either with the mother, or the baby. To use survival statistics of babies born prematurely to predict viability of babies aborted is not comparing like with like. The majority of aborted babies, if left to term, would be born healthy and so a direct comparison cannot be made.

c) There are a number of peer reviewed studies which demonstrate the significant improvement in survival rates of babies born pre-term if neo-natal intensive care is provided at birth. This exposes the weakness of the EPICure study which averages out all births at all hospitals across the UK and takes no account of the post code lottery of neonatal care which exists in the UK. Outcomes for mother and baby will depend very much on clinical decisions and the quality of care available in the hospital at which the mother presents.

d) There have been concerns expressed in the press by a leading neonatal paediatrician that the low survival of babies born at 23 weeks is at least in part a result of doctors 'not trying hard enough'. In other words, EPICure has itself become a guideline for practice, which undermines its use as a measure of viability.


We may never know for certain when foetuses first start to feel pain and there is no clear consensus amongst experts in the field.

There are two main schools of thought. The first, represented to this enquiry by Fitzgerald, Derbyshire and the RCOG, is that foetuses cannot feel pain until 26 weeks gestation, because that is the stage of development at which mature neural connections between the thalamus and cerebral cortex are first present. The second view, expounded in a review article by Anand et al published in Seminars in Perinatology in October 2007 (and also presented by the same author to the US Congress in 2005), is that foetuses feel pain using different neural mechanisms than adults and that these are present at earlier than 20 weeks gestation. Both schools are however agreed that conscious perception of pain cannot be inferred from observing anatomy, stress hormone levels and movements alone.

The alternative view supported by Anand et al argues that the more traditional Fitzgerald/Derbyshire/RCOG view ignores significant evidence, specifically that: a) sensory processing in the human brain develops well before birth;b)the subplate zone is functional well before the cerebral cortex develops; c) the key mechanisms of consciousness are located below the cortex (in areas that develop in early gestation); d) fetal behaviors suggest memory and learning as the highest-order evidence for perceptual function; and e) other lines of emerging evidence in the field of neuroscience.

He argues that three major flaws beleaguer the scientific rationale behind the RCOG viewpoint and other reviews purporting to rule out fetal pain:

First, pain perception is presented as a hard-wired system, passively transmitting noxious impulses until "perception" occurs in the cortex. More than 40 years of pain research discards this Cartesian view of pain. Second, it incorrectly assumes that fetal pain must engage the same structures and mechanisms as those used by adults. Ongoing development in these areas is then used to support the argument that fetuses don't feel pain. A vast body of research shows, however, that the fetus is not a "little adult," that the structures used for pain processing in fetal life are uniquely different from those of adults, and that many of these structures or mechanisms are not maintained beyond specific periods of fetal development. Third, it presupposes that cortical activation must be necessary for fetal pain perception. This reasoning, however, ignores clinical data that ablation or stimulation of the somatosensory cortex does not alter pain perception in adults, whereas thalamic ablation or stimulation does.

If cortical function is not a necessary standard for adult pain perception, why must fetal pain be held to a higher standard?

Current scientific facts, however, must inform this debate and clinical practices in modern medicine must acknowledge and respect an emerging personhood in the womb, essentially nuanced by compassion for the mother's situation and health.

RCOG and fetal pain

We are deeply concerned that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) failed to give full information to the House of Commons Select Committee. Parliament leans heavily on the RCOG for guidance and the Committee's Report will be referred to by MPs seeking to amend the law on abortion.

Since 1997, the RCOG has consistently denied that fetuses can feel pain earlier than 26 weeks, without acknowledging that amongst experts in this field there is no consensus. Professor Anand is a world authority on the management of neonatal pain and has put forward a cogent argument suggesting that the RCOG position is based on a number of false or uncertain presuppositions. The RCOG in response to comments by Anand in a Channel Four Dispatches programme has issued a press release claiming they keep a 'watching brief on new scientific developments and advancements in fetal medicine, and continue to examine emerging evidence from the international scientific community about fetal awareness and fetal pain' but are 'unaware of the work of Dr Anand or any other work that contradicts the basic findings of (their) review'.

For the RCOG to report the studies of researchers who share their own official position, whilst ignoring research published by other leading researchers with contrary views, is at the very least misleading and at worst a serious abuse of power. It seems bizarre that the RCOG has not made more of an effort to find out more about contrary evidence before making such a bold public statement. It surely owes both Anand and Parliament a formal apology and explanation of why it has apparently 'cherry picked' the scientific evidence to support its opposition to a lowering of the 24 week upper limit for abortion.

Foetal Ultrasound and Professor Stuart Campbell

We are most concerned that no expert in foetal ultrasound was called upon to give answers to questions posed in this section, and that instead the committee relied on testimony from neurobiologists and paediatricians. Why was Professor Stuart Campbell, who pioneered this work, not called? This cannot be justified on the basis that he did not submit evidence because Fitzgerald was summoned to give oral evidence without submitting written evidence. This appears to be a serious omission. We hope that the reason was not because Campbell does not personally support a liberalisation agenda, whereas both Derbyshire and Fitzgerald do.

Reasons for late presentations

We asked for evidence by Dr Ellie Lee should be removed as it is based almost entirely on data from a study which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Two doctors' signatures

We were not presented with any evidence that, in the first trimester, the requirement safeguards the health of women in any meaningful way. However we recognise that the requirement for two doctors' signatures was originally intended to ensure that an illegal abortion, outside the terms of the Act was not being performed. This provision was for the legal protection of the fetus and the doctors. Apart from anecdotal reports, there is currently no hard evidence that the requirement for two signatures is causing delays. Whether or not the requirement for two doctors' signatures is removed is a matter for Parliament.

Involvement of nurses

The involvement of nurses conflates two separate issues: authorisation of abortion and prescribing drugs for abortion. The two are different qualitatively and the case has not been made for the former. Furthermore, references to nurses signing the HSA1 form are outside the terms of this present enquiry. Witnesses were not invited to submit evidence on this issue and the committee should not therefore take a view on it.

Places where abortion can be carried out

Concerns were expressed by committee members and in the press with regard to the safety of medical abortions completed at home. Many of the women sent home may be very young, alone and un-prepared for any of the following:  
a) Uterine cramps and chronic pain, similar to pain experienced during labour, which can last up to a number of hours.  
b) Acute and prolonged chronic vaginal bleeding.  
c) Emotional distress experienced during the home disposal of the aborted baby.  

We are also concerned with regard to potential consequences which may occur and the need to access emergency services. A young woman may be confused with regard to what is normal and to be expected and at what point she would need to seek help. Our conclusion is that all abortions should be carried out in a place of safety and comfort with adequate pain relief and professional reassurance.

We also need to consider the impact that medical abortions available at home would have upon both the attitude of young women, particularly those who multi-abort, and the financial implications both to the government in terms of cost, and abortion providers in terms of revenue.

Medical abortions available at home could, in all probability lead to an increase in the number of women seeking abortion due to a more relaxed attitude developing toward contraception on behalf of the young and sexually active.  

Research needs to be undertaken to examine what impact medical abortions have had in America and whether or not they have led to a relaxing of attitudes towards contraception. Given that gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, HPV and HIV are increasing at an alarming rate no procedure should be adopted which would exacerbate this situation.

An overall increase in abortions would involve the government in additional cost and would, for the abortion provider, involve a considerable increase in revenue, without any capital expenditure being incurred on infrastructure in terms of beds or facilities. This is because even though the cost would be less than an abortion involving an anaesthetic and a surgical procedure, the abortion provider would still provide a watching brief and dispense the abortifacients.

The 2004 RCOG Guidelines

The debate on health risks associated with abortion is fierce. A comprehensive and rigorous review of the evidence on health risks for women, The Care of Women requesting induced abortion, was produced by the RCOG in September 2004, and is frequently quoted as the final court of appeal in parliamentary debates. However for a variety of reasons there is reason to exercise caution in regarding it as authoritative:

a) The document is now three years out of date and many significant. more recent studies, especially in the areas of mental health, fetal sentience, neonatal survival and preterm delivery have not been included in the RCOG's written submission to the committee, which by comparison is academically lightweight.

b) The RCOG in their written evidence have created the impression that there is a strong consensus amongst experts on some issues when there quite clearly is not. The most serious example of this is with respect to fetal sentience, and we have considered this in more detail in this minority report, but another example would be the alleged link between abortion and breast cancer. Overall the latest RCOG's written evidence fails to emphasise or in many cases even mention views or studies whose findings do not add weight to a pro-choice agenda.

c) The brief summaries on health risks of abortion, which are used on patient information literature, do not fully reflect the balance of evidence quoted in the document's more detailed reviews. This is particularly so with regard to the links between abortion and preterm delivery and abortion and breast cancer, where the conclusions downplay the links in a way that is not justified by the evidence reviewed.

d) There have also been questions raised about the bias of the RCOG. Amongst the development group and invited peer reviewers for the 2001 guidelines (on which these are based) are included representatives of most major abortion providers and pro-choice pressure groups including BPAS, Marie Stopes, FPA, ALRA, Birth Control Trust, Prochoice Alliance, All Party Parliamentary Prochoice Group (APPPG) and Brook. There do not appear to be any groups with an interest in restricting abortion amongst the authors or reviewers. It is not clear where the various RCOG representatives stand on the issues but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this document has been produced by those with an ideological and financial interest in abortion. The APPPG says that it is 'supported' by the FFP and presumably this involves a financial element. The impression given is pro-choice organisations and the RCOG are 'in bed together'.

e) The RCOG guidance is wide-ranging and gives advice on issues in the fields of psychiatry, paediatrics and epidemiology, but it is not apparent that the guideline development group contains people with expertise in these areas.

The results of the RCOG review have been condensed to form guidelines that are followed by nurses and physicians in obtaining consent. The guidelines that are relevant to the impact of abortion on women's health (chapter 5 of the RCOG report) are discussed below and reproduced in full in Annex B of the Science and Technology Committee Report.

Mental health

The RCOG guidance downplays the link between abortion and mental health problems.

However, there are a substantial number of recent studies which need to be incorporated in the RCOG guidance, and the latter requires updating. Further research is needed but the findings of the Fergusson study, published by a pro-choice researcher who was surprised by the findings in 2006, means that women having abortions can no longer be said to have a low risk of suffering from psychiatric conditions like depression.

Pre-term birth

The RCOG guidance says that 'abortion may be associated with a small increase in the risk of subsequent miscarriage or preterm delivery'.

However, if one examines the detailed evidence quoted by the RCOG the evidence for a link between abortion and preterm delivery seems quite robust. The RCOG guidance states:

"Thorp et al (2002) appraised ten case-control and 14 cohort studies relating to abortion and subsequent preterm birth or low birth weight. Twelve of the studies showed a positive association and seven showed a dose-response effect. Thorp et al. highlighted the fact that large, recent cohort studies based on register linkage consistently show a positive association. More recent studies identified during development of this guideline update have reported mixed findings. A French cohort study involving 12,432 women suggested that "a history of induced abortion increases the risk of preterm delivery, particularly for women who have had repeated abortions". A small Swedish case-control study126 involved 312 cases of preterm birth and 424 controls who delivered at term. A history of two or more induced abortions was not associated with preterm birth, whereas a history of two or more miscarriages was. Among those studies that suggest a significant association between abortion and preterm birth, the elevation in risk ratio is between 1.3 and 2.0."

In the quoted evidence only one 'small' Swedish study does not support the link - so why is the RCOG conclusion so tentative? And why do the RCOG and FFP written submissions to the S&T Committee make no mention of a further major review (Rooney) and two major European multicentre studies published since 2003 (EUROPOP and EPIPAGE) which further confirm the link between abortion and preterm delivery? EPIPAGE is mentioned by Sam Rowlands and CMF, CORE, CARE, LIFE, SPUC mention EPIPAGE or EUROPOP or both.

Breast cancer

The evidence considered by the Guideline Development Group regarding breast cancer risk focused on two carefully conducted meta-analyses. These two reviews reached different conclusions about the nature of any association. The first systematic review, by Wingo et al. was included in the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effectiveness and met the quality criteria required by the Cochrane. The conflicting review by Brind et al. examined the same studies and concluded that induced abortion was a significant, independent risk factor for breast cancer, with an odds ratio of 1.3. These two meta-analyses were independently assessed for the previous edition of this guideline and the methodological assessor concluded that both were carefully conducted reviews and that the Brind et al. study had no major methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded.

The subsequent review on long-term physical and psychological consequences of induced abortion by Thorp et al. summarised four previous reviews, including those by Wingo et al.and Brind et al and concluded that a significant positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer could not easily be dismissed.

In August 2003, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) concluded that, "Rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk". This conclusion was shared in a Lancet-published 2004 meta-analysis by Valerie Beral and colleagues from Oxford University.

Dr Joel Brind and Dr Greg Gardner submitted detailed evidence to this inquiry that claims there is a causal link between breast cancer and abortion. They are critical of Beral's meta-analysis because it omitted some studies which they considered valid and included others that he considered invalid. Dr Sam Rowlands made a similar accusation of Dr Brind's submission, pointing out that several key papers were missing.

In view of this ongoing disagreement it seems to be an over-interpretation of the evidence to suggest as the RCOG does that 'induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk'. Our more cautious conclusion is that 'a causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been claimed by some researchers and denied by others. More research is needed.'

Summary of maternal health effects

There was evidence presented that ground C is always met for first trimester abortions. However this assessment did not take into account the long term risks of preterm delivery, mental health and possibly breast cancer.

We recommend the Government funds the RCOG to review its 2004 guideline as soon as possible, but that the RCOG consults more widely, hears evidence from both sides of the argument where experts disagree, and ensures a more even balance of pro-choice and pro-life advisors.


We recommend:

1. That in the context of conflicting expert evidence on fetal pain and viability, this lack of consensus should be fully acknowledged in the report and the committee should adopt the precautionary principle giving the fetus the benefit of the doubt, until a clear consensus emerges.

2. That given the evidence regarding upper limits and health complications for women, there should be new 'right to know' provisions so that women are given all the information they need about fetal development and the degrees of risk associated with abortion in relation to psychological harm and pre-term birth. Women should also be informed with regard to the conflicting expert opinions regarding a link to breast cancer and should be given time to consider the options available - in order to empower women and enable them to make a fully informed choice.

It is imperative that MPs have an opportunity to examine original scientific documents rather than relying wholly on reviews of those documents in written and oral evidence submitted to the committee. We have therefore referenced further material which has a major bearing on the debate. Specifically:

1. Recent published peer-reviewed scientific research and literature reviews.

2. Correspondence drawing attention to the above.

3. Relevant press articles.

Fetal sentience

Anand KJS et al. Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain. Seminars in Perinatology. 2007; 31:275-282

Neonatal survival rates

Hoekstra RE et al. Survival and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely premature infants born at 23-26 weeks gestational age at a tertiary centre. Pediatrics. 2004; 113: e1-e6

Riley K et al. Changes in survival and neurodevelopmental outcome in 22 to 25 weeks gestation infants over a 20 year period (abstract). European Society for Pediatric Research, Annual Scientific Meeting. 2004

General Reviews on abortion complications

Thorp JM et al. Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. Obstetrics Gynecology Survey. 2003; 58: 67-69

Abortion and preterm delivery

Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of later premature births. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. 2003; 8: 46-49

Moreau C et al. Previous induced abortion and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study. BJOG. 2005; 112: 430-437

Ancel PY et al. History of induced abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004; 19: 734 - 740

Abortion and mental health

Fergusson D et al. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2006; 47(1): 16-24

Reardon DC et al. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2003; 168 (10): 1253-6

Coleman PK et al. State-funded abortions versus deliveries: a comparison of outpatient mental health claims over 4 years. American Journal Orthopsychiatry. 2002; 72,1: 141-152

Coleman PK et al. A history of induced abortion in relation to substance use during subsequent pregnancies carried to term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2002; 187,6: 1673-1678

Abortion and breast cancer

Brind J et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J. Epidemiology and Community Health. 1997; 50:465-467

Brind J. Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies Based on Prospective Data. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. 2005; 10(4): 105-110

Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. 2007; 12(2): 105-110

Carroll PS. The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion

and Other Risk Factors. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. 2007; 12(3): 72-78

Abortion and maternal mortality

Gissler M et al. Pregnancy associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 1997; 76:651-657

Gissler M et al. Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public Health. 2005; 15, 5: 459-463

Reardon DC et al. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Southern Medical Journal. 2002; 95: 834-841

Gissler M et al. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 190(2):422427

Fetal abnormality

Wyldes M, Tonks A. Termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly: a population-based study 1995 to 2004. BJOG 2007;114:639-642.


Anand KJ. Letter to the Times newspaper (unpublished)

Anand KJ. Evidence to US Congress.

RCOG. Press release. 18 October 2007.

Anand KJ. Letter to the RCOG (unpublished)

Relevant press articles

Some numbers in abortion debate just can't be relied on . GuardianUnlimited,

Premature babies die as doctors 'won't even try' to save them. Sunday Times.

Brutal truth of DIY abortion. Sunday Times'

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The Chairman.)

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Chairman's draft report" and insert the words "draft report proposed by Mrs Nadine Dorries and Dr Bob Spink".—(Dr Bob Spink.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1 Noes, 6
Dr Bob SpinkMr Robert Flello
Linda Gilroy
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Chris Mole
Graham Stringer

Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 166 read and agreed to.

Summary read and agreed to.

Glossary read and agreed to.

Annexes A and B read and agreed to.

A Paper was appended to the Report as Appendix 1.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be the Twelfth Report of the Committee to the House. - (The Chairman.)

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 6 Noes, 1
Mr Robert FlelloDr Bob Spink
Linda Gilroy
Dr Evan Harris
Dr Brian Iddon
Chris Mole
Graham Stringer

Resolved, That the Report be the Twelfth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, together with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on 9 October 2007.

[The Committee adjourned.

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 6 November 2007