An attempt to delay this week’s debate on the Abortion Reform Bill was thwarted by MHKs.

Alfred Cannan (Ayre and Michael) made a surprise move to adjourn the debate for seven days, expressing concern that Attorney General John Quinn had not been asked to give his view on the implications of the bill, particularly new elements such as access zone clauses.

But other MHKs pointed out the legislative drafter worked within the AG chambers and, as the attorney general sits in the Legislative Council, which has yet to scrutinise the legislation, there was no problem.

Mr Cannan’s bid to adjourn debate by seven days was defeated by 14 votes to nine.

He argued: ’The attorney general is required to confirm that he is content that a bill meets the requirement of the Human Rights Act before it is passed for Royal Assent and it would be normal practice, I would suggest, for such bills to have, where they have implications of this nature, received some form of guidance directly from the attorney general.’

Mr Cannan insisted he was not trying to derail the bill.

But his arguments received short shrift from Dr Alex Allinson (Ramsey).

’I am disappointed that at the last moment, people want to sow the seeds of doubt on legislation that has probably had the most scrutiny for any bill over the last decade,’ he said.

’I am also disappointed that the legal drafter, who unfortunately is not here to defend himself, is implicitly criticised for perhaps not contacting the attorney general.

’He is part of the attorney general’s office. He has been asked several times both by movers of amendments and myself as mover of the bill, to make sure that this is human rights compliant, and his answer has always been yes.’

He hit out at ’emails sent through at two minutes before midnight the night before a debate’.

But Dr Allinson also came in for criticism, from Mr Cannan’s supporters, because he sent out an email giving legal opinion at the weekend.

Graham Cregeen (Arbory, Castletown and Malew) argued Monday was the earliest that anyone could seek any legal advice to respond to that email.

Some also claimed that those opposed to an adjournment were worried about what the attorney general might say.

At one stage, battle lines appeared to be drawn up in what Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas described as an ’existential’ debate on Legislative Council’s role in scrutinising and possibly amending the bill.

But members decided against a delay.

Urging MHKs not to adjourn, Clare Bettison (Douglas East) said: ’I am stunned that every week, immediately pre-debate, we are inundated with new information, new people that have suddenly had an epiphany around information on this piece of law that we are trying to look at and scrutinise.’