Chris Robertshaw, who wanted the bill to be sent to a select committee for consideration, insisted his reason was to ensure the best possible legislation was produced.

He pushed back at claims by some that his move was an attempt to delay reform.

’This is a profoundly important bill the outcome of which will touch the lives of many in a very fundamental way for a long time to come,’ Mr Robertshaw (Douglas East) told MHKs.

’Its content will have medical, legal, moral, ethical and deeply emotional implications. It must be the most profound piece of legislation any of us will have to deal with in our time in politics, however long that might be.’

He accepted the consultations had shown there was a need to change the law, but warned that it was important to get things right.

’There seems a determination to misunderstand the purpose of a select bill committee which I firmly believe would serve this house well in its work.’

He described Dr Allinson’s rejection of the select committee idea as ’deeply regrettable’, saying there were no members who argued that reform was not necessary.

Any suggestion the committee would be formed to stall progress on the bill was ’not true’, he argued, pointing to the target date for reporting back of June 26. He said he would be ’open-minded’ should anyone suggest a closer deadline.

’Because of the nature and gravity of this bill I cannot envisage of a situation where it would be more appropriate for a committee to serve the work of the house than in this case,’ he added.

’If we see no need for a committee on a bill of such import and with such significant ramifications as the one before us then surely it is perfectly reasonable to say that there could never be a need for a such a committee.

Mr Robertshaw, who supported the second reading of the bill, outlined what some of his concerns were over its content.

He said there was ’no question whatsoever’ of the pregnant woman being in charge of her circumstances in the first trimester, but further consideration should be given to a 12-week limit instead of 14.

The proposed changes relating to after 24 weeks, he said, left the bill ’very weak’.

’I cannot even begin to understand why, given that a baby immediately after birth has full human rights - yet, just prior to birth, that same baby has next to none.’

He said he found the 14-23 weeks period the ’most difficult to resolve’.

He said he was concerned at the ’concept of social abortion’ and also the provision that only one doctor was needed to agree the decision to abort.

The provisions on abortion on the grounds of serious disability, he said, were also troubling and needed to be investigated further.

Other issues that needed to be investigated included whether the bill would enable abortion on the basis of gender, and greater definition of the support and counselling that should be made available.

Mr Robertshaw described Tuesday’s debate as ’magnificent’ but expressed his disappointment when his move for a select committee was rejected.

’We have failed to trust ourselves,’ he said.

Those who voted to send the bill to a select committee: Baker, Cregeen, Quayle, Robertshaw, Watterson.

Those who voted against: Allinson, Ashford, Bettison, Boot, Caine, Callister, Cannan, Corlett, Edge, Harmer, Hooper, Malarkey, Moorhouse, Peake, Perkins, Shimmins, Skelly, Thomas.

Kate Beecroft was not present on Tuesday, due to ill-health.