When the "division bell" rings in the Commons to summon MPs for a vote there's often confusion - certainly for me - as to which lobby I should go to - the "Ayes" or the "Noes".
It's not that I don't know what the subject is but that it's not always clear whether the precise proposition is one we support or are against. So, if you can't spot a whip for directions, you follow your pals in your party. That's easy enough if the issue is one on which the parties divide. But this Monday and Tuesday it was different. For this was the two-day debate on key parts of the Human Embryo and Fertilisation Bill, on which the whole of the House of Commons had a free vote, government ministers included. We voted on different sides not because of any party manifesto or instruction, but as a personal matter of judgement and belief.
Debates with free votes are often amongst the best and most intense arguments that one can witness in the Commons. Some Members come to the Chamber with their views long settled; others come to be persuaded. In my case, I found two of the issues straightforward to decide, the other two much more difficult.
The two I found straightforward were on so called "hybrid embryos", and "saviour siblings". A "hybrid embryo" is a mixture of animal and human tissue, created by transferring DNA from human cells into animal eggs. "Saviour siblings" are babies born because they are a tissue match for a sick older brother or sister with a genetic condition. Cells from the "saviour's" bone marrow or umbilical cord are used to treat the older child.
Both raise really profound issues, but I am satisfied that with all the safeguards in the Bill it is right to allow medical research in these areas, since the potential benefits to people in my judgement far outweigh the risks. If the research is successful - and it is quite likely to be over time - then scientists may be able to understand more about some truly debilitating, and life threatening conditions, like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Motor Neurone Disease.
The issues which were tougher for me were about the conditions for IVF treatment and the time limit for abortion. Under the existing law, doctors deciding on whether to go ahead with IVF treatment had to take into account the need for the child to have a father. In its place it was proposed that the criteria should be widened to ensure that the need for "supportive parenting" was considered.
At face value it sounds as though Parliament is downgrading the idea that children need dads. But this is not the case. Of course children do need fathers. I was brought up by a single mum who had to cope with five children aged between 13 and five months when my father left home. She did so brilliantly, but neither she nor her children would ever suggest that that was better than being brought up by a mum and dad who got on with each other. And we are doing a great deal to ensure that fathers do take responsibility for their children. But the other side of this argument is that it is impossible to legislate for family structures.
And one of the arguments used by those opposed to this change - that the current law has not stopped lesbian women from getting IVF in appropriate circumstances - seems to me to be a reason to bring the law into line with what is already happening.
The truth is that couples who go through IVF and all that entails in terms of the physical and emotional demands are likely to be the most responsible parents. The final issue we considered in this range of free votes was that of abortion. Parliament decided to leave things as they are, with the time limit for abortions at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The truth is that very few women have abortions after 20 weeks. In 2006 there were 193,000, of which 89% took place before 13 weeks. And when an abortion takes place after 20 weeks it is a terrible dilemma.
Such a dilemma might come about, for example, after a clear diagnosis of Down's syndrome. The safest test for Down's is amniocentesis, which would not usually take place until after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Given the weight of such a decision, and the need for as much certainty as possible - plus the need to take advice from medical professionals and others - it seems to me necessary that people facing such dilemmas need the time currently available under the law. So I stayed with 24 weeks.
