| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : Will the Minister give way on that point?
4.30 pm
Under the clause, the 1929 Act would still apply in England and Wales, so that it would not be legal to perform an abortion even at or below 24 weeks if the child was capable of being born alive. Twenty-four weeks was selected as perhaps the most commonly suggested limit, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has moved amendments to substitute other figures at two-week intervals from 18 to 28 weeks. Those are amendments (a) to (e), and they appear on the Order Paper in what is referred to as the "pendulum order".
If the new clause is accepted, the first of those amendments that is passed will set the time limit in the new clause. If no amendments are passed, the time limit will be the proposed 24 weeks. That may be so regarded by most people outside the House.
Paragraph (b) provides for abortions where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. That makes no change from the 1967 Act. There is little or no dispute that that provision should remain.
Column 179
Mr. Duffy : Will the Minister give way on that point?Mrs. Bottomley : Unlike all the other provisions, it is not affected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, since the 1929 Act makes a specific exception for actions done in good faith "for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother." Paragraph (c) of the new clause deals with cases where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. That is regarded as the "serious foetal handicap" category. There is widespread recognition that such cases present particular difficulty for several reasons. A special factor is that foetal handicap may not be diagnosable until fairly late in the pregnancy, although we hope that new medical techniques will increasingly make earlier diagnosis of some of those abnormalities possible, a subject that we debated yesterday. A time limit of 28 weeks has been suggested. That is subject to the provisions of the 1929 Act. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has put down amendments which, if selected, would give the options of a 24-week limit for that type of case, amendment (i), or no limit at all, amendment (j), as provided in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In either case, the amendments would be subject again to the overriding provisions of the 1929 Act, unless the House decides to remove those too. I refer to amendment (q).
The three criteria set out in the new clause and in the 1967 Act are not the only ones that can be proposed. As the first example of this, the new clause does not provide in abortions approved by two doctors for the special test of
"grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman".
That form of words is specified as a ground for abortion in the emergency provisions in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act to which I shall refer later.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has put on the Order Paper amendments to insert this as a ground, either with no time limit, amendment (m), or a 28-week time limit, amendment (g). Either would be subject to the 1929 Act unless, as I have made clear, the House decided otherwise, and that would be amendment (q). Subsection (2) deals with what are generally referred to as the "emergency" situations where an abortion can be carried out by one doctor without the second opinion that is normally required. That is covered at present in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act on two grounds--to save the life of the pregnant woman, or to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health. On the first ground--that of saving life--there is at present no time limit, and the 1929 Act does not apply. No change is proposed here.
In the case of grave permanent injury, the effect of the 1929 Act in England and Wales is to apply at present a limit of, in effect, 28 weeks. That can be misunderstood. If time limits come to be applied in the Abortion Act to non-emergency abortion, it would seem logical that such time limits should also apply to this category of emergency abortions. The new clause proposes a limit of 24 weeks in line with the main limit. My right hon. and learned Friend refers to that aspect in his guidance for right hon. and hon. Members. In that area, in particular, it may be felt that the position should be different from the main limit.
Column 180
My right hon. and learned Friend's amendments propose various alternatives. Amendment (k) would omit subsection (2) of the new clause altogether, thus leaving the situation as in section 1(4) of the 1967 Act, with the application of the 1929 Act as well. Amendments (l) to (p) set out other time limits for the emergency provision, varying from 18 to 28 weeks. My right hon. and learned Friend makes clear the importance of consistency in terms of the emergency and non -emergency limits. They should be taken in the same way as the similar changes proposed for the main limits.It is necessary to say a further word about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which applied only to England and Wales and for which no equivalent exists in relation to Scotland. Under the new clause and my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments down to and including (p), the 1929 Act remains, and it provides an overriding test of viability where the rebuttable presumption remains at 28 weeks.
My right hon. and learned Friend's last two amendments, (q) and (r), address that subject. Amendment (q) would separate the 1967 Act from the 1929 Act and would mean that any new time limits placed in the 1967 Act overrode the 1929 Act. That is proposed in the current Abortion Bill passed by another place. In other words, a main limit of 24 weeks, or for some other figure, would apply without consideration of whether or not the child was viable.
The 1929 Act would remain for abortions above those limits. Under amendment (q) by itself, the rebuttable presumption on viability would remain at 28 weeks. The 1929 Act does not apply to Scotland, and the effect of the new clause is setting out time limits on abortion would be the only one relevant to Scotland.
Amendment (r) amends the 1929 Act to make the rebuttable presumption apply at 24 weeks rather than 28 weeks. By itself, amendment (r) would simply mean that the 1967 Act and the 1929 Act both had to be taken into account but that the 1929 Act had a new and lower level for the rebuttable presumption.
If amendments (q) and (r) were both accepted by the Committee, the 1929 Act would apply only to abortions that were not covered by the specific limits in the amended 1967 Act but it would apply at the lower level of 24 weeks instead of the present 28.
In considering amendment (r), right hon. and hon. Members will wish to bear in mind difficulties that might arise if the levels set in the 1929 Act were lower than any of the levels set in the 1967 Act as amended, which were disapplied, unless amendment (q) were also passed to separate the operation of two Acts. For example, if the 1929 Act were reduced to 24 weeks, but the limit in the 1967 Act for serious foetal handicap was retained at 28 weeks, the resulting presumption that a child over 24 weeks is capable of being born alive would probably prevent abortions being carried out between 24 and 28 weeks for serious foetal handicap.
This explanation is inevitably rather complex. It may help the Committee to understand the basis of the new clause and the main possibilities for amendment which arise on it. The arrangement is that there will be a single debate on the new clause and on the various selected amendments together. That will be followed by a vote on the new clause. If it is accepted, there will be votes on the amendments selected.
Column 181
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, South) : I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the Minister's explanation, but I am mindful that all her remarks relate to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and to the situation in England and Wales. Will the Minister clarify for the record the situation in respect of Scotland? She will be aware that the law there is very different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland, there is effectively no time limit--but the law is to be radically amended by new clause 11, apparently without consultation and in the absence of a Scottish Office Minister. Will the Minister confirm the precise impact of the new clause and of the amendments on Scotland?Mrs. Bottomley : As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That may be a subject for further discussion and the hon. Gentleman may wish to refer to it later. The Abortion Act 1967 applies, but the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. That is simple and clear.
Mr. Doran : Regardless of which amendment the Committee finally agrees upon and what time limit, what would be the effect on the Scottish position?
Mrs. Bottonley : The only time limits that would apply in Scotland would be those in the new clause. As I have made clear, the 1929 Act does not apply in Scotland. At a later date we may wish to tidy up the position to ensure that there is a coherent framework within which the law can operate. Certainly the position in Scotland will require careful consideration.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : Will the Minister give way?
Other new clauses and amendments to the Government's new clause will be moved and many issues will be raised during our debate today. They will cover a range of topics in addition to the strict time limits issue. For example, they will cover subjects such as the exemptions for rape or incest. They may specify the nature of the abnormality by the certfying doctor and alter the basis on which doctors may consent to a termination.
At the conclusion of today's proceedings, I hope that the Committee may be able to reach a clear, coherent and workable position either to leave existing legislation as it is or to make a series of amendments to it. However, in this complex situation, it may not be possible to reach a position in which all the loose ends have been tied up. I referred to that point in relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran).
The Government will carefully consider the outcome of the debate to see whether what emerges satisfies the tests of coherence and workability. If necessary, amendments may be moved on Report, and it may be the wish of the House that that should be so.
In the end, the Committee will have made clear to the Government, to another place and to the large number of people outside the House who are deeply concerned about such matters, what the position is on the proper time limits for abortion in the light of current knowledge and experience. I hope that we can conduct our debate, in a way that is appropriate for such issues of individual judgment and conscience, always remembering that each individual instance where the question of abortion arises represents, whatever one's moral stance, a personal
Column 182
tragedy to all involved. I urge the Committee to support the new clause standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking) : I doubt whether any Minister has ever had the task which the Minister for Health has had to carry out today in taking the Committee through such a complexity of amendments and their consequences. I am glad that she said that a copy of her speech would be in the Lobby. I only wish that I had had time to dash out of the Chamber and pick up a copy, because her speech was extremely hard to follow.
The method that the Government have used to arrange this important debate with new clause 4 as the core and amendments to it from every conceivable angle, is about as chaotic and crazy as the idea of attaching a clause on abortion to a Bill about embryology. We remain bitterly opposed to the inclusion of abortion in the Bill and we bitterly oppose the method of discussing it today.
The Government have come forward with this method in an attempt to buy off those who bring in restrictive abortion Bills every year. I have been involved in these issues for several years. Other hon. Members have been involved as well, notably the Father of the House. Over the years he has taken the opposite position from mine and he has highlighted abortion every year. I have had to suffer his antics each year when he sought to try to restrict women's rights to abortion.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms. Richardson : No. Let me get going a bit first. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman if I feel like it.
As far as I can guess, the deal is that if the anti-abortionists can have a vote tonight they will go away for a few years. That is absolute rubbish. If the hon. Members believe that, they are more stupid than I gave them credit for.
It may be all very well for one or two people to have given undertakings. I do not know whether that has happened, but if undertakings have been given, other hon. Members may appear with different ideas. For example, we are two years away from a general election and there may be new Members and other people who may not feel bound by any commitments that might have been given.
4.45 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : The hon. Lady has complained about the method by which we organised the debate. Does she accept that the fact that abortion law is within the scope of the Bill is a matter for the House authorities, not for the Government? That decision has been taken and we must address abortion in the Bill. The arrangements in the Order Paper, proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and myself, admittedly with some complexity because this is a complex subject, provide a wide range of opportunities to allow the Committee to have a properly conducted debate and to reach a decision after considering all the options.
Does the hon. Lady further accept that neither she, from the Opposition Front Bench, nor the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the Opposition Back Benches, nor anyone else has put forward the slightest alternative or constructive suggestion as to how the debate might be arranged? When the Business Committee met to
Column 183
discuss the matter, the sum total of the Labour party's contribution to marshalling debate was shown by the fact that not a single member of the Labour party selected for that Business Committee turned up for the meeting.Ms. Richardson : We did not come to that Business Committee meeting because we did not want to be a party to such action.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the Government have tried to give the Committee every opportunity and every option. I appreciate that, but it has made the whole position tonight more complicated and more chaotic. If the Government believe that, by allowing abortion into the Bill through extending its long title, people who are per se anti-abortion will go away, they are wrong.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : The hon. Lady said that no hon. Member can give an undertaking that, if we were to achieve a significant result tonight, we would go away. While it is true that any private Member may present a Bill--no hon. Member would dispute that--the hon. Lady must appreciate that the grievous pressure from which Parliament has suffered as a result of a series of non-decisions over the years has been caused not simply by the fact that one hon. Member presented a Bill. Rather it has been caused by the huge feeling in the House that a decision had to be taken and because outside the House a great deal of pressure was being mounted by pro-life groups. That is what caused the pressure. A single private Member's Bill does not cause that pressure.
Therefore, even if an hon. Member decided to present a private Member's Bill, unless it was backed by the pro-life movement, it would not be a particular pressure on the House. What would be the benefit of returning to Parliament in a short while if Parliament has already taken a clear decision?
Ms. Richardson : In spite of what the hon. Lady has said, I still think that some hon. Member, perhaps not her
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : This one here, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
Ms. Richardson : As my hon. Friend says, that one there. Perhaps an hon. Member will present a Bill to the House with further restrictions. There may well be pressures from outside.
Mr. Alton rose --
Ms. Richardson : If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is going to ask me to give way, the answer is no. The Government have plainly given in to what they believe is pressure. They have overlooked the fact that the overwhelming majority of people, particularly women, want to leave the Abortion Act 1967 as it is.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose --
Sir Bernard Braine rose --
Ms. Richardson : No, I shall not give way.
Sir Bernard Braine : Will the hon. Lady give way now?
Column 184
Ms. Richardson : No, I shall return to the right hon. Gentleman later. I am sure that he will have some reason to rise later. The Government's deal will achieve nothing. With the number of Divisions that we shall have tonight, we could even end up with very bad law,. The Minister rather suggested that we might come up with what she called "loose ends" that may have to be tied up. I believe that we shall come up with bad law, and perhaps with law that has been made by mistake. People may go into one Lobby believing that they will achieve their aim when they should go into another Lobby. The voting will be extremely complicated. There must be about a dozen idiots' guides, trying to advise people on both sides of the debate how to vote, going round the House.
Sir Bernard Braine rose --
Ms. Richardson : The pendulum system swings from 18 to 28 weeks, from 20 to 26 weeks and from 22 to 24 weeks. That could result in mistaken voting and we shall be then be stuck with the law, despite the Minister's promise to tie up the loose ends.
Sir Bernard Braine : The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to me earlier. She and I have been in the House long enough to know that the House has given a Second Reading to abortion reform Bills, often by a substantial majority, yet those Bills have then been sabotaged by a relatively small minority of determined Members. As no Government were ready to give extra time, as was done with the Abortion Bill in 1966-67, all the other Bills failed. The will of the majority in the House was completely frustrated time and again by the hon. Lady, in her customarily charming way, and by numbers of her colleagues, contrary to the will of the British people.
Ms. Richardson : Plenty of private Members' Bills receive a Second Reading, but are blocked later.
Mr. Skinner : The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) had one and look what happened.
Ms. Richardson : That is right. The Bill of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) was blocked. Bills are constantly blocked by the Government Whips, who do not even say who they are. It has always been considered that abortion would naturally fall within private Members' legislation. With private Members' Bills, one has to take one's chance with the procedures of the House.
We may end up tonight with a law that we shall be stuck with and that we do not want. More importantly, women outside will be stuck with it. It is an insult to women that the Government should bring forward this lottery system to decide a matter that will have such a long-term effect on women's lives.
New clause 4 is more restrictive than the Abortion Act 1967. Under the Act, for example, a registered medical practitioner may terminate a pregnancy if he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary to save the life of the woman or
"to prevent grave permanent damage to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."
In other words, a time limit does not operate. New clause 4 is said to be the main core of the proposal. Under new clause 4, a medical practitioner may act to prevent "grave permanent injury" to the "physical or mental health" of the pregnant woman only up to the end of the 24th week.
Column 185
I realise that the new clause could be amended later, but the proposal is monstrous and the new clause must be amended back to the position under the 1967 Act.Under new clause 4, after the 24th week, a woman suffering from, for example, serious and progressive kidney disease, serious and deteriorating lung disease or certain types of congenital heart disease, which may be aggravated by the stress of pregnancy, would not be able to have an abortion. Those conditions may not only worsen during pregnancy, but may be diagnosed during pregnancy. That is especially so in the case of the HIV positive mother, as health authorities are increasingly informing women of the risks of pregnancy and AIDS and more women may seek tests during pregnancy. We must consider those matters with the utmost seriousness to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
There is one point--there are probably several others--on which, although I tried to follow the Minister's speech carefully, I am still not clear. There is a possibility that at least one of the amendments--amendment (f)-- is misleading or defective. It is intended to ensure that there is no time limit when there is a threat of "grave permanent injury" to a woman's health. I have taken advice and it seems that amendment (f) may be affected by paragraph (a) of new clause 4, and would therefore be subject to the time limits for which hon. Members vote--in other words, 18 or 24 weeks, or whatever. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that amendment (f) would ensure that this ground was exempt from the time limits restriction. As a result of the complexity of the procedure--the Secretary of State asked why I did not propose something different--I tried to construct amendments to be taken first, which would have formed a package. That package would have included 24 weeks, but would also have included the maximum number of exceptions for 28 weeks and the maximum number of exceptions with no time limit.
I tabled my amendments, which was difficult in the context of new clause 4. I now find that only two parts of my package have been included in your selection of amendments, Mr. Walker. I am not suggesting that you deliberately added to the complexity as I know that you would not want to do that. However, it is an illustration of what happens when we try to amend a new clause that we do not want by means of a package of amendments. I understand that you, Mr. Walker, from your position as Chairman of Ways and Means, may not have appreciated that my amendments were a package and should have been taken in that sense. We are stuck with our present selection, which makes everything more complicated.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke : I am not returning to the argument about procedure. It is a bit unsatisfactory if the answer to the hon. Lady's question waits until the end of the debate, thus leaving continuing doubt about amendment (f). Amendments (f) and (g) both relate to the new category of "grave permanent injury" to the health of the woman. Amendment (f) would follow the word "or" in line 6. It would not, therefore, be governed by the reference to the "twenty-fourth week" in paragraph (a). It is important to confirm that amendment (f) would have the effect of introducing no time limit in the case of "grave permanent injury" to health. Amendment (g) would introduce a time limit of 28 weeks. The House must make a choice between those or the 24 weeks in the new clause.
Column 186
Ms. Richardson : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that point. Again, the position is complex, as the Secretary of State has given us two options and we shall have to get our heads round that later.
I want hon. Members to look carefully at what we are doing. We are threatening the lives and futures of countless thousands of women who may need an abortion now or in the future. If we decide to bring down the present upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, we shall deny the possibility of an abortion to a very small, but important, number of women and young girls. In 1988, the latest year for which we have published statistics, only 23 women had abortions over 24 weeks. There are young girls who become pregnant without knowing that they are pregnant. They may have had irregular periods, a not uncommon phenomenon in teenage girls. They may have unsupportive parents and be afraid of revealing that they are pregnant. They may feel unable to go to their GP or find it hard to locate a doctor--not just one, but two doctors--who will terminate their pregnancy. All such events lead to delays that may take them over the 24th week.
When discussing the failure of young girls to recognise pregnancy, we must not overlook the stance of some hon. Members, which suggests that they are against sex education in schools. If we had more such education, more girls and young women would be better able to appreciate their sexuality and the way in which their bodies function.
The Brook advisory centre points out in a paper the fear that many young women have at the discovery of an unwanted pregnancy. They fear the rejection of friends, families, boy friends and even school mates, remembering that some of them are still at school. For many, that rejection can mean homelessness, poverty and isolation. Are we to turn our backs, by reducing the upper time limit from 28 to 24 weeks, on that handful of young people?
5 pm
Ms. Short : I understand that the overwhelming majority of post-24 week abortions in recent years have occurred as the result of the late detection of severe foetal abnormality. We must also bear in mind in that context the categories of whom my hon. Friend has spoken, including very young girls, often having been sexually abused, who become pregnant and do not know it. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if the Government's new clause is approved, girls as young as 11 and 12 might be forced to complete their pregnancies?
Ms. Richardson : Yes, that is my reading of the Government's proposal. I am greatly concerned that, at such a vulnerable age, young girls will not be protected.
Women in the menopause who become pregnant come within that small number who presented themselves in 1988 for abortion after the 24th week. Many women think that irregular periods are normal in the menopause, as they are, but sometimes they find that they are pregnant. They can then be horrified because their families may be settled, they may have grown-up children or they may need the money that they earn and be unable easily to leave work. They suddenly find that instead of being in the menopause, as they thought, they are pregnant.
I have given details of a case of a 42-year-old married woman with children aged 21 and 20. She had successfully used a diaphragm for 25 years and did not suspect that it had let her down. She missed four periods, did a test and
Column 187
was horrified to find that she was pregnant. She was opposed to abortion, but, because of her family circumstances--she also had aged and ailing parents for whom to care--she decided after several counselling sessions to request an abortion. Under the new clause, she and women in a similar position could not have an abortion. Many family circumstances lead people to decide to have an abortion, and the present social provision must be available.Let us not forget the distress that has been caused through delay in the National Health Service. It often depends on the part of the country in which one lives-- [Interruption.] I am amazed to see at least a couple of hon. Ladies on the Government Benches expressing dissent, even smiling, at that remark, as though it were an old wives' tale. I assure them that it is not.
People who live in the west midlands find it more difficult to get an abortion than those living elsewhere, in the north or in the south. Imagine finding oneself pregnant and being unable to find a doctor or hospital willing to treat one, or having little money and being unable to travel to a different part of the country to obtain an abortion.
Even if we reduce the time limit to 24 weeks, the same problems will arise- -but for more women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Pregnancy Advisory Service and other organisations in the charitable sector are not permitted to do terminations after 24 weeks. Both those advisory services have compiled an interesting and moving dossier of cases that illustrate the problems that women face through delays or obstruction in the NHS, through doctors failing to diagnose pregnancy, through failure by patients to recognise pregnancy, through failure of methods of contraception or failed pregnancy tests, as the result of menopausal problems or because the females concerned are very young. I have cited some cases, but there are many more.
It is well known that many surgeons err on the side of caution because of the law--as they do not want to be caught by the law--and in practice allow a four-week or, at the least, a two-week margin. So in practice, 24 weeks become 20 or 22 weeks in terms of the operation that the surgeon will perform. Or a 20 or 22-week limit would become in practice an 18-week limit, and an 18-week limit--should the House agree to that tonight--could become a 14-week limit. That would greatly affect many necessitous women.
In an ideal world, there would be no need for late abortions. This is not an ideal world, and in 1988, 84 per cent. of all abortions were performed at under 13 weeks ; 14 per cent. were performed at between 13 and 20 weeks ; and, as I said, 1.7 per cent. were performed at over 20 weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) tabled an amendment which I hoped the House would discuss and approve. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also tabled a new clause, which allows women to have an abortion up to the end of the 12th week without seeking approval from a second doctor. Those who support the Abortion Act 1967, and who would like to see it liberalised, would strongly support it because we believe that it is the best way to reduce the number of late abortions, by allowing women to ask a doctor--one doctor--to give permission for them
Column 188
to have an abortion without the need to seek approval from a second doctor. That practice is followed in many European countries with beneficial results. I regret that we shall not have an opportunity tonight to discuss those matters.We must make provision for those women, some of whose cases I have described, including women who require an abortion after an amniocentesis test and who need time to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy. A woman will have an anmiocentesis test at 16 weeks. If it is discovered that she is carrying a mentally or physically handicapped child, she is given the offer of an abortion. If we set the limits too tightly, such a woman will not even have time to reflect on whether to have an abortion.
Miss Widdecombe : Is not that problem easily solved by doing what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and myself propose, which is now incorporated in the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and exempting from the restrictions the severe disabilities that would be revealed by amniocentesis, so that for those women there is no change in the law?
Ms. Richardson : I shall look at that. It sounds all right, but why was it not in the new clause? The way in which the clause is presently phrased is ridiculous. We are leaving it to the lottery of whether an amendment is carried. That is the whole point. There may be some good amendments that we could carry, but will we carry them and will people know exactly what we are doing?
We do not want women who are carrying babies who turn out to be damaged to have a pistol at their heads and to be told, "You are going to have a physically or mentally handicapped baby and you must have an abortion tomorrow or you will not be within the time limit." That could happen if our attitude is too tight and not relaxed enough. We must ensure that it will turn out for the best for those women.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think seriously about the effect of their votes tonight. Labour party policy is clearly to defend the 1967 Act. Some of my hon. Friends consider that that is a matter of conscience for them. If I were in that position, and I am not, I should also want to consider the difficulties in which many women find themselves- -difficulties that are often inflicted on them by irresponsible men who do not have to face the traumatic consequences.
If I were to exercise my conscience, I should also want to ask myself whether my conscience was more important than considerations involving the quality of women's lives. There could also be a conscience consideration for women now and in the future, which hon. Members will overlook if they vote to restrict the law. I beg them to take that into account when they vote tonight. I know that such hon. Members who exercise a conscience clause on this sensitive issue have compassion. I hope that they will extend that compassion to unlucky or unfortunate women who may be precluded from much-needed medical assistance.
Last night there was a march through London to defend abortion rights. It was called at relatively short notice for a march. However, 2,000 to 3,000 women turned up to defend the 1967 Act. They were young, middle-aged and even older. They and their families represent the women who will be affected by our votes tonight. Their fears and anxieties must be reflected by us, as their only
Column 189
way of expressing their fears is through us- -they cannot speak for themselves or vote in this Chamber. We must not let them down. I repeat that a vote for 24 weeks will effectively mean a 20 or 22-week limit in practice. A vote for a 22 or 20-week limit will mean a 20 or 18-week limit in practice. An 18-week limit will mean a 16 or 14-week limit in practice. Women will be denied an abortion if we vote for those reductions.On the radio this morning the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, "We will save 3,000 women from an abortion." Those 3,000 women who want an abortion will have to resort to the back streets. That is not to put it in too terrifying a way.
I appeal to hon. Members to think carefully, to vote very carefully, to use the guidance that suits them and to ensure that we come out of the horrendous evening that faces us with law that we really can live with.
| Next Section
| Home Page |