| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Cormack : The right hon. Gentleman does not, but there is an established Church in England and we still subscribe to the general Christian ethic. Many people who are not Christians also subscribe to that ethic. At the centre of that ethic must be a regard for the sanctity, the decency, the quality of human life. It is about those things that we are talking today.
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) : Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we debated the matter in the House 23 years ago, not even the keenest advocate of the new Bill claimed that any more than 100, 000 babies, at the outside, were aborted each year? We know that the figure now is well in excess of 180,000 babies a year. Is my hon. Friend aware that those statistics back up his case?
Mr. Cormack : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware of that and that is why I have been trying to make the case, imperfectly I realise. Many of the things that most hon. Members would hold dear are held a little more tenuously than they were 23 years ago. I was not in the House then but I came shortly after. My hon. Friend was. One has to face the fact that marriage is no longer the central institution that it was. One has only to do some canvassing, as I did in Mid-Staffordshire recently--not that it did much good--to realise that for two people of different sex to live in the same house in different names is much more common that it was 20 years ago. One has only to consider the statistics for children born out of wedlock,
Column 211
or the increasingly powerful demands, which I shall not expand on at the moment because it would be out of order, from some sections of the community for women to be allowed to have children without any thought of marriage, to realise that there have been many changes. No one could have been married for 23 years as I have--[ An hon. Member :-- "Too long."] I hope that it is not too long ; I hope that I can carry on--without realising that monogamy is not always the easiest state to sustain. The old words of the old prayer book about natural instincts being directed aright show that that has always been recognised.We are talking about life and the quality of life and we in the House have a great duty, whatever our personal beliefs, to recognise that there is nothing more sacred than life.
Miss Emma Nicholson : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cormack : No, I shall not give way any more. You are nodding, Miss Boothroyd, and in fairness to others, I should bring my remarks to a close. My hon. Friend may then have a chance to address the Committee.
We in the House have a great duty to sustain the concept of the sanctity of life. Whether or not we believe in the word "sanctity" is irrelevant. There is nothing more precious than a life. When two people come together and cohabit and create a third person they take on a great responsibility. The act of coming together should not be lightly entered into. The consequences of conception should not lightly be consigned to the flames, or anywhere else for that matter. Children should not be aborted, and that means killed, unless there is a paramount reason--the life of the mother, the circumstances of the conception or some overriding personal problem which can be assessed.
This evening we should tighten up the law and reduce the time limit--I shall vote for the 18-week limit--to make abortion more difficult, but not impossible. The one thing that I could never agree to is abortion on demand. That demeans everyone, most of all the person who demands. It is with that sort of thought in mind that we should conduct our debate. I hope that at the end of our proceedings, whether it is in the small hours or not, we shall have improved the law so that those with legitimate needs will have nothing to fear and those whose attitude to life is rather a casual one will have to think more seriously about the consequences of their actions. 6.45 pm
Mr. Doran : My main purpose in rising is to address the House on the uniqueness of the Scottish position, which has been ignored in all the amendments before the House. That was confirmed by the Minister's response to my intervention.
I oppose new clause 4, because I am in favour of the status quo. If the legislation were to be changed, I would want it liberalised and the Scottish position imported into the English legislation. For that reason, I shall be supporting new clause 3.
The Scottish position tends to be ignored and I am conscious that today's debate has concentrated on specific time limits. As a Scottish lawyer, that is an aspect of the English legal system which I have always found it difficult
Column 212
to understand. The English adherence to precedent and strict rules makes legislation complicated and forces one into the sort of debate that we have heard today.The Scottish legal system is based on principle. The 1967 Act applies in Scotland, but the basic principle in the application of the Act is the medical decision on the viability of the foetus. When the 1967 Act came into force in Scotland, the limit of 28 weeks was accepted in exactly the same way as it was accepted in England and Wales, but it was accepted because that was the best medical view on the viability of the foetus. As medical technology has improved, so the limit has been lowered. Therefore, the effective limit in Scotland now is 24 weeks, but the limit progresses with medical technology and the ability of the medical profession to sustain the life of a viable foetus. It is on that basis that I present our principle to the House. It is much more flexible, it advances with the times and it would save us endless and interminable debates on the subject of abortion.
To illustrate how flexible the Scottish system is, it is important to consider what was happening in Scotland before the introduction of the 1967 Act. Throughout the rest of the United Kingdom abortion was illegal, but in Aberdeen, the city that I am proud to represent, National Health Service abortions were introduced by the then consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology at Aberdeen royal infirmary, Dugald Baird, who had learned his medicine in the slums of the Gorbals in Glasgow. He had seen working-class women who had produced children year after year, and many of them were worn out in their mid-30s.
With the legal authorities, Dugald Baird introduced the concept of an abortion where the pregnancy posed a risk to the health of the mother. With the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen, he devised a scheme whereby every case in which he as consultant considered that abortion was appropriate because of the risk to the health of the mother, was reported to the procurator fiscal and, if he was satisfied that an abortion was appropriate, it was carried out. The procedure was streamlined so that there were no delays, and many hundreds of abortions were carried out in Aberdeen before the introduction of the 1967 Act. That was possible because of the flexibility of the Scottish system, which declared abortion to be a crime but provided exceptions where, for example, there was a real risk to the mother's health.
The Government amendments threaten that flexibility. No consideration has been given to the uniqueness of the Scottish situation. There is no Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench now, nor has there been for any of the debate--and I do not expect to see one there. There has been inadequate consultation in respect of the Scottish position. When the Minister responded to my earlier intervention during her own speech, she said that the situation in Scotland was at a loose end and that it had to be "tidied up." I hope that she views it as something more than that, and that we can return to that aspect on Report.
Sir David Steel : The hon. Member may be interested to learn that I discussed the matter with Sir Dugald Baird at the time of the Abortion Act 1967. He was much in favour of including Scotland in that statute, because during the time that he was carrying out the practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred, a particular Law Officer in Scotland wrote to him, warning in effect, "Watch it." Sir
Column 213
Dugald replied, "The next time that I have a case, will you come and tell me whether or not I can carry out an abortion?" He did not regard the law in quite the ideal light that the hon. Gentleman suggests.Mr. Doran : Few doctors regard the law in the same ideal light that it is regarded by Scottish lawyers, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Although I never met Dugald Baird, I know from his colleagues that his views were not quite those that I would like to present. He was not totally in favour of the 1967 Act, although he was in favour of establishing a statutory position. I am sure that he would be in favour of the operation of such a law today. Sir Dugald's colleagues recently established a trust fund in memory of the work that he did. The Minister for Health indicates surprise. Perhaps I may write asking her to make a donation to that trust, if she supports its objectives.
Although Scottish law appears to be much more liberal than that of England and Wales, as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) mentioned, the number of late abortions performed in Scotland is very small. In 1987, there were only two abortions involving pregnancies later than 24 weeks, and only one in 1988. In 1984, the United Nations undertook a survey of abortion rates in every European country where abortion was legal. The rate in Scotland was only eight per thousand, compared with 13 per thousand in England. That bears out the point also made by the right hon. Gentleman that National Health Service family planning services are well developed in Scotland.
Aberdeen's extensive experience of providing abortions on the National Health Service provides many other examples of the way in which abortion law operates north of the border. My local hospital, Aberdeen royal infirmary, has a well organised and streamlined system that aims at avoiding late abortions. No one favours abortion. Every abortion that is performed is a tragedy, but the Aberdeen system ensures that cases that fulfil the legal criteria set by the 1967 Act are dealt with, according to the woman's wishes, at the earliest possible opportunity.
When a woman visits her general practitioner for the purpose of arranging an abortion, he is instructed not to write a letter or postcard to the appropriate consultant seeking an appointment for her but to pick up the telephone and contact a named individual. An appointment is made for the woman there and then. Bureaucratic delays are avoided and the case can be dealt with at the earliest opportunity. I am not frightened by the prospect of an 18-week limit for my own constituents in Aberdeen, although I consider it undesirable for all the other reasons that have been advanced. In Aberdeen, the latest date effectively for an abortion to be considered is 20 weeks, because the system is streamlined and all qualifying cases are picked up at the earliest stages. Virtually all Aberdeen GPs are tuned in to the system, having worked with it for many years. Even those opposed to abortion pass cases to their partners in the same practice.
There are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of abortions are dealt with within 18 or 20 weeks. That is an excellent example of the way that the National Health Service can restrict the number of late abortions without right hon. and hon. Members having to tug at their heart strings and being the recipients of obscene items--at least, I consider them obscene--through the mail, to persuade them to take a particular view.
Column 214
Even those who support the 18-week limit accept that abortions should be provided on the National Health Service. That may be to distort some of their views, but I am entitled to place that interpretation on their support for the 18-week amendment. They should also be looking for ways of removing the trauma and stress that is suffered by all women who have to endure an abortion, for whatever reason.Ways should also be found of taking the issue away from this House and interminable debate. I asked the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) what she meant by her statement of a few months ago that she and her supporters "would go away for a while". I do not believe for a minute that the issue will die once a decision has been made by this House. I certainly do not accept that the hon. Lady can guarantee that all those who share her view will stay in line. We need to establish a principle that is related to the best medical practices. We should not have to debate the matter year in, year out, but should place our trust in medical practitioners and give them a legal framework within which they can operate and which the public can understand. That would bring an end to the debate, except among those who are totally opposed to the concept of abortion. We could then enter into a much more honest debate on the arguments for and against abortion, rather than have to tinker with time limits and risk the dishonesty that they might engender. For all those reasons, I support new clause 3 and shall vote against new clause 4.
Sir Bernard Braine : We can at least all agree that it is high time to legislate on this important issue. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been in this House for many years will recall repeated attempts by private Members to seek, in some cases, quite modest reforms of abortion law, who succeeded in securing substantial majorities in favour of such measures on the Floor of the House, yet were frustrated by a comparatively small minority who knew how to use our rules and regulations to prevent the House from reaching a final decision.
Whether or not one agrees with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)--and I do--hers was a remarkable speech, showing a great command of the subject. I listened to her with profit, and I hope that other right hon. Members, whether or not they agree with my hon. Friend, will acknowledge that hers was a remarkable performance.
Clearly, it seemed to the pro-life movement that the only way to resolve the matter once and for all was to persuade the Government of the day--in this case a Conservative Government--that embryo experimentation and abortion law reform should be incorporated in a Government Bill. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) will be the first to recall that the Abortion Act 1967 would not be on the statute book had the Government of the day refused time for it. I do not complain about that. I complain about subsequent Governments who did not take a similar course, although there was an overwhelming majority in the House and in the country in favour of abortion law reform. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, therefore, in congratulating the Government on facilitating this debate.
Column 215
7 pmThe House has voted repeatedly to stop the scandal of late abortions and abortion on dmand, but we have been prevented from coming to a decision not by argument or reason or by a straight defeat in the Division Lobby, but by blatant filibustering, which is an open admission of defeat by the pro- abortionists. This debate, however, has been very different, precisely because those who used to use those practices know perfectly well that this is a Government Bill, that there is a time limit and that we are being given full facilities to express our views. I have listened with respect to the views advanced by those who fundamentally disagree with me. This has been a good debate for that reason, and we should thank the Government for making it possible.
We have an opportunity now to decide on a reasonable upper limit for abortions. We should take decisions tonight that will be valid for years to come. We should take decisions that bear a relationship to the present situation but, having regard to the advances in medical science, to the situation that is likely to develop in the next decade. That is why I ask hon. Members to consider very carefully which way they will vote tonight. I declare straight away that I am in favour of an upper limit of 18 weeks.
We must also recognise that we compare somewhat unfavourably in that regard, even if the Bill is enacted with the provisions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he is in favour of--namely, 24 weeks--with a good many countries in Europe. We are still way behind them and the details are available for hon. Members. Thus, the position in Germany and in France, to consider two of our nearest neighbours, is quite different from the position here, and it will be different again if the Bill is enacted with the recommendations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Let us consider the position in this country with regard to late abortions. In 1988, the last year for which I have figures, 183,798 abortions were performed under the Abortion Act 1967. The overwhelming majority were performed for social or non-medical reasons. Handicap was given as a ground for abortion in 3,817 cases, and only 486 abortions were performed because the mother's life was at risk.
Down the ages, it has been acknowledged--it is not challenged now--that abortion is the only surgical operation involving two lives where one must die. It has been accepted down the ages by Christian societies that, where the mother's life is in danger, it is paramount. There is no argument about that.
In 1988, only five abortions were performed to prevent grave permanent damage to the mother. Of late abortions--for the purposes of this debate, I will take those to be at 19 to 20 weeks--3,406 were performed. The total of abortions at 21 to 22 weeks was 1,983 ; at 23 to 24 weeks, it was 1,107 ; and at 25 weeks and over, there were only 23. Under the provisions of the new clause tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, the number of lives that would be saved on 1988 figures, if the House voted for an 18-week limit, would be 5,977. If the upper limit was set at 20 weeks, that figure would be reduced to 2,914 ; at 22 weeks, it would be reduced to 2,027, and at 24 weeks to nil.
I was deeply moved by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). This debate is about life and death. Will we be
Column 216
voting to save the maximum number of lives? We must consider the figures. The pro-life movement readily concedes that there are certain tragic circumstances in which an abortion is justified. We are not absolutists on the subject. However, for God's sake let us consider the figures. When hon. Members vote, they should weigh the figures very carefully.My right hon. and learned Friend's new clause is different from the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in his Bill, in that an upper limit would apply at the end of the week that we decide upon. The new clause refers to a pregnancy which
"has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week".
The Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill set the limit at the beginning of the 18th week. I would like clarification from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health as to whether the words, "has not exceeded" means the end of the week in question. Perhaps that can be clarified later.
We have clear choices before us. How many lives do we want to save? That is what the debate is about. How many unborn children do we condemn to death, and how many do we save? It is clear that 24 weeks is no decision at all. That is a fudge, because it would save hardly a single life. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), my hon. Friend the Minister for Health stated that the 22nd week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time that there is the possibility of a foetus being born alive. Wait a minute. We must remember that the Abortion Act 1967 does not have an upper limit. It refers to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it the crime of child destruction to destroy a child capable of being born alive. The prima facie case of capability of being born alive at that time was 28 weeks.
We should note that the 1929 Act does not require a child to be born alive and to survive, which no one can determine in advance, but only to be born alive. I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone told us that Mr. Justice Brooke defined "capable of being born alive" as surviving for only a few minutes. Twenty-eight weeks was the figure agreed in 1929, but medical science has moved fast since then, and that limit is now totally out of date.
Does the Committee realise that, at this precise moment, an abortion carried out at 24 weeks is illegal and contrary to the 1929 Act if it turns out that the child could be born alive at 22 weeks? In short, a 24-week limit would put the clock back and legalise what at present is plainly illegal. Does the Committee realise that that would be the precise effect if we voted for a 24-week limit tonight? Last December, the Daily Mail featured a delighted mother holding her baby and girl, who had been born at 22 weeks. She weighed just 20 oz. She was not only born alive, but she survived. How against that can anyone defend 24 weeks and think that he is voting for reasonable upper limit? Parliament will be enacting nonsense. A vote for 24 weeks tonight is a vote for a nonsense. When the country realises that, it will not easily forgive us. Medical science will continue to advance, and more and more babies born prematurely will survive. Surely we should legislate for the future and not for the past. New Clause 1 does not apply a 24-week upper limit as it seems to do. I do not know whether my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), who tabled the new clause,
Column 217
are aware of that. The new clause seems to allow abortion up to birth under the exceptions stated in paragraphs (2A) (a) and (2A) (b) of the new subsections. Those exceptions could be interpreted widely and the doctors performing such exceptional abortions could stand wholly unchallenged. They would not even be subject to the 1929 Act. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose new clause 1.Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State aware of the effect of new clause 1? I am not seeking to draw my right hon. and learned Friend to his feet, and I do not expect a snap answer. The subject is too serious for that. However, I ask him to reflect on what I am saying and on whether I am right or wrong. God knows, there are moments when one prefers to be wrong. This is the moment of truth. As I said in respect of embryo research yesterday--although the vote did not reflect my advice--the buck stops here in Parliament. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider arranging for a statement to be made before we vote.
It is now appropriate to describe the unborn child in the later stages of pregnancy. There have been several references to a package that hon. Members have received. I have not received one, and I am not especially in favour of such dramatic gestures. However, this is an adult House and hon. Members would not be here if they were not trusted by many of their fellow citizens. It is right to describe what we are discussing. Far from being an inanimate object and a mere clump of cells, the unborn child is sensitive to sound and touch. At 18 weeks, it is complete. All its organs are in place and what it needs between 18 weeks and birth is the correct environment in which to live and to grow.
What is the difference between an 18-week baby and a 28-week baby? It is only size and weight. The unborn child will move spontaneously, it will react to bright light shining on the uterus, and it can recognise and react to its mother's voice. In January 1980, the British Medical Journal published an article entitled, "What the Fetus Feels". In describing the reactions of a nine-week unborn child, the article said :
"the baby is well enough formed for him to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand. In response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. At 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb. At 11 weeks after conception the fetus starts to swallow the surrounding amniotic fluid and to pass it back into his urine. He can also produce complex facial expressions and even smile."
All these movements and reactions require a high degree of sense and organisation of the various bodily functions. That is the little creature about whom we are talking--a human being not yet born, yet with all the hope and expectation of life.
When we come to vote, let us not vote for a figure. Let us remember that we are voting for the preservation of the lives of future citizens. God knows the number of those who have been sacrificed as a result of abortion since the passage of the 1967 Act. There were, of course, abortions before that Act--I am not criticising the right hon. Member for Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), but since its passage, 2.5 million to 3 million children have been lost, and the overwhelming majority, if they had been allowed to be born, would have been perfectly fit and healthy.
Column 218
Where would they have been today? They would have been in our schools or at universities or at work, serving their country. That should be a matter of prime concern for every man and woman inside and outside the House. When we vote, let us remember that we are not voting about figures, but about unborn children who may one day make a contribution to our national life.7.15 pm
I want to put another crucial question to hon. Members. Can the foetus feel pain? I am sure that we are all conscious of the need to safeguard the welfare of animals. How many of us are members of one of the animal welfare societies, go to dog shows in our constituencies and are revolted by cruelty to animals? Let us ask ourselves a question. Tonight, we shall decide whether a foetus should be allowed to live or die after the 18th, 20th or 22nd week, or later. Does this little creature feel pain?
The distinguished Australian, Professor Peter McCullagh who, I am glad to say, is one of the advisers to my all-party pro-life committee, state in his 1987 book entitled "The Foetus as Transplant Donor" that the brain cells essential for consciousness of pain in the adult are present in the 10-week-old unborn child. The sensory nerve fibres transmitting pain are present even before those capable of inhibiting perception of pain. Some hon. Members have had the privilege of hearing Professor McCullagh speak to us elsewhere in this building.
A study that appeared in 1987 in Nature, a well recognised and respected journal, stated that the unborn child's sensory neurones appeared to be more sensitive than those of an adult or a new-born baby. There can be little doubt that abortion is intensely painful for the child as well as for the mother. It is a gruesome business, but I doubt whether many people outside the House--or many in the House--know exactly what is involved.
I shall describe one of the most vivid accounts I have read of a dilatation and evacuation abortion performed at 22 weeks in a London hospial. The House should know exactly what happens before we vote tonight. I quote from the book "Abortion : The Whole Story" by the well-known journalist Mary Kenny. This is her account of what she saw :
"First came an arm, perfectly formed, a tiny baby's hand, fingers curled. A limb was extracted. Then two limbs lay in the bowl The intestines, brain tissue, liver, lungs came away. Last of all--the most difficult part--was the cranium. The skin was torn, and there was not much more than a skull".
Who passed that account to me? It was passed to me by the organisation called Doctors Who Respect Human Life.
Many things have been said about the medical profession in the course of the debate. There has been the odd tribute here and there and people have said that the vast majority of doctors are honourable people who care for their patients, and so on. Thank God many doctors, men and women, take the view that such abortions are an obscenity and a crime that should be stopped. The quotation does not come merely from a journalist or someone who wants to tell an alarmist story.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : Has the right hon. Gentleman read accounts of back-street illegal abortions or what happens when women attempt to abort themselves, with equally gruesome results, often resulting in the death of the women?
Column 219
Sir Bernard Braine : Yes, I have. It has been claimed strongly since the passage of the 1967 Act that the legalisation of abortion rendered back-street abortions unnecessary. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale would tell the hon. Lady if he were in his place--I hope she will not shake her head in dissent before hearing my answer to her intervention--the rate of back-street abortions was on the decline before that Act came into being. I am not arguing that there should not be effective control or that we do not have a responsibility, as a civilised society, to see that women who are in dire need and distress are cared for. Under French law, for example, a woman must be in a state of distress before an abortion can be granted. I am concerned about abortion on demand. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is not in her place. If she had been, I would have asked if she could recall the grounds on which the Carlisle baby was aborted. Hon. Members will remember the terrible story that she told. I am not absolutely sure, but I believe that the grounds were largely trivial and that, if there had been effective control--Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman : It was a skin disease.
Sir Bernard Braine : I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that it was a skin disease, which is common enough among adults, some of whom do not even know that they have it.
Miss Emma Nicholson : Is my right hon. Friend aware that 84 per cent. of all women in the United Kingdom believe that women should have the right to choose?
Sir Bernard Braine : The right to choose what?
Miss Nicholson : The right to choose their own pregnancies.
Sir Bernard Braine : In most civilised countries, there is a requirement before an abortion is permitted that the woman--who, in such circumstances, will obviously be in a state of great distress--is counselled by a doctor. There is a pause during which she is given the opportunity to consider the situation. There is at least one organisation in Britain which not only gives counselling but which, if necessary, would help a woman in that situation to bear her child.
Miss Nicholson rose --
Sir Bernard Braine : No, I will not give way. My hon. Friend raised a trivial point-- [Interruption.] --because a woman in that situation needs help. I am not saying that she should be denied help or that there are not circumstances in which abortion is not justified. I am not saying that, and have never said it. I am simply endeavouring to bring home to hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, what is involved in an abortion.
Ms. Short : Does the right hon. Gentleman think that she does not know?
Sir Bernard Braine : We should consider who benefits from late abortions. Who performs them? I am talking not about early but about late abortions. In a survey conducted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled, "Late Abortions", published in
Column 220
1984, it was found that over 60 per cent. of very late abortions were performed, believe it or not, by just 11 private practitioners. That is killing for profit. Some would call it legalised murder. I trust that whoever replies to the debate will say, since I am referring to 1984 figures, whether the Department of Health has investigated those 11 doctors, whether they have ever been found to have transgressed the so-called gentlemen's agreement between the Department and the clinics performing late abortions, and, even more important, whether their activities have been found to be contrary to, or in line with, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. What happens in other countries, particularly in Europe? In West Germany, abortion is only allowed up to week 13 for social reasons and up to week 22 for reasons of handicap. In France, abortion is available up to the 10th week for a woman in distress, and after that only if the unborn child is handicapped or if there is serious risk to life or health. In Greece, abortion is available up to the 12th week and thereafter in limited conditions. Spanish law allows abortion up to 12 weeks for rape and up to 22 weeks for handicap. In Denmark, abortion is allowed on demand up to 12 weeks and after that on the authorisation of a special committee. The law is similar in Norway. Swedish law provides for abortion up to 18 weeks and after that only if the foetus is below the age of viability.In terms of an upper limit, we in this country have one of the most permissive laws in Europe. That is a disgrace to our nation, with women travelling from other countries to have their abortions here. There is a major difference between yesterday's debate and the matter that we are discussing today. On embryo research, many people honestly have doubts about when life begins. I am referring not to those who are certain about their uncertainties but to those who genuinely have doubts. But today we are concerned with the living unborn child who is capable of being born alive. Abortions carried out on such babies at 24 or 22 weeks are already illegal under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which makes it an offence to destroy a child capable of being born alive.
We are dealing today, therefore, not with doubts or uncertainties but with the question whether the life of the unborn child is sacred or not. As I said in yesterday's debate, the buck stops here in the House of Commons. In my view, we have a solemn duty to protect those who cannot speak for themselves and to consider their interests when others manifestly will not.
Mr. Alton : The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) concluded her remarks by talking about the role of irresponsible men in relation to the abortion argument. Although there are areas where she and I disagree, on that issue I agree with her. I accept that men are often the cause of women being pressurised into having abortions. That is a reason why, fundamentally, men along with women are involved in this issue.
However, abortion affects every member of the human race potentially, so this is not a question that divides men and women. It is an issue on which we are all entitled to have an opinion and about which we should show responsibility.
Ms. Richardson rose
Column 221
Mr. Alton : Although the hon. Lady refused while she was speaking to give way to me, I happily give way to her.Ms. Richardson : I said--I may have said it badly--that women often suffered from men who did not consider them and who made them pregnant in an irresponsible way, not necessarily pressurising them into having abortions.
Mr. Alton : I accept that, too. Men will often use their sexuality in a way that demonstrates a greater sense of machismo than it does responsibility towards their partners. At the heart of the debate about contraception and family planning, the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), is the need to recognise that when love and a sense of responsibility is removed from sexual relations, there will always be tragedy. Sometimes that can result in men trying to pressurise women into what people often perceive as the quick fix of an abortion. They believe that that will solve the problem. Rather than solving the problem, it destroys a life and has consequences for the men, women and children involved and for the medical staff. Actions that we take in life are bound to carry consequences for us as individuals, and as we discuss this issue, we must accept our responsibility as parliamentarians in drafting the law. We must also accept that society's attitudes must change and that the massive taking of life that has occurred in the past 23 years, with the authority of the law, can never be regarded as desirable.
Mrs. Fyfe : Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that another form of irresponsibility could occur? Far from pressuring a mother to have an unwanted abortion, a father could be quite happy to let her get on with it and take no responsibility for the child. What would the hon. Gentleman advise the woman to do in those circumstances?
7.30 pm
Mr. Alton : The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often put forward views on that subject, which I entirely support. Indeed, the Prime Minister has put forward views about the subject with which I agree also. Many hon. Members will agree that the man who is involved in the creation of life should be forced to take far greater responsibility for the child. Like the hon. Lady, I represent an area in an inner city with many single- parent families and many women who have been left by men. Our concern about life--we shall come to different conclusions--does not mean that we should assume that those who take my position do not also care about doing something about alleviating the distressing poverty and misery that many other people face.
I am sure that many Conservative Members share my view. I am not prepared to say that all Conservative Members are wrong and all Opposition Members right. I have never accepted that in any debate, let alone this one.
The hon. Member said that 2,000 or 3,000 women marched last night to protest against changes in the abortion law. I do not think that it comes down to a numbers count, but the hon. Lady will know that probably the biggest lobby in the life of this Parliament occurred when about 10,000 people came here just a few weeks ago to lobby their Members of Parliament sensitively over two days about this matter. For them this issue is a crucial
Column 222
human rights matter. For them it must be considered seriously by Parliament. On both sides of the argument many people feel deeply. The hon. Lady also touched on a point that needs to be addressed. She said that if we draw a time limit of 20 weeks, it would really mean 18 weeks, and that 18 weeks would mean 16 weeks. Just a couple of weeks ago at the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a scan of a baby of nine weeks and four days. I saw the computer printout on the scan of the exact gestational time. I do not accept that it is impossible to tell the point which a pregnancy has reached and, therefore, with some precision, to be able to come to conclusions about whether an abortion should be allowed.I thank the Secretary of State for giving the House the chance tonight to vote on the amendments. Whatever the result, as a person who believes in democracy, I shall abide by it. In 1988, 296 Members torn from 10 political parties in the House--quite an achievement in itself--gave my Bill a Second Reading, by a majority of 45. It was the biggest post-world war two attendance on a Friday. We then had 30 hours in Committee, but it distressed me when we were not able to come to a conclusion on Report. We know why that was not possible--the Bill was talked out.
Given that, since 1974, every pro-life Bill that has come before the House has had a Second Reading majority, it is not acceptable to conduct our affairs on this crucial matter in that way, wherever we stand on the issue. The difference with this debate, knowing that we shall come to a conclusion tonight, is that there has been rather more tolerance and respect of each others' attitudes and beliefs in this climate than there ever is when people, whichever side of the argument they are on, try to block progress on a Bill by using the procedural tricks and devices that are open to hon. Members. That is why, with the constitutional lacuna that clearly exists on a hybrid issue--it is neither public nor private legislation, because it was given 26 hours of Government time to make progress back in 1967--it is right that the House of Commons should be given this chance today, admittedly with a complicated series of amendments before it, to come to a conclusion on a matter about which the public and hon. Members feel deeply.
Ms. Primarolo : The hon. Gentleman made a point about not seeking to mislead the House with arguments that do not represent the truth as we best know it. He referred to identification of the date for termination and to the scan. The hon. Gentleman knows that, for fear of prosecution under the criminal law, doctors must protect themselves in some way, particularly given the pro-life zealots. Therefore, they are bound to reduce the time limit below that which is set by Parliament to protect themselves from prosecution. It is misleading to say that it is possible to pinpoint exactly and that a doctor will take that risk.
Mr. Alton : I was telling the House that just two weeks ago in the Royal Liverpool hospital I saw a foetal scan and the printout on the scan that said that the baby's gestational age was nine weeks and four days. That evidence would be perfectly acceptable in a court of law should it come to that, but I do not wish to see large-scale prosecution of anybody. I happen to believe that doctors and nurses will abide by the law as Parliament frames it. That is what we are here to do tonight.
Column 223
The protagonists in the debate describe themselves as pro-choice or pro-life. I have met few people who would describe themselves as pro-abortion. I agree with the Minister, who said that every abortion--I extend that to whether it is legal or illegal--is a personal tragedy for all involved. Mostly, those who uphold the present abortion laws describe abortion as the lesser of two evils. That is the fundamental point of difference. For those of us who seek to reform the law, abortion will always be the greater of two evils. Once we accept, and I do, that after fertilisation the new person has entered the frame, it is not possible to remain indifferent to the position of the tiniest and most vulnerable member of our species. I shall never accept the argument of choice--that it is my right to choose to take another person's life. I believe that that is a modern heresy.However sincerely the opposing views are canvassed in the debate, we shall not repeal the 1967 Act, nor do I think it likely that the House will be convinced by those such as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) who seeks to extend the Act to birth. I hope that, when looking at the uncoupling of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and amendments (q) and (r), the House will give deep consideration to that point. The ILPA is a safeguard that is worth retaining, and it would be a profound mistake to uncouple the two pieces of legislation.
The present limit was not drawn in 1967. As we have heard, it is 61 years since the rule of thumb--capable of being born alive--was drawn at 28 weeks' gestation. That rule of thumb was included in the 1967 Act. That is what Parliament is being asked to vote on tonight. Is it any longer a responsible limit to sustain? That is the issue. Twenty-three years ago, let alone 61 years ago, there was no ultrasound scanning of the type that I have described, no electro-cardiograms for a foetus, and no appreciation of the complete sensory development of the unborn child or knowledge that the unborn baby feels pain--a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).
Given those quantum leaps in our knowledge, it is absurd to leave our laws in the dark ages. We have revolutionised our knowledge about the unborn child. Yesterday evening, hon. Members solemnly voted on another clause of the Bill that outlawed experimentation on the human embryo beyond two weeks' gestation. In that debate the Secretary of State said :
"At various stages, fresh rights are acquired."
He went on to say that two weeks' gestation
"is a logical point beyond which it would be unwise to engage in research." --[ Official Report, 23 April 1990 ; Vol. 171, c. 34.] Does it not strike the House as odd that, as matters stand at present, for the following 26 weeks it will remain legal to procure the abortion of that same embryo, foetus or unborn child, whom we properly say that it would be unwise to use for purposes of research or experimentation?
Not only has our knowledge of the unborn moved on apace, but we have moved hopelessly out of step with the rest of the world. As I said earlier, last year women from over 100 countries, from places as far away as Mongolia and South Africa, chose to come to this country for abortions and one third of late abortions, those after 18 weeks--in fact, 3,248 such abortions--were conducted on women from overseas. That makes the point far better
| Next Section
| Home Page |