House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jun 1990

Column 1146

thought to be, and the statistics alone indicated that the back-street abortionist so-called was a pretty efficient operator. I think that a lot of the people who would be labelled back- street abortionists before the Act are now front-street abortionists, and technologically they are very competent at doing the particular job. I do not think there is any doubt about that."

5.30 pm

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : I must say on behalf of many women while the Father of the House is quoting somebody else's opinion that the thought of women having to return to back-street abortionists fills many of us with horror.

Sir Bernard Braine : It has always filled me with horror, too. My hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, has not been following the drift of my argument. I am describing the sort of people whom Sir John thought were engaged in the business of back-street abortions prior to the Act.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) rose

Sir Bernard Braine : No, I shall not give way at this stage, because I wish to pay tribute to the fact that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made a genuine attempt in 1967 to clean up an extremely unsatisfactory situation. However, I am quoting from evidence given nine years later into the working of that Act.

The right hon. Gentleman's measure introduced certain improvements, but there were also some abuses, and I am sure that he would agree with that. A later Bill introduced by Mr. James White seeking greater control over abortion obtained a big majority, the House will recall, but the Government of the day decided that the matter was so technical and difficult that, rather than proceed, they would set up a Select Committee to look into the issue in great detail. I was a member of that Select Committee, as was the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and a number of hon. Members who are in the House to this day. We took evidence, and I have been quoting from evidence given by the president of the British Medical Association, a former extremely distinguished gynaecologist with a worldwide reputation. I am merely reporting to the House what he said, and hon. Members can draw their own conclusions. The statement made by Sir John Peel at that time is highly relevant now. The combination of amendments now before the House would revive back-street abortions of the type to which he was referring, without the safeguard of a second medical opinion, which has always been thought necessary since the passage of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. If we are to reach a sensible, balanced, rational and decent conclusion to these deliberations, we must have a clear lead from the Minister.

The idea of easier abortion on the authority of one doctor, as I pointed out, had been put forward by Government advisers on several occasions in the past. We must be told whether the same advice is being given to the Government now. I leave the matter there. The House must search its conscience in deciding whether the proposals inherent in the group of amendments that we are now considering can be accepted, knowing in our hearts what the reality is in the world of abortion.

Column 1147

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I will take the House into my confidence because so many hon. Members wish to participate in the proceedings, and rightly so. I urge those whom I call to speak for seven to 10 minutes so that we can have all points of view in this important debate aired.

Mr. Alton : I shall try to stay within that time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Three questions are before the House as we debate this group of new clauses and amendments. The first is whether abortion should be allowed up to 12 weeks ; the second concerns changes to the conscience clause ; and the third refers to Northern Ireland. In 1967, when the original legislation was laid before the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), in trying to tackle the problem of back-street abortions, said it was not the purpose of his measure to create abortion on demand. Yet, as one who has been strongly involved with this issue, I have not received a letter from anyone saying that they have been unable, under the 1967 legislation, to obtain an abortion in this country.

At a time when one in five pregnancies ends in abortion--184,000 each year- -one issue should unite every hon. Member, and that is a desire to reduce the total number of abortions. So missing from the proposal of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is the second part of the equation. She and my right hon. Friend referred to the European situation but, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) said, abortion there is restricted in the later periods--a point on which I have tried to concentrate the minds of hon. Members on many occasions.

The average European Community upper time limit is 12 to 14 weeks. Before the House now is a time limit of 24 weeks in most cases and in some cases right the way up to birth. So we are being asked to extend the legislation to provide abortion--abortion on demand, which we were told in 1967 would not happen, and in a climate of 184,000 abortions a year--up until birth.

We have been told today that one reason for that is the issue of delay. The hon. Member for Peckham omitted to tell the House that the 1984 report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said :

"The major reason for delay at 15 to 19 weeks is the wait for a prostaglandin abortion, which of course must be done late, by its very nature."

It added :

"In less than 5 per cent. of cases, the failure to recognise pregnancy was a delay definitely attributable to the doctor." However much one may wish to criticise the NHS on other occasions, as the majority of late abortions concern people from overseas, who are unable to obtain abortions in their own countries--last year women from over 100 countries came here for abortions--we can hardly blame them on the NHS. So let us clearly understand what we are being asked to agree today.

In none of the speeches made for the group of amendments has anything been said about the child, even though the child is another vital part of the equation. How can we talk about abortion without thinking of the effects on the child? Does not the child have some rights? As we reach the final stages of the Bill, the House is being asked to allow abortion right up to birth if the unborn child is handicapped. We shall debate that issue on the next

Column 1148

amendment, after the 7 o'clock vote. In the context of that amendment, hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot have much faith in the desire of hon. Members to preserve the minimal rights of the child. Indeed, having unlinked the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1920 from the Abortion Act 1967, we have made the position infinitely worse.

In these debates we rarely talk about post-abortion trauma. But we must consider the effects of an abortion on the woman. I have received hundreds of letters from women describing the effects of early and late abortions. It is not an easy operation. Indeed, it is a disaster for everybody involved. Frequently people are psychologically scarred for life.

Secondly-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peckham would not give way when I tried to intervene in her speech and is continually trying to make a point from a sedentary position during mine, but I am happy to give way to allow her to make it.

Ms. Harman : I was just hoping that as the hon. Gentleman has expressed his concern about the abortion rate he might turn his attention to preventing unwanted pregnancies by talking about sex education and family planning. He has accused us of never mentioning the child, but we try to prevent unwanted pregnancies. He never seems to talk about measures that would lower the abortion rate by preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Mr. Alton : In that case the hon. Lady does not listen. I talk at great length on those subjects. I believe that we should talk more openly about sexuality--and more responsibly, a word rarely used. We talk about our rights but not about our responsibilities to each other. We should put sexual relations in that context. Destroying the consequences of our actions is not the solution for anyone ; it is not a solution to a problem if another person's life is ended. We must consider the position of the unborn child, and of the mother and family.

As for the conscience clause, there are serious reasons why the House should resist the blacklist proposal--I am happy to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about that. This amendment is aimed at criminalising doctors who cannot in all conscience participate in abortions. It is intended to intimidate doctors who might take the conscience clause. The amendment institutionalises job discrimination by allowing employers to check the register before interviewing applicants. In the past, employers have not been allowed to specify abortion experience as necessary for a post. If the amendment is passed, excellent gynaecologists will be passed over because their names appear on the register. That opens the door to intimidation by a minority of pro-abortion activists who will be able to identify targets with ease-- as we witnessed during recent debates on abortion legislation. There is no evidence that any woman has been unable to obtain an abortion because of the conscience clause in its present form. To make it a criminal offence not to register publicly a conscientious objection is unprecedented and designed to prosecute those with sincerely held beliefs. This is a deeply repugnant proposal ; it is authoritarian and illiberal and the House should reject it. Thirdly, I turn to the extension to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, this issue unites people on both sides of the divide there. It is extraordinarily arrogant of the House not to listen to the voices in Northern Ireland. At a

Column 1149

meeting only last week representatives of the DUP--for instance, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) --the leader of the Ulster Unionists, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) of the SDLP came together on the same platform. Sixty thousand signatures have been received from groups in the Province opposed to the extension of the legislation.

In 1984--the last time this was considered--the Northern Ireland Assembly voted 20 to one against an extension to Northern Ireland. Every political party apart from Sinn Fein--even it recently modified its policy to one of neutrality--opposes the extension of the legislation. Eighteen councils are against extension and none is in favour. A poll of doctors in 1987 showed that 90 per cent. were against extension and a Gallup poll in 1982 found that 83 per cent. of people expressing an opinion were opposed to social abortions. So the people of Northern Ireland oppose an extension of the legislation and their views should be heard.

This issue was not raised on Second Reading and members of the Committee had no chance to consider it in Committee. It is monstrous that at this late stage of proceedings it should be proposed that the legislation be extended to Northern Ireland against the wishes of its representatives and people. I wholeheartedly urge the House to oppose the recommendation.

5.45 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson : In this country abortion used to be the most common method of contraception, and it still is in the developing world. There are 60 million abortions a year worldwide, 25 million of which are carried out illegally, and a leading cause of death among mothers in the developing countries is septic abortion. In Romania the death rate from abortion rose sevenfold when restrictive abortion laws were introduced in 1966.

In the United Kingdom we have moved a long way ; we have more enlightened thinking these days. Contraception is readily available ; there is far greater education, in schools and through other organisations, on ways of limiting the family, and I suggest there has been a dramatic removal of the stigma of using birth control methods--a stigma that was common before the Abortion Act 1967. But there is still some way to go, which is why I introduced new clause 5 in the previous debate on this issue. I was grateful then to the House for giving me the time in which to discuss it, and I am enormously grateful to all hon. Members who have shown an interest in this crucial proposal.

I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) dismissed my wish to discuss this important point with him as an attempt to canvass support. The issue is more important than that.

England and Wales have the smallest proportion in the European Community of legal abortions at eight weeks or under, and the highest percentage of abortions performed at 13 to 16 weeks and at 17 weeks and over. Yet the trend among the general public has been towards earlier abortions all the time. In 1968, 61 per cent. of all abortions took place under 13 weeks ; the figure in 1988 was 84 per cent. So there has been a tremendous move towards earlier

Column 1150

abortions and a corresponding reduction in abortions performed between 13 and 19 weeks--from 34 per cent. to 13 per cent. Among women seeking abortions and among the medical profession there has been a move towards earlier abortions. In the context of the massive efforts of the pro-life campaign in the House to limit later abortions, it is of great interest to us all to recognise that between 1968 and 1988 abortions at more than 20 weeks remained at a steady 3 per cent. So the shift has been downwards, apart from odd abortions performed after 20 weeks, and I find that immensely encouraging.

I am encouraged because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and other hon. Members, I believe that if abortion is to take place, the earlier the better, because the trauma for mothers and the unfortunate nurses and gynaecologists, who have other things to do besides perform abortions, is correspondingly reduced. There are also concomitant and massive economic savings in NHS beds and other medical services.

The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has already mentioned north Devon, which has an interesting system of immediate telephone referral from the GP to the consultant. That means that a mother who presents herself for an abortion is given an appointment with a consultant within one day. She will then have an abortion within a week. Nearly all abortions in north Devon are carried out before 12 weeks. That is because the consultant is in favour of early abortions, but early abortions are so sought after throughout Britain that about half the abortions carried out by that gynaecologist are performed on women from outside north Devon.

I want to knock on the head the idea that earlier abortions have led to a higher incidence of abortions. In the 11 to 19-year-old age group in north Devon, 8.9 per 1,000 mothers have an abortion, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 nationally--that is considerably lower. In the whole age group on whom abortions are performed--women between the ages of 11 and 49--the figures are 5.7 per 1,000 in north Devon, compared with 12.5 per 1,000 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Early abortions do not lead to a rise in the number of abortions. One could postulate that they lead to fewer. In the developing countries where there are illegal and septic abortions, a lack of contraceptive facilities and where legal abortions are not available, about 60 women per 1,000 present themselves for abortion.

As I said, easy and early abortion does not lead to higher abortion rates. It is caused by good school education, enlightened gynaecologists and a good social attitude. We cannot replicate that throughout the United Kingdom, much as we would like to. It is clear that we have not managed to do so, hence the incidence of later abortions outside north Devon and throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

I shall deal finally with public opinion and the opinion of gynaecologists. A series of polls carried out from 1979 to 1988 asked whether the choice to continue pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. That proposition was supported by 80 per cent. of the public and by 73 per cent. of gynaecologists. Amendment No. 31 does not offer the right to choose. It does not tread that difficult path in total deference to the susceptibilities of Parliament's conscience. It fits in neatly with public opinion and chimes in with informed medical opinion--the medical specialists and the gynaecologists. It

Column 1151

is in line with European Community thinking and the later legislation which resulted from that and which was introduced after our 1967 Act. More important, it sends the proper signal to society as a whole that if abortions are to take place we should get them over and done with.

Mr. A.E.P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe) : I oppose new clause 1, which would allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and I support amendment No. 54, which would extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. New clause 1 will allow abortion with no regard for mental, medical or eugenic reasons following a request by the mother to any doctor.

The Abortion Act 1967 required that abortion should be carried out for only specific medical reasons. I presume that that was the purpose of the probing question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Under that Act a second opinion and a signature were required to ensure the safety of the mother and the baby. Under new clause 1 none of those safeguards would apply to demands for abortion where the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks. That saddens me because it seems only to emphasise present trends.

In my city of Sheffield the number of abortions has risen steadily throughout the past decade and, contrary to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) about experience in other parts of England, an increasing number of those abortions have been carried out on the national health service. I am worried not only about the trends, but about the manner in which that will prejudice the social climate about which we have heard in the debates today and yesterday. We heard about it in the speech by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). In today's debate hon. Members appear to be concerned about doctors, while in yesterday's debate they were worried about donors and about almost everyone but the child, especially the unborn child.

Disregard for the sanctity of life and the rights of the unborn child has a bad effect on our society. I repeat that there has been too much evidence of that not only today but during yesterday's debate and in the debates that we had five or six weeks ago. That makes me wonder whether there will be abuse.

I was interested to hear the statistics from north Devon. We need more such breakdowns and the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West is to be commended. I tried to collect such statistics in Sheffield. During the 1980s no abortions were sought on the ground that the life of the expectant mother was at risk, and fewer than 1 per cent. were sought on the ground of handicap. I presume that the 1,500 unborn children who are killed every year in Sheffield are healthy. I have tried and failed to find out something about the motives for those abortions, and I invite hon. Members to try to find out what happens in their constituencies under section 2 of the 1967 Act. I and my hon. Friends have tried. Obviously, most abortions are performed under section 2. The Secretary of State for Health could tell us the reasons for those abortions and I invite him to do so. On 24 April I tried my darndest to intervene in the speech by the Minister for Health. I said then that it would be helpful on Report for the Secretary of State or his Minister to let the House have more information about section 2.

Column 1152

I fear abuse because new clause 1 requires no reason for abortion other than the mother's demand. It will abandon all pretence of medical causes and will open the door to more social abortions, abortions of convenience. I suspect that it will allow abortion on all sorts of specious grounds, which I shall not go into now. The doctor's position will be made ambiguous by the new clause. He will not be required to consider medical reasons or the safety of the patient.

The delay argument has been dealt with effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). It is claimed that the new clause will reduce delays in obtaining abortions and lower the number of late abortions. However, he reminded us of the 1984 study and report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. That body has produced other studies. The new clause would put specific pressures on the mother, and we can well imagine them. I need not dwell on them because every hon. Member on whatever side of the argument will be well aware of them.

A comparison has been drawn between new clause 1 and the situation in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, who moved new clause 1, cited European experience but she did not say that European countries that allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks also severely restrict abortion after 12 weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill mentioned that, but I should like to spell it out. There are no proposals to restrict the availability of an abortion in Britain after 12 weeks. On the contrary, we are moving in another direction. None of those European countries has an appreciably lower rate of abortion than Britain. Some of them have a higher rate and I fear that the new clause will substantially increase the number of abortions and the abuse of abortion facilities.

As I said, I support amendment No. 54, which would extend the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. It now seems in our society that human life is to have value only under certain conditions and new clause 1, which I have just dealt with, highlights just how much further society has drifted towards abortion on demand and towards the view that human life is disposable.

Health in Northern Ireland was covered by transferred powers to the old Stormont Parliament and to the power-sharing executive. It has certainly been Opposition policy, although this is not a party political matter, to interfere as little as possible in matters that should properly be devolved to a legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland. Specifically and directly health is one matter that would be transferred to a devolved Assembly. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in his place and I invite him to say that the talks that he is so impressively and gallantly trying to bring about in Northern Ireland will deal with the devolution of health. I suspect that that matter is near the top of his agenda.

I do not know how the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can sit so complacently alongside the Secretary of State for Health. He must know in his heart that the proposal will be carried unless the Secretary of State for Health goes into battle against it. He must know that the devolution argument, for people in Northern Ireland to take control of their affairs, is not helped when pressure groups of whatever hue or on whatever issue seek to extend the 1967 Act, which did not apply to Northern Ireland, by the back door.

It is a neo-colonialist attitude, patronising in the extreme, to say that the House knows better than all the

Column 1153

elected Members for Northern Ireland who are united, as we shall hear, on this, as on other matters, but especially on medical, ethical and moral questions and matters of faith.

If a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland sought to alter the legislation, will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confirm that it could not do so without a separate Westminster Act of Parliament amending British legislation? We are effectively tying the hands, in what would be a transferred area, of any future devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland with legislative powers.

I oppose new clause 1, but I support amendment No. 54.

6 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley : My colleagues and I oppose new clauses 1 and 6, amendment No. 31 and new clauses 5 and 7, and support amendment No. 54. I shall make a brief speech to allow others the opportunity to speak, and I want to concentrate on my opposition to new clause 7. I want to make a protest on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland. If the House is to legislate for Northern Ireland, let it do so decently and in order, and let it give Northern Ireland representatives, few though they be, an opportunity to discuss in the House every clause of a Bill, from its presentation to its Third Reading, and to deal with a matter that runs to the very gut and heart of the Ulster people. I must protest that it is mischievous to foist such a new clause on the House and on the people of Northern Ireland on Report.

I am not just speaking on behalf of the Protestant section of the community ; I am speaking on behalf of my entire constituency and the entire constituency of Northern Ireland. I have had the highest vote in three elections to the European Parliament, so I speak for the whole Province on this issue.

I have consulted my parliamentary colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party and they are at one with the Unionists--the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the Popular Unionists, represented by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). We are at one on the issue.

The House should have a little respite for unity in Northern Ireland. The House oft times thinks that there is no unity in Northern Ireland. I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House say, "Oh, if only you would agree, we would give you what you agreed on." Now we come to something that we agree on and we are told no. The new clause is to be rammed through the House on Report. The overwhelming opposition is amazing, because it stretches from the Unionist parties to the nationalist SDLP. It stretches from the Churches to the students union of Queen's university, which in no way could be called a Conservative or right-wing body.

I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) tell us that the medical profession in Northern Ireland are in some sort of way overwhelmingly in support of the measure. That is definitely not true. The medical profession were canvassed by Dr. Ferguson and 1,575 replied, 60 per cent. of whom were opposed to it. How can

Column 1154

any hon. Member tell the House that the medical profession are overwhelmingly in favour of the legislation being extended to Northern Ireland?

I want to make it perfectly clear that I resent what the right hon. Gentleman said in another regard. Foetal abnormality, rape, risk to the physical health of a mother and severe psychological trauma are catered for in Northern Ireland. Abortions are available in such cases. I resent the suggestion that we are opposed to the woman having any protection. I am all for protecting the woman, but I am for protecting the child as well. I have made that clear in other speeches in the House.

In 1967, it was argued that, except we had abortion by law, there would be an increase in illegitimacy, child abuse and juvenile crime. One would have thought that, after 1967, we would have an ordered society and those problems would practically disappear. But today's figures show that illegitimacy, child abuse and juvenile crime are less per head of the population in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Let no hon. Member say that abortion will raise the ethical standards of the people.

Then we heard that there would be back-street abortions. There is no evidence of that in Northern Ireland. The number of deaths that result from abortion is lower in Northern Ireland than in any of the regions of England. Since 1967, there have been 3 million abortions, twice the population of Northern Ireland--3 million tiny lives snuffed out--and it has not led to a well-adjusted generation. We need to face up to that.

If the matter is to be dealt with in Northern Ireland--we do not have a local assembly ; we do not even have proper representative local government --there should be a referendum on the matter. Let the people of Northern Ireland say exactly what should be done. I repeat that all the parties are united. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has just come into the House. I was mentioning before he came in that his party was united with us all in our opposition to abortions. The three parties represented in the House are opposed to the measure. We have 26 local councils. They have no real power, but 18 of them have debated the measure and voted against it. None of the remaining councils were prepared to say that they wanted it. Therefore, no council went on record as wanting the measure. The Northern Ireland Assembly voted 20 : 1 against it, although the SDLP was not present at that Assembly, which we regret.

Reference was made to the Gallup poll, in which 83 per cent. of the Northern Ireland community expressed opposition to abortion when sought by unmarried women or those not wishing to have a larger family.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster) : My hon. Friend referred to the impression that is often given that the boats are filled with women from Northern Ireland crossing the Irish sea to have an abortion on the mainland. Is he aware that only 0.5 per cent. of the ladies concerned are from the Province and that 99.5 per cent. of women in the Province want nothing to do with abortion and stand with their public representatives in opposing the Bill? The facts should be put before the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley : I appeal to the House to reject the Bill and to let the people of Northern Ireland speak up. Winston Churchill said that one should trust the people.

Column 1155

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : I reinforce the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the position taken by all political parties in the north of Ireland. I know that there will not be time for me to contribute to the debate, but I want to make it clear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) represents the views of all the political parties in the north of Ireland on an issue about which the people there feel very strongly. There can be no doubt that on this occasion all the political parties there, because they understand the seriousness of the proposal, are united in their opposition.

It would be interesting to calculate the number of times since I first entered the House that all the Northern Ireland parties have voted together. The result might astound those who look at us somewhat askance. There can be no doubt that in this case we are united in our opposition to a measure that we think would be bad for Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley : I thank the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh for his helpful intervention. I do not usually give way to him so quickly, but I was delighted to do so on this occasion. I must leave matters there, because my time is up.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I speak in support of new clause 7 and in opposition to Government amendment No. 54. The Abortion Act 1967 was never extended to Northern Ireland. The law governing that issue in Northern Ireland is the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which entirely prohibits abortion with only one exception. The 1861 Act states that any person performing, attempting and or assisting in any abortion

"shall be guilty of a felony and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be kept in penal servitude for life"

--except where an abortion is absolutely necessary to save a woman's life.

That came about because the 1861 Act was amended for Northern Ireland in 1945 as a consequence of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1921. That allows an abortion to be performed in order to save a woman's life, but only after 28 weeks of pregnancy. That anomaly arises because the Infant Life (Preservation) Act deals only with the period after the 28th week of pregnancy and up until after the birth. As the 1861 Act still governs the first seven months of pregnancy, there is no legal provision for abortion in Northern Ireland during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

I refer to two cases reported in the New Statesman of 16 October 1987. The first concerns a girl of 14 whose father made her pregnant. Northern Ireland law did not guarantee her an abortion, but a consultant eventually agreed that her pregnancy should be terminated. As she was already 20 weeks pregnant, she was put on a prostaglandin drip for 48 hours. After initiating that treatment, the consultant went off duty. Some hours later, after the girl's labour had begun, the doctor on night duty removed the drip because he had ethical objections to abortion. On discovering that the following night, a woman doctor restored the drip and the pregnancy was subsequently terminated.

In another case, a woman of 26 who already had four young children found she was 11 weeks pregnant. She had bouts of anxiety and depression and was experiencing difficulties in her marriage. She suffered from a congenital heart defect and a chronic kidney infection. The consultant

Column 1156

to whom she was referred for termination of her pregnancy on those grounds pronounced her fit to continue the pregnancy. As she was unable to afford the the fare to England to have an abortion, she gave birth to an unwanted baby.

6.15 pm

That is a horrifying state of affairs. Right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken against the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland may feel that, if they could become pregnant even in the same circumstances, they would not choose to have an abortion. My objection is to making criminals of the women who do make that choice. Even within the limits recognised as necessary to save a woman's life, it is commonsense that, the earlier an abortion is performed, the less traumatic and life-endangering it is likely to be. In any event, medical judgment in individual cases as to what is the least hazardous point at which to perform an abortion should be of paramount importance. If the law sets parameters that do not allow medical judgments to be freely exercised, it must be defective. Few doctors would perform an abortion after 28 weeks in any case because of the greater risks and the likely effects on the woman's emotional state and mental health-- and because of their own views on the moral aspects. In reality, abortion is extremely rare in Northern Ireland. Any woman there who finds herself pregnant must accept her lot, no matter the problems and difficulties that drove her to consider an abortion in the first place, in the realisation that she was likely to be left to get on with it, often with little or no help.

Alternatively, she can tell lies to all and sundry to explain away her brief disappearance while she goes to Britain and pays for a legal abortion that she may be unable to afford. The current all-in cost is around £300. She would have to do that without any assistance from her family or friends, and in the absence of any medical back-up when she returned home. Finally, she could opt for a back-street abortion, with all attendant risks to her health and life from which women in Great Britain were set free in 1967.

Every year, thousands of women from Northern Ireland come to Great Britain for abortions. In 1988, 1,815 of them attended clinics in England and Wales. Since 1978, more than 20,000 women have come over to England and Wales for abortions, and many more give a false address in Britain. I wonder if right hon. and hon. Members who think that they are speaking for their constituents speak also for those 20,000 women who were forced to come to Britain for an abortion. I will tell the House of the experience of one woman who came to Britain 14 years ago for such an operation. She had always been anti-abortion, but when faced with an abortion in an unhappy marriage that was on the verge of breaking up, she felt that she had no choice. Some right hon. and hon. Members may feel that they would have done otherwise in her circumstances--but most can never experience pregnancy, let alone find themselves in that woman's dilemma. I refuse to regard her as a criminal for making the decision that she did.

That woman has related her experiences in the clinic that she used. Of the 12 women in the ward, only nine were Irish and only one was under 16. Most were middle-aged women who had been caught out by the menopause. She

Column 1157

was one of the few between 20 and 25 years of age that the mythology presents as being the most common group. Only two of the 12 women were unmarried.

It is not as though contraception is freely available in Northern Ireland. Many women, and especially those living outside the urban areas, are reluctant to seek advice on contraception and counselling, particularly from their family doctor. Another consequence of the current law is that there is a virtual absence of screening procedures for identifying conditions such as Down's syndrome or spina bifida, though such tests are easily available in the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is time that the women of Northern Ireland were freed from the burden that has been lifted from women in similar circumstances in Scotland, England and Wales. We should ensure that women receive support and back-up, whatever decision they take. New clause 7 merely asks that the law applying in Great Britain, which recognises the risks to women's health and to life itself, and the other legitimate reasons for abortion that Parliament recognised, should be equally valid and to the point for women in Northern Ireland and should extend to them as well.

Hon. Members have made a point about imposing legislation if all the elected representatives are opposed to it. I must point out that no one will be made to have an abortion who does not want one, and no one will be made to carry out an abortion if they are opposed to doing so. We are simply saying that it is high time that elected Members of Parliament, who are not speaking for women who have sought abortions, recognised the fact that some women in Northern Ireland will want an abortion at some time in their lives, even if they are opposed to it at the moment. Those hon. Members should recognise the freedom of women to do what they want.

Rev. William McCrea : I have listened to the hon. Lady's speech carefully and have noticed that one thing is absent--she has never once mentioned that the child being aborted is a human being. Before she sits down, will she please give some cognisance to the fact that children have some rights? I speak as a father with five children at home.

Mrs. Fyfe : I am sorry that I gave way for the hon. Gentleman to make that point. In the three cases that I mentioned--I do not have time to go into more--I pointed out that, even if hon. Members think that it was morally wrong for those women to have abortions and that it ought to be a criminal offence, I disagree, and I would not make a criminal of a woman in those circumstances.

People on this side of the argument care about unborn children. We reject the idea that we do not care about unborn babies, but we recognise that women in desperate circumstances will make the decision to have an abortion, and we will not criminalise them for it.

Mr. Leigh : I have not yet attempted to take part in the debate, because the divide between the two sides seemed to be so deep and unbridgeable that I felt that any comment I could make would add more heat than light to the argument. However, I hope to try to bridge the divide in a couple of minutes.

As the father of four children, I accept that a woman's life is precious, as is her health, and that the life, the upbringing and education of existing children are also precious.

I respect what I understand to be the motives behind the Abortion Act 1967, which was introduced by the right

Column 1158

hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes in the sanctity of the unborn human life, but he wants to balance the sanctity of that life with the many other pressures--which hon. Members who have a family recognise--that are placed upon women.

As I understand it, the 1967 Act was based on the notion of balance. The right hon. Gentleman did not introduce the Act in the spirit that abortion could become a convenient form of birth control. I am sure that that was not his intention, and I think that he said so at the time.

Some hon. Members may regret the way that the Act has been interpreted, the way that things have developed and the number of abortions which have taken place. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not introduce abortion on demand. As far as he was concerned, he was introducing a balance.

I am fearful that, if the new clause is passed tonight, the wrong signals will be sent from the House. I fear that there is a malaise in our society, and I applaud the Government's efforts to insist that fatherhood, as well as motherhood, is a lifetime commitment. We cannot walk away from the consequences of our actions. We cannot think of an unborn child as a mere object. In a real sense it is a sacred object. Therefore, with all the passion that I can muster, I urge hon. Members not to give a wrong signal, and not to pass a provision which would be seen outside the House as allowing abortion on demand. That simple, straightforward moral issue cuts through the debate and is more important than arguments about delay.

Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking) : I shall delay the House for only two or three minutes to explain the purpose of new clause 5. Its general theme is the reduction of late abortions. New clause 5, in a different way from new clauses 1 and 6, is intended as a positive means of avoiding unnecessary delay for any woman seeking advice about abortion because it places a duty--as those hon. Members who have read it will realise--on the general practitioner to state in a public register that he or she has a conscientious objection to abortion. The new clause would enable a woman to ensure that she did not suffer unnecessary delay by consulting a doctor who was unwilling to help her.

The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said that he thought that a general practitioner would say, "I'm sorry, I am not willing to do it, but I will refer you to someone else." That would be fine if it worked, but it happens in some cases and not in others. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have come across cases where a woman has gone from one doctor to another, and that is what we want to avoid.

In 1987, the consultant gynaecologist for Hexham told a Life conference that it was impossible--or almost impossible--to get a national health service abortion in Hexham. I wonder how late in pregnancy women in Hexham end up having abortions.

An interesting point for the House to consider is that, in February 1989, the Government published a background document called, "General Practice in the National Health Service--A New Contract". While there is much in that paper, and in the general thrust of the Government's plans for the national health service, with which Opposition Members do not agree, we all agree with the intention behind the statement :

Next Section

Home Page