My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and I rather agree with the points that she has just made.
But the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, also knows that I have considerable admiration for her, especially over issues around the stand she took about cuts to our overseas aid programmes; we have the privilege of serving together on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that deals with international relations and defence. But she will not be surprised to know that I find myself in disagreement with her and I urge your Lordships to think seriously about Amendment 183.
I will give the House two reasons for this, if I may. One is procedural and the other is more substantive. I suppose on the substantive point, I will cite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has done, some of the contradictory evidence that we have before us. Your Lordships may not be able to work out whether you believe one side of the argument or the other, and that brings me straight to the point about procedure.
Here we are at almost midnight.
This issue has never been debated at any stage in another place in the elected House. Rather like Amendment 170 on Assisted Dying that we discussed earlier, we have to consider how we resolve sensitive and controversial ethical issues of this kind.
There was no consideration of this question in the elected House, and it has come to us tonight without being considered in Committee and at the fag end of Report stage. Surely all of us can agree, wherever we come from on the more substantive point, that this is not the way to go about parliamentary business.
We should bear in mind that since 1967, when the original legislation was passed in another place and then approved here, there have been 10 million abortions, which is around 200,000 every single year.
Put another way, there is one abortion every three minutes.
You do not have to come from the position that I think noble Lords will be aware that I come from, of believing in the sanctity of every human life, to think that this cannot be right.
Indeed, my good friend Lord Steel, who was the mover of the original legislation, has often said that he never intended abortion to be as widespread or repeated as often as it has become.
This all points to the question of procedure.
Should there not be a joint committee of both Houses to consider this extraordinarily complex ethical question? Should we not at least have a Select Committee that considers these matters? Should there not be pre-legislative scrutiny before a Bill or an amendment of this kind comes before Parliament?
It is passing strange that since 1967, no Select Committee of either House has looked at this legislation, the original Abortion Act 1967.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who always makes valuable contributions to your Lordships’ House, that we are changing the law. That is why this amendment is before your Lordships’ House this evening. We would not need the amendment if we were not changing the law.
I also ask those who have rightly emphasised the importance of conscience, and particularly some of my friends and noble lords on the Lib Dem Benches, why this is not a conscience vote. Why is there a Whip on an issue of this kind?
Noble Lords
It is!
I am glad to hear that, because I was sent a document earlier on saying that there would be a Whip and that people should vote “Content” for this amendment.
Noble Lords
No.
If that is so, I am glad to hear it. Noble Lords will know that, for me, this issue led to my leaving the Liberal Democrats when it became a party policy, so I would love to hear clarity on that question as the evening goes by. I passionately believe that this should be a conscience question for every Member but also at every vote. This should never be a party policy; people should be free to make up their own minds on a serious ethical issue—one of such magnitude and order that it should not be dealt with in such a perfunctory manner.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who said that this
“was always intended to be a temporary measure.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1820.]
In February, in announcing its end, the Government gave the results of a public consultation. Some 70% of those who responded said that it should end immediately. The consultation highlighted increasing safeguarding risks and “concerns about coercion”.
Reinforcing that point, last weekend, BBC “Newsbeat” reported that 15% of women in a Savanta ComRes survey said that they had experienced pressure to terminate a pregnancy. Some women reported being given substances to cause an abortion without their consent.
I would be very happy to share with the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, some of the contradictory evidence from GPs and doctors.
She cited the RCOG and others, but I point out that, again in that ComRes poll, 86% of GPs surveyed across the UK were concerned about women having a medical abortion past the legal limit of 10 weeks gestation. Concern was highest among female doctors, at 91%.
Six in seven GPs were concerned that the policy could see more women being coerced into abortion.
Some 86% were concerned that women were at risk of being coerced into an abortion by a family member or partner, and 87% were concerned that women were at risk of unwanted abortion arising from domestic abuse by partners controlling or monitoring their actions.
Some 94% agreed that staff at abortion providers need to ensure that they are collecting correct medical and personal information to certify a woman for a home abortion, and that it is important that checks are put in place to ensure that women being certified for abortion meet legal criteria.
So, there is contradictory evidence, and surely that should be properly evaluated before we proceed in further liberalising our abortion laws.
A study released in November 2021 suggested that more than 10,000 women had to receive hospital treatment following the use of medical abortion pills in England between April 2020 and September 2021. Previous polling showed that 92% of women in Britain agreed that a woman receiving an abortion should always be seen by a qualified doctor. There are many statements from women that, again, I could provide to the noble Baroness, should she wish to see them.
12.00am
The hour is late, so I will conclude. An email from a regional chief midwife described how women had to attend emergency departments for a range of incidents, including
“significant pain and bleeding related to the process through to ruptured ectopics”,
and
“major resuscitation for major haemorrhage”,
and incidents involving the delivery of infants who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, told us, were up to 30 weeks’ gestation.
The evidence suggests that official statistics appear to significantly underestimate the complications and risks.
The Minister will have seen that 600 medical practitioners have signed a letter highlighting concerns and calling for the cessation of the temporary measure.
This is worthy of proper scrutiny and consideration. It involves the safety of women, but it also involves the taking of a new life. Science teaches us that life begins at conception. Surely, we should give this proper and due consideration before passing this into law.
