New Clause 8 (Hansard, 8 February 1980)

§ Miss Jo Richardson (Barking)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause has two objectives. The first is to allow abortion during the first six weeks of pregnancy, irrespective of grounds. Many hon. Members will immediately suggest that that is abortion on demand, but I beg them to listen to my remarks.
The clause provides that only one doctor need be involved and his opinion required only as to the six-week limit. That is not even abortion on request. The doctor will be under no compulsion to examine the patient or carry out the abortion. It will enable a woman, one hopes having discussed the matter with her partner and family, legally to ask for an abortion in the first six weeks of pregnancy, without the constraints in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is difficult, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make myself heard.

§ Dr. Glyn
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may not agree with the hon. Lady's views, but I should like to hear them. It is almost impossible to do so.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is most discour- 980 teous of hon. Members not to remain silent when the hon. Lady is addressing the House.

§ Miss Richardson
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The limit of six weeks is chosen specifically because it is a period within which it is possible to abort by menstrual extraction. That is the simplest, safest and medically most desirable method.
It would put beyond doubt the legality of "speculative" abortion—the use of intra-uterine devices, various pills and so on. The House should remember that, generally speaking, our present abortion law dates back to the nineteenth century and is hopelessly out of date. I do not know whether such problems were discussed 100 years ago, but had they been there would have been no knowledge about the kind of contraception that we accept as part of the normal routine of life today.
The abortion law is antiquated and we need a measure that will allow the new pills and devices that will appear in the next decade to be free of possible prosecutions through doubtful legality. The practice of new techniques is widespread and I believe that it is ethical. Newer techniques are on the way. I heard only the other day from a doctor that it will not be long before a woman can take a pill as a means of abortion. I do not fully understand such techniques, but they are being developed. Nothing we can say will prevent such developments in the medical science of contraception.
The Bill is restrictive, but we should be sensible and consider the problems that may arise if women are not allowed a choice during that safe early period of six weeks. We should not be swayed by emotional comments about abortion on demand but consider the practicalities and the need to update the law.
Judging from the newspapers and letters that we receive, it seems that over half the population in the last few months has been considering the question of abortion because the Bill has been before the House. We all know of people—and some of us may have personal experience—who have had problems over mistaken pregnancy. In Committee I mentioned one such case. Under the system that I am proposing, a life might have been saved.
981 Three or four years ago, Mrs, Susan Bradbury, who had serious health problems, gave birth to a child who was badly deformed and who died after a few days. The couple decided that they would have no more children and Mrs. Bradbury started to take the pill. Through no fault of either of them, Mrs. Bradbury became pregnant early last year. She had a bad heart, narrow arteries, only one kidney and other difficulties, and when Mrs. Bradbury was only four or five weeks pregnant they decided that she should seek an abortion. She was referred to the Wythenshawe hospital by her general practitioner and was kept there for several days for tests. Her husband has shown me her diary. She had the strong impression that the staff in that unit were unsympathetic to abortion.
She was examined by the consultant gynaecologist, because she was asking for an abortion on health grounds. His view was that her health was good enough for her to have the baby, which overruled her view. To be fair, he told her to go away and think about it, and, if she was having further health difficulties, to come back again. However, it was his view that she was perfectly able to have a child in the normal way and would not suffer.
The couple wanted a child and only decided that Mrs. Bradbury should take the pill because of her health. They felt that the consultant gynaecologist must know what he was talking about. She went to term, and died giving birth to the child. She died because she was not allowed to have an abortion. Had we had a provision such as in this clause, Mrs. Bradbury, having consulted her husband, would have been able to obtain an abortion. I am sure that a doctor would have agreed that, with her family and health circumstances, she should do so.
I quote that one case but I dare say that there are hundreds more, perhaps thousands over many years, in which people who might have had an abortion were prevented from doing so because of the narrowness of the law. I hope that the House will think seriously about this matter and will use the opportunity of the Bill, which, although restrictive in some parts, could be used to introduce a little progress. Progress is on us in terms of increased facilities for contra- 982 ception, but it has not been properly legalised under the Abortion Act 1967.

§ Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)
I listened most carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I silently cheered when she recommended that no emotional arguments should be used and that we should examine only the practicalities of the matter. She then went on with a highly emotional argument about a poor lady who had all sorts of health problems and who died because she accepted the gynaecologist's belief that she could have a child safely. The hon. Lady then went on to say that she had no doubt that there must be hundreds or even thousands of women in similar circumstances. I should be astonished if there were even 100 cases of death in childbirth in the last year, let alone 1,000 in the years since the Act began to operate.
I shall take the hon. Lady's advice and suggest to the House that we look at this new clause in a totally practical way. Let us examine its meaning. It advocates that very early terminations should be carried out, not by a doctor only. It says: terminated by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner". The new clause says, in effect, that very early abortions should be permitted to be carried out by persons who are not doctors. The phrase under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner could mean that the doctor would not only not be looking on but that he might not even be in the house. He could be upstairs watching television. In fact, a young student doctor of my acquaintance was recently doing clinics "under medical supervision" and the supervisor in question was at a different hospital at the time. It is well known and understood that under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner is a well-used phrase which certainly does not mean that a doctor should be looking on. I beg the House to appreciate exactly what the new clause would mean in practice.
I showed this new clause to a medical doctor, who read it very carefully and 983 then exclaimed that it was a proposal for legalising back-street abortions because no doctor need be in attendance. I should have thought that that would be unacceptable to the House. We have heard many things about back-street abortions, a phrase often used in a very emotional way, but here we have a proposal for legalising such abortions.
The new clause wants the pregnancy terminated if it has not lasted for more than six weeks. But a woman would not even know she was pregnant under six weeks. She might suspect that she was, but she would not know. That is absolute medical fact. She could not even get a reliable pregnancy test at that time because any reputable doctor would say that there was no point in taking a pregnancy test until at least 15 days after the last missed period. Thus, if the new clause were agreed to no one could be sure whether the woman was even pregnant. Some women would be, but others would not. It is extraordinary to advocate an operation which might not be necessary.
In either case—whether a woman was pregnant or not—the operation would be what is medically termed a menstrual extraction. Again, we must look at the wording of the new clause and appreciate that what we are discussing is the possibility of a menstrual extraction being done not by a doctor and not even by a registered nurse. The new clause says nothing about the operator having any medical qualifications. This leads us to the unhappy truth that the girl on the table could not even have an anaesthetic because, by law, before an anaesthetic can be administered, a doctor must be present.
I am assured that a menstrual extraction is a very painful operation, and without an anaesthetic it would hurt a girl greatly. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has appeciated that fact. I have checked these facts medically and I assure the House that they are absolutely true. The new clause suggests that in many cases there would be no possibility of a girl having an anaesthetic, yet the operation could be very painful. I am also assured that it is particularly painful when the patient is not pregnant.
Apart from these medical facts, there are ethical objections to the new clause. 984 Again and again, when the 1967 Act was going through the House, we were told that it would not lead to abortion on demand. Many hon. Members voted for it on that assumption and because they believed that promise was true.

§ Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green)
Before the hon. Lady moves to the question of abortion on demand, I urge her to reflect on the terms of the new clause, which make it quite clear that a pregnancy would be terminated by or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner. As I understand those words, there is no suggestion whatsoever that a doctor would not be present at the termination of pregnancy.

§ Mrs. Knight
I regret that the hon. Member has not been listening to what I have been saying. The term under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner. does not mean that the operation is done under the eye of a doctor. The hon. Member has been duped if he believes that that is so. As I explained, the term means that the doctor does not have to be present and that he need not even be in the house. The term is often used when a student who is "under medical supervision" is operating with no doctor there at all. If hon. Members do not understand this, I can only ask them to check the facts. I assure the House that these are the facts in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."]

§ Dr. Glyn
Will my hon. Friend accept that "under the supervision of" does not mean that the D and C is performed by the doctor? It may well be that in a recognised hospital a student does it under the supervision of a doctor; but that is not what the new clause says.

§ Mrs. Knight
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. As I read the new clause, the abortion does not even have to be carried out in premises registered for the operation. I beg the House to appreciate exactly what it is being asked to do.
I must return to the question of ethical objections and remind the House that the 1967 Act was passed only because hon. Members believed that it would not lead to abortion on demand. A great deal was said at that time, and if one looks at 985 the records one sees that there is no question but that that was so. Here is a suggestion that, as the hon. Lady has admitted, would mean abortion on demand.

§ Miss Richardson
I specifically said the opposite. I said that it was not even on request, because the doctor had the right to refuse it. A woman could say "I demand or request it, and you must do it." That is not what the clause says.

§ Mrs. Knight
The hon. Lady is very nave or very ignorant of the way in which the 1967 Act has been operated. She and I may disagree on how it has been operated, but even the BMA has made it clear that it agrees that at present abortion is carried out virtually on request. If the clause went through, there would be no doubt, because a woman would believe that the law had given her a right to have an abortion under six weeks.
The House does not agree that abortion is a simple, easy operation which has no connotations. It is a matter of great seriousness and an act for which there must be a good reason.

§ Mr. Cohen
Is it not true that in their evidence to the Select Committee the BMA and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists admitted that, arising from the 1967 Act, abortion on demand was effective and operative, and that they were concerned about this?

§ Mrs. Knight
Indeed, and there have been many on the pro-abortion side of the argument who have acknowledged that quite openly. The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and I should have thought that the matter needed no further argument.

§ Dr. M. S. Miller
rose—

§ Mrs. Knight
I have given away enough, and I must get on.
Abortion is not a simple, no-account matter. [Interruption.] It is a serious matter and should not be carried out without a serious reason. The clause rejects that view and goes four-square for abortion being used merely as an alternative to contraception. [Interruption.] I cannot accept that, because it is im- 986 mensely important for women to take responsibility for what they do and to take measures not to become pregnant, rather than to have this let-out, which is clearly a sort of abortion to be used instead of contraception. [HON. MEMBERS "Rubbish."]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but sedentary interruptions are very unfair when they are continual. I know that there is a great deal of emotion about this subject, but hon. Members must restrain themselves.

§ Mrs. Knight
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to make a very short speech. I have given way a number of times, and I am anxious to conclude, so that other hon. Members may speak.
I suggest that the House should reject the clause, first, because it would undoubtedly lead to early abortion on demand or on request. It would be used as a method of contraception, and it is wrong that abortion should ever be used in that way.
Secondly, the operation would frequently be carried out by totally unqualified persons. That, too, is something that the House should not accept.
Thirdly, there would frequently be no anaesthetic available for women facing this extremely painful procedure
12.45 pm
Fourthly, the operation would not even always be necessary, because not all the women concerned would be pregnant, and certainly none would be sure that they were. There are also possibilities that the operation could be harmful to the woman. I regard the present abortion procedure as seriously deficient, in that a woman is never warned of the possibilities of danger—not in all cases, but they exist—and she has a right to be warned. Certainly, such a procedure as we are now considering could be harmful.
Fifthly, if it is suggested that if the clause were passed the operation should be done within the National Health Service, the House should consider whether that might not be a gross waste of public money, particularly when the woman would not even know whether she was pregnant.
For all these reasons, I recommend the House to reject the clause.

§ Dr. M. S. Miller
I recommend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to stick to subjects that she knows a little about and is good at. She is a very good singer; I have heard her sing.
At six weeks, an abortion is a simple, safe and easy matter. Whether one has a moral objection to it is another story, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is simple, safe and easy. I do not know where she picked up her little titbits of medical information, but certainly she did not go the same university as I did.
I am glad, however, that the hon. Lady is against back-street abortions. We shall listen with care to what she says later, if the Bill gets on to the statute book, when back-street abortions flourish as they did before.
The hon. Lady made heavy weather of her medical information. I assure her that it is not extremely difficult—or impossible, as she said—to detect pregnancy as early as six weeks. There is a cervical thickening that can be felt, and with the knowledge of the missed period it is by no means impossible for a reasonably qualified physician to have a good idea whether a girl is pregnant.
Those who are opposed to abortion keep speaking about its being available on demand. They cannot have it both ways. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) talks about doctors flouting the law. If they are flouting the law, that means that there is no abortion on demand, because if they were not flouting the law that would be abortion on demand. Therefore, there must be no abortion on demand.
In any case, I know many doctors who would undoubtedly have no compunction whatsoever in denying any woman's request to have an abortion.

§ Miss Richardson
And do.

§ Dr. Miller
However, I am not entirely in favour of the clause as it stands.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will not take issue with me. I know her objectives. Early abortions should be the aim, because they are safe and simple. In any case, most abortions are done very early in this country. In some countries there is abortion on request, not up to six 988 weeks but up to 12 weeks. I think of countries not very far from here. However, that is another matter. It is not what we are discussing.
One of the two reasons that I shall give for not being in favour of the clause is that I think that it is badly framed. It should be made quite clear that there should be not simply the supervision but the presence of a doctor. If my hon. Friend takes that as a criticism, may I tell her that it is a criticism not of her idea but of how the clause is worded. Also, there should be a second opinion. After all, it is not all that difficult. Two doctors should be involved
Whether my hon. Friends like it or not, there will be a strong accusation that the clause will lead to abortion on demand. We should cut away the frills and get down to the real argument. Is abortion morally defensible? I believe that it is defensible in certain circumstances. The 1967 Act sets out the circumstances as well as any Act of Parliament can do.
The idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is good, because very soon—in development terms "very soon" could mean two or three years—there will be what is known as a morning-after pill. An abortifacient is already in use. The coil is not a contraceptive. The intra-uterine device does not prevent conception. When conception takes place, the coil acts as an irritant and the contents of the uterus are evacuated. If any woman using a coil imagines that she is using a contraceptive, and therefore is not morally obliged to stop using it, she should realise that it will cause an abortion if she becomes pregnant. Shortly there will be a morning-after pill, and although it is probable that many women will take the pill and not worry about whether they are causing an abortion, it should be specified that they are not breaking the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said that we cannot legislate for future occurrences. Since we do not yet have the morning-after pill, I do not think it is right that we should legislate, but we should examine the situation from time to time. While I agree with the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, I do not agree with the way in which the clause is worded, and, therefore, I cannot accept it.

§ Dr. Glyn
The hon. Gentleman is correct in many ways. I am opposed to the clause because of the way in which it is drafted. It does not ensure that a qualified person will carry out an operation. There is no moral principle, but there is a practical principle of danger to a patient. An unqualified person could easily carry out the operation and cause intense peritonitis and so on. I do not believe that the provisions in the clause would provide the patient with adequate security. The abortion could be carried out in any back street, without the personal supervision, or the personal action, of the doctor concerned. Purely for medical reasons, I believe that the clause does not contain a practical proposition.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
I am interested in the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the House will seriously consider this new clause. It is intended to force the House to talk about the problem of early pregnancies.
Some hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They talk emotively about cases, which form a small number of late abortions, to argue against the Abortion Act 1967. At the same time, they are not prepared to support the provision of proper NHS facilities for early abortions or the extension of early day-care terminations, which would enable us to dispose of many of the difficulties that arise with late abortions. There is a very small percentage of late abortions. The new clause is specifically designed to ask the House to consider the implications of early day-care terminations.
I understand the points made by medically qualified hon. Members about the hazards that occur when medical terminations are not properly supervised. It has been my experience that other operations, which are said to be supervised, are not necessarily carried out by a specific consultant or registrar. In some instances they are carried out by students. We must be careful before we suggest that the law should be tightened only in the case of abortion.
It is obvious, however, that as new forms of contraception are developed—it is happening every day—and as they become more widely used, the medical practitioner will find himself more and more at risk. The 1967 Act 990 cleared up the legal position of the medical profession.
The bulk of medical theory is strongly in favour of day-care facilities under the NHS, but if there is always to be a grey area of the law where the medical profession is not clear about its position it will eternally wonder whether the House has produced workable laws. We are not here to produce legislation that is unworkable. We are here to produce sufficient protection for the medical profession when it is carrying out services which are needed by the majority of the population.
We should remember that in the majority of cases women are not receiving abortion on demand, which is the argument that is always used, but it is not so. The figures prove time and again that in certain parts of the country there is virtually no abortion on demand. One reason for the growth in the charitable sector is that certain areas are staffed by doctors who have strong personal feelings about abortion—feelings to which they are entitled—that result in women in those areas having no choice. The doctors have a choice, but the patients do not.

§ Dr. M. S. Miller
Is the hon. Lady aware that medical politics also apply? There are instances of anti-abortion professors making sure that junior doctors are not promoted if they carry out an abortion.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). I trust that the House will remember that when discussing the conscience clauses. We hear a great deal about the nurses who are terrified of making known their views, but we rarely hear of the reverse side of the coin.

§ Mrs. Knight
Doctors are entitled to interpret the law as they see it. When the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dun-woody) is thinking about the point made by her hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), she should remember the committee report which made it clear that young doctors who do not wish to perform abortions are sometimes refused jobs. That is also wrong.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody
Four members of my immediate family are in the medical profession. One is a medical student coming to the end of his training. In all professions, many forms of moral blackmail are exercised against young people. I dispute that there is only one side to the argument. Few nurses and doctors are afraid to object to abortion because that may damage their careers. They are vociferous when it suits them. There are two sides to the problem.
I am anxious because in certain areas women looking for abortions but who do not have the necessary money have to go outside the National Health Service. I should like them to have easily available early day-care facilities. That would mean less risk to the mother. It is common to talk about the risks of abortion to the mother, but there are also risks to the mother involved in live childbirth. That is not often discussed by those who seek to abolish all forms of abortion.
By all means, let us discuss whether the Bill is worded strongly enough. Let us also address ourselves to why there are insufficient day-care centres and insufficient opportunities for early abortions. We should be prepared to examine the law in order to protect those doctors who are faced with problems as new forms of contraceptive are developed. I ask the House not to reject the new clause out of hand, because it has much to commend it.

§ Dr. Roger Thomas (Carmarthen)
I do not wish to turn this into a debate on foetal physiology. However, a substantial amount of time could have been saved had we had the advice of an expert embryologist about the changes in the foetus between 20 and 28 weeks. We are discussing early foetal physiology. It is possible to detect pregnancy within three weeks of implantation. It is easy to detect a pregnancy well before a woman is six weeks pregnant. I do not wish to let the House in on the tricks of the trade of gynaecologists. They had tricks of the trade long before 1967 and they have them now in 1980.
If a lady decides, after an early pregnancy test, to visit a gynaecologist, she will be offered one of two ways of terminating that pregnancy, if the gynaecologist decides to terminate it. One way will be illegal and the other legal. If the 992 gynaecologist decides to place a small amount of local anaesthetic around the cervix, he will be able to use suction to take away the product of pregnancy. That is called abortion on demand. Sometimes it is called lunchtime abortion, after which an office girl can return to her routine work. If the gynaecologist decides to insert an intra-uterine device, that is illegal but will result in the same end. It is high time that we cleared up that situation. The National Health Service would do well to spend money on setting up day-care clinics which can be supervised.
I am unhappy about the phrase or under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner". The words "in the presence of" would be better. The technique of locally infiltrating the neck of the cervix involves a tiny technical operation and requires considerable expertise. The removal of the product of conception by suction does not require the expertise that is needed for the application of an anaesthetic which makes the operation acceptable to the woman.
The oral contraceptive pill is going through a bad time. I recently attended a symposiumm on birth control. The whole tenor of that symposium was pessimistic. The pill was introduced 20 years ago. The mini-pill was developed and everybody thought that we had conquered the problem of contraception. The pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. More and more women of child-bearing age are being told that they must not take the pill. Thousands of women have come off the combined pill in the last year because they are over 35 years of age. Women who are over a certain age and smoke more than a given number of cigarettes are told that they should come off the pill. Women who are a certain percentage overweight are told that they should come off the pill, as are women with thrombotic complications. What will replace the pill? It is proposed to replace it with an intra-uterine device, although the insertion of such a device can be illegal.

§ Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)
I am unhappy about the new clause for two reasons. The first reason has been dealt with adequately by hon. Members from both sides who have 993 medical experience. I refer to the word "supervision". I agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) that the word "presence" is more appropriate, if we are to consider the proposal at all.
I am unhappy about the new clause for a second reason, which has not yet been ventilated. There may be no difficulty in determining that a woman is pregnant within four to six weeks, but the availability of abortion within six weeks does not allow ample time for consultation with advisers or the family. If abortion is available at six weeks, does that allow sufficient time for the woman to evaluate the effects of an abortion?
I have no medical experience, but I have had considerable experience in counselling, including counselling people with great psychological difficulties, following experiences such as an abortion. We must afford a great deal longer than one or, at the most, two weeks for a person to evaluate the psychological consequences of undertaking an abortion. We should avail the person of more time to consult not only medical practitioners and their families but, where it applies, their religious advisers. On a significant number of occasions, those who have had abortions have to grapple later with serious guilt complexes which result in all kinds of major traumas. A two-week period, at the most, is not a sufficiently lengthy period of time for the important pursuit of consultation with medical, spiritual and family advisers.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)
Before the debate on this new clause I was genuinely a floating voter. I wanted to hear what was said about the new clause and to make up my mind on the basis of that. I have heard medical opinion expressed on both sides of the argument. On the arguments so far, it seems to me that, while what we may do in the future is something that future Parliaments can consider, it would be better to recognise the state of public opinion, as it exists today, by preserving the safeguards and limitations that are contained in the law as it stands. It is possible that, within a short time, the advances that have been spoken about will be such that it would be proper to go beyond the law as it now stands. I do not think that the public are ready for that yet.
994 It was interesting that, during the last debate, those opposing the view I take on the question of time—the 24-week period—and who wish to make the period shorter were arguing on the basis of what advances may occur in the future and those who support this new clause are arguing equally on the basis of advances that may take place in the future. I believe that it is better, in both cases, to leave the future to take care of itself and to deal with it then.
Subsection (2) of the new clause has hardly been referred to. It seems to me, however, a matter of great importance. I can, perhaps, refer to it now in view of the fact that new clause 7—this is in no sense a criticism—has not been selected. That new clause raises the point directly in relation to the Abortion Act as a whole. The same point is raised in relation to this proposed new clause by subsection (2) as would have been raised, had we been debating it, in relation to the principal Act as a whole, by new clause 7.
A year or two ago, there was a good deal of public discussion on the question whether an abortion, otherwise fully within the limitations of the Abortion Act, would none the less be illegal if it turned out, perhaps to the surprise of everyone, that the woman was not pregnant.
1.15 pm
It is highly surprising that such a result could even be conceivable. When asked to advise about the matter, I advised that it was most unlikely that a court in those circumstances would ever convict. None the less, there is a real doubt about the language of the statute. It arises in this way. Under the law relating to abortion before the 1967 Act, an abortion was rightly made illegal even if it turned out, or even if it was known to the person performing it, that the woman was not pregnant. The purpose of the law was to prevent back-street operations. It therefore made no difference whether the woman was pregnant or not.
In the 1967 Act, we used the term when a pregnancy is terminated". On the literal meaning of those words, there must be a pregnancy to be terminated. If, therefore, it turns out that there is not a pregnancy—if those who thought there was a pregnancy were wrong—then, literally speaking, it may be said, and so it was argued, that the protection given 995 by the 1967 Act does not apply, and that if it did not apply, it would not apply not merely to the doctors but to everyone—the nurses and so on—who, however unwittingly, took part in the operation. That was clearly a situation that could not be contemplated.
I found it difficult to believe, and expressed my view accordingly, that a court would convict in those circumstances. But other views existed. Professor Glanville Williams expressed a strong view similar to mine. The purpose of subsection (2) of the new clause is to remove that uncertainty. If this new clause is not passed—indeed, whether it is passed or not—uncertainty will still remain in relation to the Abortion Act as a whole. If it is not passed, it remains even more uncertain. We shall not know whether it was not passed because of subsection (1) or (2), or both. We are not likely to have an opportunity in this House of declaring the law so as to put that doubt aside.
I am glad to see the Attorney-General in the House. I am sure that he will read what I have said in Hansardtomorrow even if he does not hear it at the moment. I suggest to him that if the matter cannot be dealt with in this House, it should be dealt with in another place so that this particular doubt, however ephemeral, can be set at rest once and for all.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) with a view to determining what was the mischief that she sought to have remedied by new clause 8. I was greatly puzzled by her example of how the new clause might operate. She drew on the experience of the sad couple in Wythenshawe. That case, it seems to me, would not be helped by the passage of the new clause. If I understood her aright, the couple concerned wanted to have a child and acted on the advice of a gynaecologist that they could do so without risk. That advice subsequently proved to be wrong.
But new clause 8 would make no difference. It would not lead to the offering of different advice in those circumstances. If that is the only evil to be eradicated by the new clause, I cannot see a case for it. The difficulty is related to much more fundamental questions. The House has 996 heard about the constantly changing medical situation. We are in difficulties if we try to introduce terms, during which it is permissible to do certain things and beyond which it is not permissible, which are based upon an understanding of what at any point is the development of medical science. We face this problem most acutely in respect of the 24-week period.
I fear that we shall be placed in similar difficulties over this six-week period. As medical science developed, so that period in itself might seem inappropriate even for my hon. Friend's purposes and some further amendment of the law might be sought. We should not seek to amend the law in this way until there is a clear and settled medical opinion in support of my hon. Friend's case. She did not produce overwhelming evidence that medical opinion was so clear and settled. One must, therefore, wait upon the development of medical opinion and knowledge.
A further point has not been touched on in this short debate. If we introduce a period during which no criteria are required against which the doctor must act, we may put pressure on those who have pregnancies, which may not have arisen deliberately, to decide whether to go ahead and in that short period to make a decision which they may afterwards rue. That would be highly undesirable, because the capacity to become pregnant on one occasion does not necessarily mean that parents will be able to have a child in the future.
The new clause would put highly undesirable pressure on pregnant women. It would also be difficult for doctors to administer if they felt that a woman was seeking a medical termination in a state of mind which they did not consider settled. In that case, of course, as my hon. Friend said, they are not obliged to terminate a pregnancy, but it is a difficult situation for them.
For those separate reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause.

§ Mrs. Renée Short
As one who has had experience of discussing this law, both before the 1967 Act and since, with the several attempts to amend it, I am amazed that, after 14 years, the same old jejune and shopworn arguments are brought out as we have heard from the 997 hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and others.
We are told that abortion on demand exists. That is meant to be a blanket objection to the working of the Abortion Act. Yet hard evidence is never presented. We have not heard a word from the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bute and North Arshire (Mr. Corrie), who has been here since 9.30 this morning and who appears now to be engaged in conversation. I can wait.
I was just saying that we have not heard a word from the sponsor of the Bill on any amendment that has been suggested so far. I wonder whether he has a view about any of the amendments suggested to his Bill. If so, the House is entitled to hear it. We need his help and guidance, do we not? We want to hear from the sponsor his views on the amendments moved so far. Otherwise, it is difficult for us to reach a view on them.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston wants it both ways. She attacks what she calls abortion on demand, those who carry out late abortions and women who present for late abortions. But this new clause would remove the need for late abortion and would encourage women to seek help as early as possible in pregnancy, so that the difficulties, the feeling of guilt, which have been referred to could be overcome.
Incidentally, men always think that women have feelings of guilt, but women have a different view. Women are the ones who become pregnant and they are the ones who seek relief if they do not want the pregnancy to continue. A large number of women become pregnant after the use of contraceptive methods, either by themselves or by their partners. This talk of guilt is a confused and particularly male view of the situation. Women take a different view.
It is amazing that the House should be debating yet another attempt to amend the 1967 Act without ever having discussed the Lane report—which I pressed on my own Front Bench many times. It is incredible that there should be one amendment Bill after another, yet the House has never considered the recommendations of the Lane committee, which was set up to investigate the working of the Abortion Act, including the alleged abuses.
998 The Lane report laid practically all those accusations, yet the House has never debated it, so hon. Members generally do not know what its recommendations were.

§ Mr. John Corrie (Bute and North Ayrshire)
rose—

§ Mrs. Short
Hooray—it worked.

§ Mr. Corrie
The hon. Lady has managed to stir me to my feet.
That is exactly why I have given the House the Bill—so that it can make up its mind. I do not think that any of the other Bills got any further than Committee. At long last, after about 12 years, hon. Members are being given the opportunity to discuss such a Bill. Whatever happens at the end, whether the Bill stands or falls, at least people outside will know that the House has decided exactly how it should go.

§ Mrs. Short
That is the lamest excuse I have ever heard from any hon. Member who has introduced a Bill of this kind. If the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire had read the conclusions of the Lane Committees he would have found that the committee decided that the abortion Act was working very well by and large. The Lane committee did not propose any changes or amendments to the Act. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework.
Since the Lane committee reported, we have had the Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which specifically dealt with the question of early abortions. The Royal Commission recommended that at least 75 per cent. of terminations of pregnancies should be carried out on the National Health Service. The Commission also pointed out the need for day-care abortions and specifically said that if more day-care abortions were carried out on the National Health Service the cost of carrying out abortions overall could be reduced.

§ Mr. Corrie
May I point out that every Bill that has been brought forward has had a majority on Second Reading in this House.

§ Mrs. Short
I am not sure what that is intended to prove. It rather proves my case, which is that hon. Members were 999 not particularly well informed about how the Act was working.

§ Mr. Maclennan
rose—

§ Mrs. Short
Otherwise, if we discount the Lane committee, the Royal Commission report and, I was going on to mention, a Select Committee of this House—

§ Mrs. Short
I see that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) cannot sit in his seat. I refer him to another Select Committee—a rather more reputable Select Committee—of this House than the one that he is pleased to quote all the time. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

§ Sir Bernard Braine
I cannot resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short). She has made great play of the fact that the Lane committee report was not debated in this House. She is correct. It was not debated as such, but the committee's views were taken fully into account by the Select Committee. The views of the Lane committee were also taken fully into account by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) when he introduced his Bill, and the committee's views were taken fully into account by me when I spoke earlier today. The Lane committee made it absolutely plain that abortion on demand was not the law of the land, nor should it ever be.

§ Mrs. Short
The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I began to speak. I think that I dealt with the point that he has raised when I said that we did not have abortion on demand.

§ Mr. Maclennan
rose—

§ Mrs. Short
I opened my remarks by saying that I found it depressing that, in all the years that I have been in the House and involved in debates on this subject and several attempts to amend the Act, the same old mythology is constantly brought up. What the hon. Gentleman to bring forward any evidence. He may say that he had regard to the views of says is not true and he is quite unable the Lane committee, but he successfully 1000 ignored them. Those views have not borne in on him at all. He has not changed his views. They are the same as they were 14 years ago.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I was rising in support of my hon. Friend's general point and hoping that she would not allow to go unchallenged the remarks of the sponsor about the significance to be drawn from the fact that the majority of this House had on several occasions voted in support of a Second Reading. Many of us supported the Second Reading of the Bill precisely because we took the view that the issue was an important one which concerned the public and ought to be fully considered and debated, with line-by-line consideration being given to many of these matters. But that did not imply in any sense the suggestion, which I deeply resent, that one is happy about the Bill, either as originally drafted or as it has come back out of Committee.

§ Mrs. Short
I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point, because this is an entirely different Bill from the one on which the House voted on Second Reading.
When I gave way to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East I was about to go on to say that there has been another Select Committee of the House, more recent than the ones to which he was referring, which specifically considered the question of termination of pregnancy. I refer to the Select Committee on Expenditure, which was looking at the whole area of preventive medicine. We had evidence from distinguished obstetricians and gynaecologists who were able to give us facts about the cost of carrying out a large number of day-care terminations. The cost of a day-care abortion done very early in pregnancy is about £23. That is probably one-third or one-quarter of the cost of carrying out a later abortion, when it is necessary for the woman to be an in-patient and to spend some time in hospital. From the point of view of economy, this is a very powerful argument. From the point of view of the woman and the ease of carrying out the procedure—if it is carried out by a doctor or by someone skilled in vaginal examination, for example, a midwife or a nurse—there is no comparison. This can be done without any of the 1001 psychological problems to which reference has been made. It would make it possible for the woman to go home after a few hours' rest.
One of the reasons why I support the proposal of the Lane Committee and the Royal Commission—and, indeed, the Select Committee on preventive medicine—in regard to the need to set up daycare clinics is precisely that in some parts of the country, as has been pointed out already, the attitude of the consultant gynaecologist, particularly the attitude of the professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the teaching hospital in the region, has made it very difficult for women to obtain abortions. Indeed, his influence can be felt throughout the whole of the region.
This was the case in the West Midlands, where Professor McLaren was the professor at Birmingham teaching hospital, and had great influence on the appointment of registrars, of new consultants and of doctors who were to work in obstetrics and gynaecology. He also had great influence on the training of students. His ideas can be spread to the students who come under his teaching during the years when he is the professor in the department. His views can also colour their attitudes. Of course, that cuts both ways. But the attitudes of the general public, men and women, people of all religions—and I include the Roman Catholics—have shown very recently that there is general support for the Act.
While some changes may be acceptable, such as reducing the period—a matter that we are to debate later—in general, public opinion supports the Act. This has been the view of most of the press, with the exception of The Times, of course, although The Timeshas produced some very good letters recently in its correspondence columns. I quote from a letter from the consultant gynaecologist at the Royal Free hospital, which appeared two days ago. She said that one of her beliefs is that if a woman is to mother to the best of her ability"— this is important, because nobody has yet raised the question of the unwanted child who may be born after the termination has been refused— she must decide, in the light of her own particular circumstances, on the limitation of her own fertility. 1002 With the difficulties and failures of contraception, that decision is sometimes taken out of the woman's hands. The gynaecologist goes on to say: No method of contraception is 100 per cent. safe; but there is no more crippling endowment than to be an unwanted child. As I say, we tend to overlook the problems and the needs, the psychological needs in particular, of the unwanted child that may be born after a termination of pregnancy has been refused, for whatever reason—whether the woman is pregnant because of a contraceptive failure or has to continue with the pregnancy because of the attitude of the doctor from whom she seeks advice.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)
Is it not a fact that at present adoption societies have very many more adoptive parents on their books than children with which to give them the pleasure of having a child?

§ Mrs. Short
That is another part of the mythology that never seems to change. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any children's homes in his constituency. If so, are they empty or full? If there are children there, what sort of children are they? [An HON. MEMBER: "Black."]. There are many young black boys and girls who would love to have a good—

§ Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
Order. May we have only one hon. Lady on her feet at a time, please?

§ Mrs. Short
I give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Miss Lestor
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to follow up the point that she was just making, because a myth is growing up in Britain that it would be a marvellous idea if all the women that wished to have abortions were prevented from doing so and the children were farmed out for adoption by all the people who are lining up in queues waiting to adopt them. The unfortunate thing about children in care in our society is that, yes, there are children waiting to be adopted, but I doubt very much whether large numbers of people who use this argument would adopt those 1003 children that are available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Does my hon. Friend agree with me that large numbers of these children are handicapped, black or—

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
That is not what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) was talking about.

§ Miss Lestor
Will the hon. Member just keep quiet for a moment and listen?
Many of them are handicapped, many are black and many have been left in care for so long that they have passed the age at which all the people who say that they want to adopt children are prepared to adopt them. That is the truth of the matter.

§ Mrs. Short
My hon. Friend, as usual, has hit the nail on the head. She is absolutely right. It is a specious argument which is always raised. But the people who are campaigning against those of us who want a liberal, fair abortion law for both patients and doctors are not the people who have—I do not suppose—any experience of adopting and taking into their homes the kind of children that are left behind. Mostly, they want, I think, blue-eyed, fair-haired little girls. [Interruption.] Red-haired—yes, how about that?
That is the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water.

§ Mr. Cohen
I do not know whether my hon. Friend knows the Member of the European Parliament who represents the Yorkshire area. He has adopted children who are coloured. In the city of Leeds, we have a three-year waiting list for people who are unable to produce their own babies but are anxious to provide a happy home life for babies. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby. Babies are possibly unwanted by their parents, but they are not unwanted by the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that into account.

§ Mrs. Short
It is splendid if my hon. Friend has in his area people such as that gentleman who are queueing up to adopt. But has my hon. Friend done any research into the question of the kind of children that they want to adopt? That is the point I am making. I am not saying that there are not people 1004 who are willing to adopt. I am saying that there are people who will not adopt children who are put into local authority care—otherwise, we could close down all the local authority homes and save a large amount of money. But, of course, that is not true.

§ Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Short
I have given way at least half a dozen times.

§ Mr. Freud
On this point, will the hon. Lady please give way?

§ Mrs. Short
All right.

§ Mr. Freud
Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that adoption societies need children is surely the worst reason for having a child that one does not want?

§ Mrs. Short
I agree, but that is how things are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) described the procedure referred to in the amendment. I believe that it is correct to say that it is a small plastic tube that is used and that evacuating the uterus at the time of pregnancy produces a quantity of substance that would fill an egg cup. So we are not talking about something that is drastic or very painful. There is no foundation for what has been said about it being a grossly painful procedure. I suppose that in time it is something that women could learn to do for themselves, though I would not like to do it. I would not recommend it, but we must accept that knowledge expands and improves; and who are we, in this male-dominated House, to say that women should not avail themselves of new techniques and knowledge in this area?
I hope that the clause will be carefully considered by the House. In the interests of early abortions, it is perfectly acceptable. It has the support of reputable gynaecologists. A number of committees have looked at the Abortion Act, including the Lane committee, a Select Committee of the House and the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. I commend the clause to the House.