HC Deb 15 December 1988 vol 143 c1069
4. Mr. Amess

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average sentence for child destruction under the Infant Life (Preservation Act) 1929 for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

There has been only one conviction for child destruction in the past 10 years. The sentence was life imprisonment.

Mr. Amess

Following that answer, does my hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members are not satisfied that the intent of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is being complied with? Does he further recognise that—with the advances in medical science meaning that the stage at which a baby is capable of being born alive is reducing all the time—the effectiveness of this Act needs to be reviewed urgently?

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend puts his point very firmly. The 1929 Act provides that at 28 weeks of development, there is a rebuttable presumption that the foetus is capable of survival. There is quite clear and compelling evidence that the rebuttable presumption should arise not at 28 weeks, but at 24 weeks, but the House may feel that this matter could be best tackled by private Member's legislation.

Mr. Ashton

While there has been one case of child destruction in the past 10 years, is it not a fact that, before we had the Abortion Act 1967, there was an average of 65 mother destructions each year? Women went to back-street abortionists, ran into trouble, had to be rushed into hospital and subsequently died. Will the Under-Secretary compare those figures with those of child destruction?

Mr. Hogg

I certainly shall.

Mr. Marlow

Is there not something wrong with a society where healthy human life can be destroyed purely because it is socially inconvenient? Is that not happening increasingly these days? Is it not against the law and is it not time that the Government did something about it?

Mr. Hogg

The 1929 Act is quite plain in its effect. The question really is about where the rebuttable presumption should arise. At the moment it arises at 28 weeks. There is good reason to suppose that it should arise at 24 weeks. It is a matter that causes the House much distress and would probably be best dealt with by private Member's legislation.