HL Deb 10 November 1983 vol 444 cc961-4

3.32 p.m.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the call by the Church of England General Synod, supported by a majority of 256 to 2, for a Government-sponsored Bill to amend the 1967 Abortion Act to restrict the number of abortions.

The Parliamentry Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, the Government respect the conviction which underlies the vote of the General Synod. We believe, however, that abortion is a subject on which Parliament should be free to vote according to individual consciences. Accordingly, the Government will continue to leave possible changes in the law on abortion to individual initiatives.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, it seems to me to be disappointing that the Government are taking a back seat. Do the Government fully appreciate that the reason why the vast majority of Christians—and I believe I can say Christians of every denomination—feel so strongly about the present situation is because they believe that the unborn children whose lives are being taken are persons created by God and known by Him and entitled to our protection? Can the Minister say whether the Government see it as their duty to protect life as including or excluding the unborn child?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the Government consider that this is very much a matter for individual consciences. However, the noble Lord spoke about the numbers of people in the General Synod of the Church of England who voted for it. He may like to be aware that of the 550 or so members of Synod who could have voted, only 272 did, leaving 278 who did not even attend.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principal aim of the 1967 Act was to ensure that more pregnancies are terminated under controlled, aseptic and safe conditions, with consequently fewer abortions, and preferably no abortions, being performed illegally under very dangerous conditions indeed? Would the noble Lord further agree that the most satisfactory way of avoiding unwanted pregnancies is to provide readily available family planning services and that any attempt to privatise the family planning service, or otherwise to remove it from the National Health Service, could have very dangerous consequences indeed?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I agree entirely with the first point which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made. So far as his second supplementary is concerned, yes, there is scope for both the private sector and the public sector.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, of the 270 people who voted in Synod for this motion, can the Minister say how many were women?

Lord Glenarthur

Not without notice, my Lords.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the 1967 Act was carried through this House every kind of assurance was given that there would not be abortion on demand? Is the Minister further aware that in many cases abortion on demand is now available? In other words, the Act has been completely abused.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am afraid that I reject what the noble Earl says. It is not the case that the Act is being widely abused. The statistics which come to the department would verify that fact.

Lord Somers

My Lords, is it not a little strange that the Government of this country, which is nominally, at least, still a Christian country, should totally reject the practically unanimous view of Synod?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I said, the vote in Synod was 256 for, two against, with 14 abstentions. A further 278 did not vote. I think that answers the noble Lord's supplementary.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, if this is to be a question of numbers, would the noble Lord the Minister, whom I congratulate on the answers he has given today, care to look at other opinion polls and expressions of opinion from sources other than the General Synod of the Church of England, including in particular the women of this country?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, one of the chief difficulties about dealing with a matter like this is that it is an extremely emotional one. All noble Lords will have their own personal views. That is why the Government maintain the view that it is best to leave this matter to individual conscience. They believe that the Abortion Act 1967 was a great improvement on what existed hitherto, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, explained so well just now.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in any assembly not all the members are always in the house in order to vote, that the General Synod of the Church of England is not famed for being unanimous in its votes and that in fact this was rather a rare vote, with considerable support for this particular motion being given right across the membership of the house? Would not the noble Lord also agree that it is very difficult for this matter to be raised as a Private Member's Bill with any chance of it being looked at seriously?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I accept what the right reverend Prelate says about the attendance at any one time of people given any particular opportunity to vote, but I cannot promise that the Government could give any time for such a Bill. In any case, that would be a matter for the usual channels.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, when Synod carried by 256 votes to two the motion that was before them, can the Minister tell us whether the bishops had put the whips on? Or was it a free vote?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that might be a question better addressed to the right reverend Prelate on my left.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to look at the specific question of late abortions?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the question of abortions is something which the Government certainly keep under review. So far as late abortions specifically are concerned, if the noble Lord would like to elucidate the point further at a later date, or write to me, perhaps I could take an interest in the matter, because I have a certain responsibility towards it. But I have no other facts to put in front of the noble Lord today.

Viscount Ingleby

My Lords, are the Government aware that more lives have been terminated under the Abortion Act than were lost in two world wars?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, without notice I simply do not know the answer to that question.