Abortion (Hansard, 20 July 2004)

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the law on abortion. This is a subject on which people hold strong and widely differing views. However, it is accepted parliamentary practice that proposals for changes in the law on abortion come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes, with Members and Peers voting according to their own beliefs and values.

§ The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, in view of the increasing interest—indeed, sense of awe—at the recent 4D ultrasound pictures of what a baby at three months is capable of, and the fact that babies can now survive at 22 weeks, does the Minister agree that the Government should take a lead by setting up a Select Committee of both Houses to look at how far the present abortion law is applicable and appropriate in view of the changing technologies involved?

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, it is perfectly true that Professor Stuart Campbell's images of the 12 week-old foetus are fascinating. But they do not, I suggest, contribute to the abortion debate. The incoming president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that the images add little to the abortion debate. He said the fact that Professor Campbell is, observing these developments and physiological movements is not changing anything about the time of viability". It is worth bearing in mind that survival at 22 weeks' gestation is only about 1 per cent.

§ Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply will be very disappointing to a large number of people, particularly since there is so much evidence now of better treatment and that children who have only a very small blemish such as a cleft palate are being aborted? Surely that cannot be right. In that case, should not the Government take a lead?

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, I am pretty confident that if I said anything on this subject which pleased the noble Baroness, I would also displease a very large number of other people in this House. I stand by what I said in my Answer: this is a matter for Back-Bench action when that is thought appropriate. Members in both Houses vote on this issue on the basis of their beliefs and values.

§ Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, I have not actually made any proposals, but I wonder whether the 94 Minister agrees that the time has come to have a look at how a 40 year-old Act is working in practice. A committee such as the right reverend Prelate suggests could usefully look at three things: first, whether the requirement for two doctors, under the present law, is itself causing delays and therefore later abortions than is necessary; secondly, how the law is working in neighbouring countries, where abortion on request is allowed up to the third month of pregnancy; and, thirdly, whether medical techniques have now advanced to the point where we ought to lower the upper limit of abortions from the 24th week except in cases of emergency.

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, if the Government went round telling either House what subject its Select Committees or otherwise should be studying, they would probably be criticised. It is of course open to any Select Committee in this House or in the other place to decide which subjects it wishes to consider.
In a poll of MPs in the Independent on Sunday, the 150 MPs who replied suggested that, on a free vote in the House of Commons, they would keep the current time limits as they are, and 62 per cent said that the 24-week time limit was about right. So, as I understand it, a majority of opinion is still in favour of the present arrangements.

§ Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, does the Minister accept that a poll of 150 MPs is not the same as a vote in another place? On the previous occasion when another place voted on this subject, on a Bill that I put forward, 296 MPs—a majority of 45—voted in favour of a reduction in the time limit to 18 weeks. Does he also accept that many of us from all sides of the argument very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about a reduction to 12 weeks in all cases other than those of exceptional circumstances and that the time has indeed come to look at this question again? Is the Minister in a position to respond to the letters that I sent to his right honourable friend Mr John Reid concerning the five recent cases of babies who were born alive during abortions and were not then resuscitated? Does he not accept that, at least on this narrow point, new guidelines ought to be issued in those compelling circumstances?

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, I was only gently and I thought helpfully reminding the House that there were differences of opinion. I quoted the Independent on Sunday survey to show that many MPs took a different view on the issue from that of the noble Lord. I repeat what I said about inquiries. It is up to the Houses of Parliament, through their Select Committees, to decide what issues they wish to study. I shall certainly look into the correspondence that the noble Lord is having with the Secretary of State and ensure that he receives a reply. I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was saying was quite the same as what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying, but it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to correct the record.

§ Baroness Lockwood
My Lords, is it not a fact that most late abortions occur because of the inadequate 95 facilities in the abortion service? Would it not be better if we had a proper and comprehensive abortion service in all areas so that these late abortions which are causing most distress were avoided?

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy and sexual health strategy are intended to reduce the level of unintended pregnancies. As I understand the situation, there has been an improvement in the number of abortions in the under-18 age group. There has been a 9 per cent reduction in the under-18 conception rate since the introduction of the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy. We have put more resources into this area so that women can get an abortion, when it is appropriate and meets all the necessary requirements, at an earlier stage in the pregnancy.

§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I declare a professional interest as one who—for my sins—has recently argued a case about this subject in the Northern Ireland courts. Does the Minister agree that one practical problem with reducing the time limit particularly affects women in Northern Ireland? They come to England because they cannot get abortions on the same basis in Northern Ireland. As a result, they often come late and they have no NHS funding. Would that not have to be considered carefully if there were to be a reduction in the period in which abortions would be lawful in this country?

§ Lord Warner
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course absolutely right. There are some complex issues involved in this particular area. That is why one should not rush into change without due consideration, and that is only one of the many considerations that would have to be taken into account. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that 87 per cent of abortions were carried out under 13 weeks' gestation.