Notebook

In [17]:

%matplotlib inline
from lxml import etree
from glob import glob
import tqdm
import numpy as np
from collections import defaultdict
import pandas as pd
from datetime import datetime as dt
import random
from collections import Counter
from joblib import Parallel, delayed

In [18]:

ns = {"pm":"http://www.politicalmashup.nl",
      "dp":"http://dilipad.history.ac.uk",
      'dc':'http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'}

In [19]:

!ls ../../..

ChileanNewspapers GHI_course        KBRiR             Tatiana
DM                GenderPaper-3     LondonPulse       Untitled.ipynb
FB                GoldenAgents      ParliamentaryTime code_literacy
FUB               IMPRESSO          Review            uva-remaining
French_Revolution JDTHKeynote       SlovParl

In [20]:

proceedings = glob("../../../GenderPaper-3/data/proc/*.xml")
members = glob('../../../GenderPaper-3/data/members/*.xml')

In [21]:

to_date = lambda x: dt.strptime(x,'%Y-%m-%d')

In [23]:

def map_members_to_gender():
    mapping = {'male':0,'female':1}
    id2gender = defaultdict(int)
    for member in tqdm.tqdm_notebook(members):
        member_id = member.split('/')[-1].split('.xml')[0]
        
        with open(member,'rt') as member_xml:
            tree = etree.parse(member_xml)
        gender=tree.xpath(".//pm:gender",namespaces=ns)[0].text
        id2gender[member_id] = mapping[gender]
    return id2gender

id2gender = map_members_to_gender()

/usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/ipykernel_launcher.py:4: TqdmDeprecationWarning: This function will be removed in tqdm==5.0.0
Please use `tqdm.notebook.tqdm` instead of `tqdm.tqdm_notebook`
  after removing the cwd from sys.path.

HBox(children=(FloatProgress(value=0.0, max=13167.0), HTML(value='')))

In [24]:

def get_attrs(element,*args):
    return [element.get('{%s}'%ns['pm']+arg,'NaN') for arg in args]

def get_text(element):
    paragraphs = element.xpath('.//pm:p',namespaces=ns)
    return " ".join([etree.tostring(p,method="text",encoding="unicode").lower() for p in paragraphs])

def process_speech(speech):
    text = get_text(speech)
    el_id,member,party,function,role = get_attrs(speech,'id','member-ref','party-ref','function','role')
    return [el_id,len(text.split()),member,party,id2gender[member],function,role,text]

In [47]:

def process_document(proc):
        with open(proc,"rt") as input_xml: 
            tree = etree.parse(input_xml)
    
        debate_date = dt.strptime(tree.xpath('.//dc:date',namespaces=ns)[0].text,'%Y-%m-%d')
    
        topics = tree.xpath('.//pm:topic',namespaces=ns)
        
        data = []
        
        for topic in topics:   
            topic_title = get_attrs(topic,'title')
            
            if not topic_title:
                continue
            if 'abortion' in topic_title[0].lower():
                print(topic_title)
                topic_id = get_attrs(topic,'id')[0]
                #speakers2speeches = Counter(topic.xpath('.//pm:speech/@pm:member-ref',namespaces=ns))
                speeches = topic.xpath('.//pm:speech',namespaces=ns)
            
                for speech in speeches:
                    line = process_speech(speech)
                    #print(line)
                    if line:
                        #speech_count = speakers2speeches[line[3]]
                        line.extend([debate_date,topic_id])
                        data.append(line)
        if data:
            print(data)
            return data
        

In [48]:

proceedings_red = [p for p in proceedings if int(p.split('/')[-1].split('.')[3].split('-')[0]) > 1944]
#data = Parallel(n_jobs=4)(delayed(process_document)(p) for p in tqdm.tqdm_notebook(proceedings_red))
results = [process_document(p) for p in proceedings_red]

['ABORTION (AMENDMENT)']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.2', 1639, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to make further provision with respect to the protection of the life of a viable foetus; to amend section 4 of the abortion act 1967; to regulate the provision of payment for consultation and advice in relation to the termination of pregnancy; and to make provision with respect to bodies corporate. i rise to ask leave to introduce this short bill to amend the abortion act 1967 by implementing three of the most important recommendations of the select committee of this house appointed in february 1975. in so doing i am providing the house with an opportunity to assert its will in a manner of major social and parliamentary importance.\n as hon. members know, on every occasion that the issue of abortion law has been raised in recent years a majority has signified its wish for the law to be clarified and amended, only to find itself frustrated by procedural or other considerations. that is no way to deal with so grave a matter. yet it is natural enough for all hon. members in their hearts to wish to still the controversy which continues to surround this subject. the modest measure i now propose is advanced sincerely with that wish in mind.\n the house will recall that the bill introduced by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) was given a second reading on 7th february 1975 by a substantial majority. it will recall, too, that in that debate the right hon. member for plymouth, devonport (dr. owen), who was then the minister of state for health, defended the government\'s proposal to refer the bill to a select committee on the ground that this was the best way to make progress in "a difficult area". the house will recall his advice that the bill might be delayed if left to the normal procedure and was likely to reach the statute book more quickly if it were to go to a select committee.\n the house agreed with him, and the select committee was set up. but while the government accepted its interim recommendations for administrative action in october 1975, they failed to do anything about the recommendation for legislation which the committee, reestablished in the next session by yet another overwhelming vote, made in its report in july 1976. in its report the committee asserted that it was six years since the lane committee was set up. it was invited to recommend changes in the law and it did so. to allay the disquiet which occasioned its appointment, and to fulfil the expectations of government action which accompanied the publication of the lane report, we believe that the government is under an obligation to introduce legislation without delay. we … therefore, recommend that legislation to implement this report be introduced by the government forthwith. that report and a later one dealing with research into the after effects of abortion and the question of conscientious objection were both ignored by the government. the house gave its answer to that by giving a second reading on 25th february last year to a bill introduced by my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon). that bill sought to introduce most of the recommendations of the select committee and it completed its committee stage last july. but no further time was made available for it, despite the view of many of us that the government were morally committed to providing time.\n the house may care to reflect on the fact that new zealand, a country which pioneered enlightened health and social legislation, set up a royal commission dealing with abortion which has been strongly influenced by the work of our own select committee. it is ironic, is it not, mr. speaker, that the new zealand royal commission has just proposed the adoption of a number of recommendations of our select committee, although these have not been implemented here?\n i turn briefly to my proposed bill. i wish to make it plain that it will not interfere in any way with the criteria for lawful abortion laid down in the 1967 act. it is limited solely to three important matters of principle.\n the first concerns the upper time limit for abortions. it is now widely accepted in all civilised countries that abortion should not be lawful after the stage when a child may be viable, that is, capable of [...] outside the womb. in this country the upper limit is 28 weeks as a result of a presumption in the infant life (preservation) act 1929.\n sir john peel, former president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, told the select committee that within recent years there were quite a number of well-documented cases where a foetus of less than 28 weeks had survived, two within his personal experience.\n the lane committee recommended a 24-week limit, but the bma told the lane committee and the select committee that it favoured a 20-week limit. in its comments on the lane report it said: even with the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks … the position still exists that owing to an error in the calculation of date a foetus intended for destruction could be born alive and be capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independent of any connection with the mother. the report of the peel advisory group also recommended that 20 weeks should be regarded as prima facie proof of viability. sir stanley clayton, then president of the royal college, advocated a 20-week limit when he appeared before the committee, but rightly said that there should be a safeguard in situations of medical risk of abnormality in the child, in which case later abortions should be permitted.\n a gallup poll last year among gynaecologists showed 87 per cent. in favour of a 20-week limit or less. my bill will reflect these views. in short, it will end the destruction of a baby capable of survival under 28 weeks.\n the second purpose of the bill is to strengthen and clarify the provision in section 4 of the 1967 act regarding conscientious objection to taking part in an abortion. my object here is to ensure that the original intentions of the 1967 act are clearly understood and respected. they are not clearly understood and respected at present.\n the select committee received evidence that in particular some nurses were distressed by having to take part in abortions, and that while the position of catholic nurses was well understood, that of non-catholic nurses sometimes was not. the royal college of nursing indicated in evidence to the select committee its concern over the problem.\n the select committee also considered that the proviso in the 1967 act that the burden of proof of conscientious objection should rest on the person claiming to rely on it was ureasonable. my bill will give statutory clarification of the grounds on which conscientious objection can be based. this is essential, in my view, if nursing is to continue to attract and to hold young people of a caring and dedicated nature.\n the third purpose of my bill is to require that all pregnancy advisory bureaux which charge fees should be licensed by the secretary of state, as proposed by the lane committee. a condition of licensing should be that these bureaux must have no financial connections with abortion clinics. this was recommended by the select committee in view of the evidence it received about financial abuses and the importance placed by many witnesses on unbiased counselling.\n the department of health and social security gave the select committee a list of financial links between abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureaux. i give just two examples. first, the directors of the company running the metropolitan pregnancy control centre are also the directors of the raleigh nursing home. therefore, any woman who goes to the centre and after counselling decides to go on with her pregnancy is likely to represent a loss of profit to the directors.\n secondly, the pregnancy advisory service is a registered charity which has a business arrangement with the fairfield nursing home in return for its exclusive use of the home for its patients, half the profits being remitted to the pas. therefore, every woman referred to the nursing home after counselling by the pas means more money for that organisation. significantly, in 1975, 90 per cent. of the women counselled by pas were referred for abortion.\n the select committee considered that such obvious conflicts of interest were clearly undesirable and recommended against exemption from the severance requirement for charities.\n until such time as the national health service can provide proper facilities for all lawful abortions—and that is what should happen—my sponsors and i would be prepared to consider exemption for bona fide charities, provided, first, that there were regulations to ensure that abortion on request, which was never intended by the 1967 act, did not take place, and, secondly, that there was ultimate parliamentary control permitting revocation of a licence.\n i am, of course, aware that unless the government provide time for my bill, if the house gives me leave to introduce it, it is unlikely to make progress. my purpose today, therefore, is to give the house an opportunity to reassert its will with regard to amending the 1967 act and to persuade the government to provide the necessary time.\n but the bill is an opportunity for something more. while on both flanks of this controversy there will always be those who believe that no abortion should be available, save where the mother\'s life is at risk, and those who believe that abortion should be available on demand, the overwhelming majority of people want a middle way conducted responsibly within a framework of humane law. i believe that my bill will help to strengthen that framework.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 2, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.4', 2, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 2, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.5', 9, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'is the hon. gentleman rising to oppose the bill?\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 2, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.6', 1272, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, mr. speaker.\n i oppose the motion, because it would pave the way for a bill to restrict the operation of the 1967 act, and because it is in the teeth of medical opinion.\n i supported the bill that preceded the 1967 act throughout its committee stage, and i have since defended the act whenever it has come under attack. the purpose of the motion is to serve as the opening shot in a public campaign to put pressure on the government to give time on the floor of the house for a restrictive amendment of the 1967 act.\n i greatly respect my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) and his right to his strong views on this subject, made clear over many years. but i beg leave to dispute the claim that he is not opposed to the act and that he is, as it were, the moderate man in the middle.\n in 1967, my hon. friend opposed the third reading of the bill. in 1976 he is reported in his local press to have spoken of the wanton killing of unborn infants", thus using the emotive language of the anti-abortion organisation, the society for the protection of unborn children, whose rally he was attending. my hon. friend has consistently supported attempts to restrict and disrupt the work of the two charities, the british pregnancy advisory service and the pregnancy advisory service—of which more in a moment.\n i should like to deal shortly with three main aims of the bill so far as i can judge them, in the absence of any text from the press reports and statements by my hon. friend.\n i begin with the time limit. it is only in the most exceptional cases that abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are sanctioned. eighty per cent. are performed before the twelfth week and 99 per cent. before the twentieth week whilst arguments are being advanced for reducing the upper limit below the 28 weeks fixed by the infant life (preservation) act 1929, we believe that consideration must be given to those women who find, from foetal diagnosis late in pregnancy, that their child will be born with a congenital deformity and who will wish to have the opportunity of deciding whether to continue that particular pregnancy.\n before legislation is embarked upon to fix a lower limit, it would be as well to wait and see what further advances may be made in pre-natal diagnosis, which will have a bearing on the upper limit for abortion.\n there is another important factor. until, in certain areas, the restrictions of the abortion service under the nhs are removed, and with them the risk of delay, it would, in my view, be too soon to change the existing time limit.\n there is no need for new legislation. the exceptional cases over 20 weeks are permitted only where there is dire need and on medical judgment. the law must leave some room for medical judgment by those who are responsible for dealing with these problems as part of their day-to-day work. the medical profession itself can see no reason for a change at this stage.\n as to conscience, the 1967 act gives rights of conscience in this matter to the medical profession. my hon. friend seeks to widen that conscience clause. here i shall make only this point. my hon. friend wishes, against medical opinion, to extend the rights of conscience, but he says nothing of extending the rights of women in distress to know whether they are being refused a termination by a doctor, not on medical grounds but because of his conscientious objection to abortion. surely women in such cases have a right to know such grounds and a right to be advised to seek another doctor who will be prepared to advise not on his personal conscience but on medical grounds. there is a special difficulty when the only consultant available in an area refuses an abortion on grounds of conscience. dangerous delays can follow. i repeat: the representative organisations of the medical profession see no need for a change.\n the most important practical effect of the bill, however, so far as we can judge its intentions, would be to hinder the operations of the two charitable agencies, the british pregnancy advisory service and the pregnancy advisory service, london. these have grown up to provide a service under the act in areas in which either the national health service has not yet developed its own services for women needing an abortion or such a service has been denied by local consultants. to disrupt the services of these two charities would once again drive women in such areas to back street abortions.\n fears about abuses, expressed three years ago, have been dispelled, either be because the administrative controls imposed by the dhss have been improved and more widely publicised, or as a result of investigations revealing that there was no truth in the allegations in the first place. the most notorious of these were contained in the book "babies for burning", which shocked the public and shocked parliament. the authors have since withdrawn their allegations and imputations against the bpas in a statement in open court on 18th january this year. they apologise for any distress and damage which their allegations have caused and recognise that bpas exercises the greatest care in the employment of qualified medical practitioners, and in selecting and training its counsellors. the two charities were set up initially to help women in certain areas where senior medical staff made clear their objections to legal powers for other than strictly medical reasons. this attitude has meant that women have far more chance of obtaining an nhs abortion in some parts of the country than in others. for example, in hartlepool 96 per cent. of the women who have abortions obtain them through the national health service, while in wolverhampton only 7 per cent. have national health service abortions. the charitable services exist to level out this imbalance.\n when the british pregnancy advisory service and the pregnancy advisory service were set up in 1968, their founders hoped that the need for their services would be short-lived. but 10 years later 50 per cent. of abortions are still having to be carried out in the private sector. wrecking the charitable services can only lead to the exploitation on a grand scale of women who would be forced to resort to back street abortions, pay large fees or be compelled to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.\n the sponsor of the motion said over the radio this morning: my view is that all abortions ought to be caried out within the nhs. so do the two charitable organisations which i have just described. but it would, in my judgment, be wrong to disrupt their work until the needs of women for abortion under the law can be fully met by the nhs.\n we should, i believe, listen to what the british medical association has to say—and on other matters in the past, and publicly, the sponsor of the motion has paid great regard to that body. at its annual conference in july 1977, the bma voted against any amendment of the 1967 act. in a letter dated 17th february 1978 about the motion that we are now debating, the british medical association reaffirmed that view. it stated: we do not, therefore, see the necessity for a further amendment bill as now proposed. i hope, mr. speaker, that in view of this medical opinion and the need of women in distress, the motion will be given very little support.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 2, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION LAW (REFORM) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.3', 1101, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time.\n this is the second occasion on which i have had the privilege of finding my name included in the list of successful candidates in the ballot for private members\' bills. as i have had the experience once before, it may be thought that i should be prepared for what will happen today. on the last occasion, shortly after my bill had been published, i was sent for by the under-secretary of state for the home department. my bill related to firearms in the countryside, and i was told that it was quite unacceptable to the government. another ten days went by and i was sent for by the minister of state, who told me in no uncertain terms that the first opinion which i had had from the government had been reinforced by subsequent thought.\n i went away at the christmas recess in a state of despondency. before i came back, there was a little difficulty regarding some policemen who had been shot in london. the government had had a quick change of mind. i was told that, if i were minded to withdraw my bill, it would be incorporated in a government measure which would be larger and better than mine. that is what, in fact, happened.\n on this occasion, when i selected the present bill as the one which i wished to introduce, i heard nothing from the government. i hope that that means that there is as favourable a brief as may be in the hands of the hon. gentleman the joint under-secretary of state for the department of health and social security, whose versatility in the subjects with which he has to deal we all admire, and that we shall be able to proceed with the matter in that way.\n when i found my name in the successful list, i was subjected to the usual bombardment by people who had bills which they thought would be suitable for me to introduce. the reason why i selected this one was that it had the backing of the two responsible professional organisations. i thought that, if they wanted the bill, it was something to which i should lend my support. the bill is simple. it has a second clause, but the material part is in clause 1.\n just to have it on the record, perhaps i should say that the abortion act, 1967, section 1(1), provides that …a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith "— and then the qualifications are set out.\n my bill would substitute for the words, "by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners", the following: by or under the supervision of a consultant gynaecologist in the national health service or a medical practitioner of equivalent status approved by the secretary of state for social services for the purpose of this act, if the medical practitioner carrying out or supervising the operation and another medical practitioner"— and then the words following as before— are of the opinion, formed in good faith…". that is a short, easily understood and simple amendment of the act, and, as i have said, it is sought by the two responsible professional organisations. i have no doubt that hon. members will have seen the letter in the times yesterday signed by the chairman of the council of the british medical association and the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, in which the purpose of the bill was concisely set out. i shall adopt the explanation which they gave in commending the bill to the house. at the end of their letter they said: a number of motives have been ascribed to the bill, but we would like to make it absolutely clear that in giving effect to our views it seeks only to safeguard the interests of the health of the women concerned … that is the point to which i shall direct my observations today.\n there have been suggestions that the medical profession is not behind the bill. in two large organisations it is impossible to achieve 100 per cent. unanimity. but the principles of the bill were set out in the annual report of the council in the british medical journal of 6th may, 1967. they were considered and approved by the annual representative meeting of the association in july, 1967. they have been approved in each subsequent year, and only this week the two responsible officers of the two organisations concerned reinforced the view that that is what the profession wants.\n i find it somewhat difficult, therefore, to understand why there are people who suggest that this would not be a desirable course to take. one of my hon. friends—fortunately, i do not see him present at the moment—came to me and said that he was in favour of abortion on demand. that is an understandable view, and, if that be the view which should be taken, i can fully understand why he would not wish the amendment to be accepted. but for those who accept the more responsible approach to the matter, i commend the remarks of the hon. gentleman the member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. david steel) on 21st july 1966—reported in col. 1075 of the official report that it was not the intention of the promoters of what became the abortion bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on demand. i hope, therefore, that he will take the view that this is a helpful and desirable amendment and that i shall have his support. i am not entirely convinced that i shall, but i can at least express the hope.\n i have noticed that the hon. gentleman has from time to time claimed that certain things had flowed from the passage of his bill. i shall say a word about one of them in a moment, but i wish to tell the house at this point that when i was in hong kong two or three months ago i picked up the newspaper which was delivered to my bedroom in the morning, the south china morning post, and saw the headline there, sydney rivalling london as abortion capital". is that something for which the hon. gentleman wishes to take credit? i have no doubt that it has been a direct result of the act he introduced.\n shortly after that i was in denmark—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.4', 56, 'uk.m.17855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is that really all the hon. gentleman intends to say about hong kong? does he consider it enough to read out the headline from a chinese newspaper, respectable as that may be? should not he go on to give some arguments which the newspaper in hong kong adduced to justify that headline, if indeed it could?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.5', 46, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a subsequent occasion, i would be happy to discuss hong kong or any other matter with the hon. gentleman, but as we have a very brief period left for the debate i hope to make my remarks as concise as possible.\n turning briefly to denmark—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.6', 2, 'uk.m.17855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'another headline?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.7', 279, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i talked there to one of the senior members of the danish government. denmark has very liberal laws on abortion. this very senior minister said that there were only two countries in europe to which danish girls could go when they could not get an abortion in denmark. one was poland and the other was this country.\n i want to deal with three criticisms that have been put to me as a result of my introducing the bill. the first was made by my own general practitioner, who works under the national health service. i asked him for his views about the bill, and he expressed some anxiety that it would mean that there would be less responsibility for the general practitioner and less possibility for him to arrange for an abortion in the future.\n a little document has been signed by some general practitioners and sent to some hon. members. i have received two copies. one came from three doctors in a partnership in my constituency, and one was sent by a general practitioner. but the one to which i particularly want to refer was sent to one of my hon. friends and signed by one of his general practitioners. the original draft reads as follows: the abortion act, as it stands at present, is a good law and generally works effectively for my patients' welfare. i strongly oppose any amendment to the act which would limit my choice of surgeon and the patient's chance of obtaining a legal abortion with the minimum of delay. i therefore urge you to oppose any such restrictive measure. this document was signed by a general practitioner in my hon. friend's constituency.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.8', 11, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'which of our hon. friends is this? i have lost track.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.9', 573, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is my hon. friend the member for woking (mr. onslow), if that is any help. the general practitioner who sent it added one or two words. after the first sentence the abortion act…works effectively… he added: but more particularly for the welfare of professional abortionists. at the bottom of the document he says, having scratched out the second sentence: this is a fairly guileless bit of special pleading. the irvine bill is intended to limit the more blatantly commercial exploitation of the new law which is largely carried out in london. that is the view which i hope will commend itself to the house. i am sure that it is accepted by the vast majority of the medical profession.\n for the benefit of the general practioner who is anxious about the position, may i refer again to the wording of the bill, which makes it clear that the general practitioner is the person to whom a girl will originally go, and it will be he who passes her on to a consultant gynaecologist.\n as regards consultants, i am advised that this is a designation which technically arises only under the national health service, but that in fact many national health service consultants hold part-time appointments, so that it is quite possible to consult them outside the service.\n the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. david steel) claimed outside the house last night, i think, and did so in the house as recently as last 15th july, that: the limited evidence we are able to gather —for example, from the london emergency bed centre figures—shows that we are achieving the objective of reducing criminal abortions. the figures given by that centre show that in the first quarter of 1966 there were 1,363 emergency admissions for spontaneous or incomplete abortions, whereas during the first quarter of this year the figure was down to 870. this is a very satisfactory development."—[official report. 15th july, 1969; vol. 787, c. 414–15] there was a letter in the new, statesman on 6th february on behalf of the abortion law reform association, answering a letter which had asked whether there was any good reason for support for the abortion act. the letter said: here is one…in 1966, the emergency bed service, london, handled more than 5,000 abortions, which formed more than 11 per cent. of its total cases. in 1967 the abortion act was passed. by 1969 the total of abortions had fallen to some 3,300 and now form only 6·7 per cent. of all emergencies. this striking result probably explains why some of the more extremist opponents of reform are so anxious to wreck the abortion act without giving it a fair chance. the hon. member for roxburgh, sal-kirk and peebles and the abortion law reform association have conveniently omitted figures, giving only those for the past year or two. the facts are that from april, 1964 to april, 1965 there were 5,816 admissions. the figures for the following years were as follows: 1965–66, 5,670; 1966–67, 4,932; 1967–68, 4,619; and 1968–69, 3,631. the hon. gentleman claims for the act the whole credit for the reduction in the years after its introduction. he omits to say that, for reasons i cannot explain, the figures have been declining rapidly over a period of five years. i quote those five years only because they happen to be the years quoted in the report to which my attention was directed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.10', 46, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman used the phrase "declining rapidly". what is significant about the figures he read out to us is their extraordinary acceleration since the abortion act was passed. it is not a continuously falling graph but one which goes over the edge of a precipice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.11', 185, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman will contain himself for a moment, i was going to deal with that point. if he does a little arithmetic he will find that just the opposite has happened. the act came into operation on a date which left only eight months in that calendar year, so i shall take the same eight months for the various years to match them up. in that period in 1966, there were 3,357 admissions. the figures for the following years were: 1967, 2,888; 1968, 2,482; and 1969, 2,215.\n for the help of the hon. gentleman, whose mathematics appear slower than he thinks, i will give what i take to be the result of those figures, which is that in 1967 the fall was 469; that in 1968 the fall was 406; and that in 1969 the fall was only 267. if there is any message to be derived from the figures of the emergency bed service from the abortion point of view, it is that the fall which had been going on over those years had flattened out after the abortion act was introduced.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.12', 76, 'uk.m.21767', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "has the hon. gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that in the period to which he referred, in 1966 and again in 1967, there was a rapid and quite dramatic increase in the number of therapeutic abortions, that this was apparently a prelude to the full implementation of the abortion act and that there has been no dramatic increase since the introduction of that act, certainly not an increase of the fashion he has described?\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.13', 92, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'even if one accepted all of that, one would still have to explain why this decline occurred prior to the abortion act coming into operation.\n it is wrong for the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles to say that the decline has been entirely due to his act because the decline was going on before his measure had even been thought of, though the decline is not as rapid now as it was then. i hope, therefore, that both he and his society will not continue with that line of argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.14', 125, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have no wish to turn this into a mathematical seminar, but as the hon. gentleman challenged me on the question of the fall, i must ask him if he is aware that on the figures he has given—i confess that i have had difficulty in noting them all—the fall shows an acceleration? the hon. gentleman omitted to point out that the numbers must be regarded as a percentage of the number of cases. because the number of cases has been falling, the same number represents a higher percentage of that number of cases. thus, the figures which he gave and which range about the 400 mark arise because the number of cases has been falling, and 400 represents a constantly larger percentage each year.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.15', 223, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'perhaps some conclusion can be drawn from all these figures. nevertheless, the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles was using figures not for the eight months to which i referred but for whole years. my argument in this context is that it would be wrong to try to draw the sort of conclusions which the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles sought to draw from the figures that are available.\n it should not be forgotten that from 1961 to 1969 there was no decline in the number of septic abortions. if the claim of the hon. member for wandsworth, central (dr. david kerr) were correct, would not one expect to find some indication of it in the number of septic abortions?\n it has been suggested by some who do not like my bill that it would be restrictive. here again one must look at the figures. we are told that there are 555 consultant gynaecologists. if one divides 54,000 by that number—54,000 is the latest figure i have available for the number of abortions carried out in a year —one does not need great mathematical ability to see that there must have been two abortions per week per consultant. with his knowledge of the profession, the hon. member for wandsworth, central will agree that that cannot be regarded as overworking consultants.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.16', 37, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can my hon. friend say how many of the total number of consultant gynaecologists are not prepared, on conscientious grounds, to carry out abortions? is he aware that that number should be excluded from this arithmetical calculation—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.17', 4, 'uk.m.21938', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would my hon. friend—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.18', 5, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one at a time, please.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.19', 23, 'uk.m.21938', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would my hon. friend say where these gynaecologists are in practice? is he aware that they are not scattered neatly over the country?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.20', 29, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend the member for tiverton (mr. maxwell-hyslop) wants to know if there are any consultant gynaecologists who, on conscientious grounds, are not prepared to carry out abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.21', 10, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'not whether there are any, but how many there are.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.22', 149, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not know. [ interruption. ] i hope that hon. members will allow me to proceed.\n let us assume that one-half of the 555 consultant gynaecologists are not prepared to do abortions on conscientious grounds. that would mean that the available consultants would have to do four abortions per week, and the hon. member for wandsworth central will still, i am sure, agree that that is well within their competence.\n my hon. friend the member for plymouth, devonport (dame joan vickers) wants to know where these gynaecologists are. i am afraid that i cannot tell her, though i can tell her that if my bill is accepted there will be an arrangement to enable any deserts of consultants to be dealt with. [hon. members: "how?"] the facts are set out in the bill and if hon. members will allow me to proceed i will explain everything to them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.23', 23, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman not esteem the fact that these consultants are congregating as this is turning out to be a lucrative business?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.24', 82, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i entirely agree.\n on the question of consultants having conscientious objections to performing abortions, the information i have—i have gone to some trouble to find out the facts—is that in cases where consultants have objections, they are most meticulous in seeing that those cases are handed over to people who hold a different view. i am told, in particular—i am not a member of the roman catholic church —that consultants who are roman catholics are meticulous in the way they do this.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.25', 87, 'uk.m.22079', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman give the evidence on which he bases that assertion? i, too, have talked to consultants about this matter. my impres- sion—i agree that it is a personal one—is that what the hon. gentleman has described is not the case. i believe that those with a conscientious opposition put considerable resistance and blockage in the way of general practitioners and others who take a more liberal view than themselves. i gather that they do not assist in the way the hon. gentleman has described.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.26', 46, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman will read the letter which i quoted and which appeared in the times yesterday, he will see that consultants and doctors in this country subscribe to the international principle that religion must not come between them and the welfare of their patients.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.27', 10, 'uk.m.17855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have no wish to disrupt the hon. gentleman's speech—\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.28', 8, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is what my hon. friend is doing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.29', 40, 'uk.m.17855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman recall that, when we were debating the original measure, consultants in the luton and dunstable area announced that they had conscientious objections and that, as a result, there was nobody to whom they could refer cases?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.30', 56, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i regret that i do not keep my eye on the luton and dunstable area as closely as the hon. gentleman obviously does. if he will bear with me i will come to the fact that there may be places where there are either no consultants or some who take the view to which he referred.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.31', 43, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman bear in mind that these conscientious objectors realise that their views are respected and that they, in turn, respect the consciences of their colleagues? this was made plain to me two weeks ago at a large conference in scotland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.32', 1036, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am obliged to the hon. gentleman. that was the point that i tried to make as best i could.\n i have so far been working on the basis of 555 consultants and 54,000 abortions. if one takes the figures of those who have completed specialised training in this country, the picture is different. the latest figures, for september, 1968, show that in england and wales 1,618 people had completed specialised gynaecological training in this country and were practising in a specialised way. in scotland the figure was 269. i think that with very little difficulty the minister would be able to select some or all of those people who would be in a position to give specialised attention to girls who required it. the fact is that 1,877 people with specialised training are available, which means a total of four operations a week. even allowing for conscientious objections, if one divides the number of operations by the number of people available to do them, i think that one comes to a very satisfactory figure.\n there are, however, other people whom i suggest the secretary of state should consider. there are professors and their deputies at various universities who are specialising in gynaecology. i am told that there are 50 or more such people. in addition there are people who have retired from service overseas, people who, at 65, after a lifetime of service as gynaecologists, would be capable of going on sessional fees to look at some of the cases. if the minister has a brief which says that this is something which the ministry would not wish to undertake, i ask him to look at the mental health act, 1959, where a similar arrangement was made, and at the cremation acts, where the same thing happens.\n there is a suggestion that because of the shortage of consultants there is a long waiting list, my inquiries show that there is no evidence whatever of a waiting list for women requiring abortions. i suggest to the minister that he should have no difficulty in getting over the problem of finding an adequate number of people to deal with this problem.\n i commend to the minister the remarks of the hon. member for lichfield and tamworth (mr. snow) who then occupied the exalted position now occupied by the minister. when discussing an amendment, not precisely in the terms of the amendment to the law which i am suggesting, but the same sort of arguments were being used, the hon. gentleman said: but i am advised that the procedure is not without risk, and that the requirements of this amendment would reduce the risk to the lowest possible level. i am sure that this is something we would all wish. the safest circumstances for the termination of a pregnancy are those in which the staff are experienced in operative gynaecological procedures and the facilities are suitable for carrying out those procedures. i believe that responsible medical opinion would expect such precautions to be taken. that is what i am asking the minister to say. that is what the amendment asks him to say, and that is what i hope he will say.\n the hon. member for lichfield and tamworth went on to say: equally, it would not be possible under these particular powers regarding approved places for the minister to stop racketeering. it would not be proper for him to seek to control the fees charged by the nursing home itself, nor could he in any way control the fees charged by doctors coming in to conduct operations. the hon. member the sponsor of the bill said that he believed that the twin provisions of control over the place and notification give precisely the kind of control which we require…" —[official report. standing committee f, 8th march, 1967; c. 398–9.] that was rejected by the then parliamentary secretary, and i hope that the minister will today feel that my bill will enable him to exercise the control which he otherwise might find it difficult to do.\n a little later in the committee proceedings the then minister said: it seems to me that it is for the committee to decide whether or not the average patient would prefer to put up with some inconvenience in return for the knowledge that the operation would be in the hands of someone about whose competence there could be no doubt."—[official report, standing committee f, 8th march. 1967; c. 403.] that is what i am asking the minister to do.\n since i announced that i was going to adopt this bill as my own, i have had a number of cases reported to me. some of them have been reported in the press and some have not. one girl came to see me last week. after three hours in a clinic she was sent home, and two days later she had to go into a national health service hospital, where she was desperately ill for six weeks. another girl, about whom i heard yesterday, was in a clinic for one hour, and subsequently had to spend 13 days in a national health service hospital because of the problems which had arisen. another girl said that the conditions in the place to which she went were rather like piccadilly circus. only this morning a consultant telephoned me to say that during the last six weeks three cases of severe septicaemia had come to him for care after visiting one of these clinics.\n those are conditions which we do not want to perpetuate. i think that the whole house should do something to deal with them. a girl who goes into a clinic of that sort needs to be cared for after she has left. she requires something more than one hour there, and then to be sent out and left to her own devices. she needs to be under observation for three days. she needs to be in a place where proper antiseptic precautions are taken, and not in a piccadilly circus type of organisation. i want to see that humanity is offered to girls in this condition, and that they get proper medical care, and i therefore commend the bill to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.34', 132, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine) has quoted various opinion polls, and various headlines from the press. i think that perhaps i might get my headlines out of the way as well. did the hon. gentleman see the very good leader in last night\'s evening standard under the headline, "abortion reform?"? i think that that is really the crux of the whole thing.\n the hon. member is not seeking to reform the abortion act, which was put on the statute book after a great deal of discussion inside this house and outside —reform meaning, presumably, to improve, or to make progress. what he really wants to do is to repeal the act, to make it ineffective, but he does not have the courage to come out and do that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.35', 6, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.36', 7, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. i have not even started yet.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.37', 2, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.38', 7, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i give way to the hon. member.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.39', 28, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'responsible gentlemen who hold high office in the two professional bodies concerned take the same view as i do, and they do not want to destroy the act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.40', 24, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if we look at public opinion polls, that is the second thing on which i was going to give the hon. gentleman an analysis.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.41', 10, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady's analysis is as bad as her argument.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.42', 33, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. is it in order for an hon. member to question the courage of another hon. member because he feels that he holds a valid opinion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.43', 7, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is not a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.44', 627, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'recent public opinion polls show that the majority of the general public are either satisfied with the act or want to see it improved so that it is easier for women to get terminations. a similar public opinion poll carried out among doctors showed that 66 per cent. of general practitioners in the united kingdom thought that the act should be left as it is or should be changed to make it easier to obtain legal abortions, and only 28 per cent. thought that it should be changed to make it more difficult. it therefore appears that the majority of doctors who are in the closest contact with their patients, namely, the general practitioners, are satisfied with the bill or want to see it improved, to the extent that women can obtain legal abortions more easily. that is an effective counter to the letter printed in the tunes which the hon. member quoted.\n in my view it is rather early to make any sort of definitive proposal to change the act. it has been in operation for only 18 months. i agree with what sir george godber said at a lecture in london last june, namely—i hope that the hon. member for rye is listening; i can waste the time of the house if he wants me to. i am going to quote what sir george godber said. i take it that the hon. member knows who he is. at a public lecture in london last june—when the act had been in operation for about 15 months—he said: the most important effect of the act—the saving in human misery—cannot be expressed in statistical terms. that is a very important comment on the act, coming from that quarter.\n the hon. member told us the number of legal terminations which are now being carried out, but i do not think that he distinguished between the number of terminations being carried out in national health service hospitals and in the private sector, respectively. what has been most encouraging since the act was passed is the fact that the percentage of terminations carried out under excellent conditions in national health service hospitals is steadily increasing. over 65 per cent. are now carried out in national health service hospitals under the supervision of gynaecologists and senior people with constant practice in this kind of work.\n the number of patients being treated by private clinics, which now have to be licensed by my right hon. friend before they can obtain permission to carry out terminations, is increasing at a much slower rate. we have no reason to believe that as gynaecological opinion becomes more educated and progressive the proportion of patients treated in national health service hospitals will not continue to increase, possibly at an even more rapid rate. there will probably be a decline in the number of patients ultimately going to private clinics.\n the hon. member for rye quoted some hair-raising and terrible case histories, but he did not give the names of the clinics responsible. he could have done this, protected by the privilege of the house, so that all of us would have known where those clinics were. he must know that my right hon. friend has recently inspected again all the clinics licensed when the act was introduced, and has introduced rather more stringent regulations and is now insisting that patients should stay in at least one night after the operation has been performed. i suggest that in the interests of women who are concerned about the operation of the abortion act he should give this information to my right hon. friend so that he can investigate the clinics concerned and see whether their licences should be revoked. no one wants to see women treated in this way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.45', 28, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what is the equivalent time in national health service hospitals? patients stay for one night in private clinics; how long do they stay in national health service hospitals?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.46', 43, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'some private hospitals keep their patients in for two nights and some for one night. in national health service hospitals the average is roughly three days. patients do not have to pay in national health service hospitals, but in private clinics they do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.47', 64, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i regret that my hon. friend is misinformed. it is not uncommon for patients in national health service hospitals, after having had the necessary operation for a termination, to be discharged in 24 hours if everything is all right. there is nothing wrong about that, just as there is nothing wrong about discharging patients who have had appendectomies if their condition is all right.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.48', 376, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am obliged to my hon. friend. it therefore appears that there is no difference between the best practice in a national health service hospital and the best practice in a licensed nursing home or clinic.\n the hon. member for rye tried to confuse us with his figures concerning the numbers of terminations carried out before the act, the number of criminal abortions, and the number of admittances to hospital. it is important to realise, now that the act has been passed and we can see how it is operating in different parts of the country, that fewer terminations are being carried out than there were before the act was introduced. in 1967 the total number of admissions for abortions of any kind, including therapeutic abortions, criminal cases and spontaneous abortions, was 79,600—nearly 80,000. this year the figure is running at about 54,000 altogether. we know that this figure is accurate because the abortions are all registered with my right hon. friend. the number includes private clinics and national health services cases.\n in 1967 in national health service hospitals only 9,700 therapeutic abortions were carried out. this shows the change in the climate of opinion, and the effect that this has had since the act was introduced. it was estimated that in 1967 about 17,000 therapeutic abortions were carried out by private doctors. i would also remind the house of a change in practice that has occurred since the act was introduced. before the act it was common practice for general practitioners to carry out abortions in their private surgeries and to send the patient home immediately afterwards. nothing was said about keeping them in bed overnight. that is now illegal. terminations can be carried out now only in licensed premises which have been inspected by my right hon. friend's department. that risk, in the private sector, has been removed as a result of the passing of the act. all hon. members—certainly women hon. members—should be grateful for that.\n the hon. member for rye also told us the number of gynaecologists and other doctors who had had training in gynaecology—which is a different thing. many people have training in different specialities, but abortion is not a matter where the bungler and the fumbler can work successfully.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.49', 21, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is obvious that i did not make myself clear. my figures were for those actively in practice in this speciality.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.50', 170, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the figure given by the hon. member in respect of the number of consultant gynaecologists was over 500, and that would include part-time as well as full-time consultants. if we reduce all those to full-time equivalents we find that there were 436 full-time gynaecologists in the national health service. even if we were to say that all gynaecologists were carrying out their job conscientiously, and carrying out the wishes of the doctors who referred patients to them, this would work out at about three terminations per fortnight per gynaecologist—not a difficult burden. but the difficulty is that, in certain parts of the country, the gynaecologists employed in national health service hospitals are not willing, for various reasons, to carry out terminations. this therefore reduces the effective number of consultants who are able and available to carry out these operations. i therefore ask the hon. gentleman—what happens in those areas where the consultants are unwilling, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, to carry out terminations referred to them by two doctors?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.51', 52, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the present act continues as it is, nothing happens, but, if my bill is accepted, the minister will be able to appoint a list out of the 2,000 who might be able to deal with the problems in places such as devonport and wherever else the hon. lady has in mind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.52', 30, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'but in those figures which the hon. gentleman gave, he included doctors who have retired and those who have come back from overseas. this is the indian army doctor syndrome—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.53', 6, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. lady will look—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.54', 103, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have not given way to the hon. gentleman.\n that is the indian army doctor syndrome which we debated thoroughly in committee on the original bill. i repeat what i said then, that this is not an operation which one would give to someone who had not had recent experience in the field. i am sure that my hon. friend will be able to give us accurate figures of how many doctors suitably qualified, and with suitable experience, which is the important thing, are available to do these operations. my case is that, at the moment, there are 436 equivalent full-time consultant gynaecologists—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.55', 48, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would my hon. friend not agree that what makes this more serious is that in those areas where the consultants are unwilling to carry out terminations, they have a natural tendency to appoint juniors of a like mind, and that that is very much the situation in birmingham?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.56', 704, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is absolutely right, and i am grateful to my hon. friend for helping with my next point.\n i do not know whether the general public or even the house appreciate the power of a consultant gynaecologist, particularly in a teaching hospital. he has great powers of patronage, of appointing doctors who are working with him in his department. he is called in to help in appointing doctors by the regional hospital board and in appointing consultants and senior men in other hospitals, and of course his influence can spread not only in his own department in his own hospital but throughout his hospital region. he could have considerable influence, as my hon. friend said, in the appointment of doctors with a similar point of view to his own.\n this will be denied, but we have seen this in several areas. the worst regions for percentage of abortions since the act came in are sheffield, liverpool and birmingham. that is in the first year. in these areas, it was known that the consultant gynaecologists in the teaching hospitals had campaigned actively against the passage of the act. what is even more interesting—we can gain encouragement from this—is that, in the first half of the second year, which is as far as we can go, the percentage has almost doubled in all those areas. in sheffield, liverpool and birmingham there are now almost twice as many legal terminations in national health service hospitals. this seems to prove what i said earlier about the education and the evolvement of a more progressive attitude among gynaecologists.\n the areas in which the consultants are unwilling or unable to carry out abortions which are now legal under the act have of course seen the growth of self-help organisations. pregnancy advisory organisations have been set up in london, and there is one in birmingham. the reason is that a large percentage of women dealt with by this service in birmingham are working-class women who should be going to national health service hospitals, the kind of women who find it very difficult to pay to go to harley street and to private nursing homes. this shows the growing need in these areas for the act\'s help. where it has been possible for advisory services and nursing homes to be started, which, again, are registered by my right hon. friend and inspected by his inspectors, they are fulfilling a useful service.\n the hon. member for rye should not feel too despondent about the development of the act in due course, because doctors are proving more willing to operate the act, it appears. one of the interesting features of the public opinion poll among general practitioners was that doctors in the west midlands, the area with which i am much concerned, think that the facilities for legal abortion in the whole area are inadequate, and they want more. if i were to make any criticism of my right hon. friend—i have made this frequently in the house—it is that he has not seen fit, so far, to make additional provision in those regions where the n.h.s. facilities are not proving adequate because of the attitude of the consultant gynaecologists. any development must be along these lines.\n the hon. member mentioned what happens in other countries where there are terminations and quoted the headline in some obscure paper in the far east, saying that london was now the "abortion capital of the world". that stupid and irresponsible statement, the kind of statement to encourage foreign women to come here if anything could, gained currency from a statement made by the hon. gentleman\'s hon. friend the member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) who, i believe, said this in america. my right hon. friend commented on this in the house on an earlier occasion.\n the figures are that, of all the terminations carried out in a year\'s working, only between 6 and 7 per cent. were carried out on foreign women. this does not make london the abortion capital of the world. of that six or 7 per cent., some were on foreign women domiciled here for a time— au pair girls and so on—so the number of women coming here specifically for terminations is minute.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.57', 26, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is there another capital in the world in which there is the number of therapeutic abortions carried out within the law as there is in london?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.58', 100, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes; i will give the figures.\n in 1968–69, the first year's working of the act, the figure in england and wales was about 40,000—i hope that my hon. friend has that figure fixed firmly in his mind. in czechoslovakia, it was almost 80,000; in hungary, 180,000; in sweden, 11,000 but sweden's population is only one-fifth of ours; in japan, 748,000. the percentage in england and wales in the first year worked out at 4·6. in japan it was 38·7, in czechoslovakia 34·4, in hungary 135·6 and in sweden 10 per cent. these are abortions in countries where terminations are legal.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.59', 31, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in case there is any misunderstanding, would the hon. lady make it clear that the figure of 40,000 was for the whole of the united kingdom and not just for london?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.60', 8, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is for england and wales, excluding scotland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.61', 4, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'not just for london?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.62', 320, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "no. there are therefore several capitals which can rival the statement made by the right hon. gentleman. i hope that no one in the house will be so irresponsible and foolish as to give further currency to that stupid remark.\n i think that i have demolished some of the rather irresponsible arguments which have been adduced against the act. a great deal of the discussion on the bill has been very ill informed, exaggerated and irresponsible. we should allow the act to continue. the figures for the second year's working of it will not be available until towards the end of the year. therefore, my hon. friend the joint under-secretary of state is not in a position to give any processed figures today. the act has brought enormous benefit to the women of this country. more and more doctors are operating it. more and more people are aware of the benefits which it has brought to women.\n the fall in the illegitimate birth rate is germane to this argument. before the act, illegitimate births were over 70,000 a year. this is a matter of great concern in a world situation, and particularly a european situation, where the expansion of the human race has been almost of epidemic proportions. those people who are concerned with conservation and who heard upstairs a most interesting discussion organised by the parliamentary and scientific committee only this week will know that the position which faces us is very serious. therefore, we should welcome anything which reduces the number of illegitimate births. as sir george godber said, the great benefit which is brought to women by the removal of the fear of unwanted pregnancy cannot be quantified in statistics.\n i hope that the house will throw out the bill if it has a chance to vote on it. it will not be we on this side of the house who prevent a vote from being taken.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.64', 99, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is a controversial and emotional subject, and we should recognise that. we should be as restrained as possible in discussing it. however, i cannot pass over without a rebuke the remarks of the hon. lady the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. renee short) who, in the opening sentence of her speech, made a totally unjustified attack on, and impugned the motives of, my hon. friend the member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine). there is a convention in the house that, however much we may disagree one with another, we respect the sincerity of those with opposing views.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.65', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.66', 112, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'just a minute, please. it was disgraceful, because it simply is not true, as the hon. lady said to my hon. friend, that he was trying to wreck the act. his views on this matter are quite different from those of the hon. lady, but he is as much entitled to those views, and to respect for them, as she is entitled to hers. i will not emulate the discourtesy and rudeness with which i was treated by the hon. lady when i attempted to interrupt her and she made a cheap point at my expense and got a laugh; she is welcome to that. i will now give way to her.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.67', 60, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am obliged to the hon. gentleman. i did not give way to him because i had hardly completed the second sentence of what i was saying; he was a little premature. my criticism of the bill concerned its title. it is misnamed as well as misconceived. it should have another title. it is not an abortion law (reform) bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.68', 438, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has made as near an apology as she is capable of, and i accept it in the spirit in which it was offered.\n i turn to the hon. ladys arguments. i wish to deal with them because it is important that the house should not be misled. she said that the majority of abortions are carried out in the national health service. that is not news; everyone who has studied this subject knows it. but there are well over 20,000 abortions a year being carried out in private clinics. that is a high and significant number. in view of that figure, we are naturally concerned with what is happening in the private sector. we cannot therefore dismiss the argument behind the bill as though the private sector is of no importance. it is not as important as the national health service, but it is a very important sector.\n the hon. lady then passed to the question over which she got into a great muddle and was helped out by various of her hon. friends, namely, how long was spent having an abortion in a national health service hospital and how long was spent in a private clinic. she was corrected in a helpful way by one of her hon. friends. the standard of care in the private sector is not as high as it is in the national health service. that is why the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and the b.m.a. are so concerned about the situation.\n on the question of the time spent in hospital having an abortion, may i quote to the hon. lady from the evidence given by sir john peel, who was then president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, and which was mentioned when we last debated this matter in the house a few months ago? he pointed out that during a three-month period 52 women were treated under the national health service and discharged from hospital in 24 hours and that during the same period the number of women discharged after 24 hours in the private sector was over 5,000. one can see from those figures that it is not possible to have the standard of after-care which is needed with an abortion if one is running a mill in which people simply pass in and out, are seen for 24 hours and are never seen again. that is the point about which the medical profession is so concerned. i hope that that answers what the hon. lady said.\n then we had the jargon about the medical profession and educating them into adopting progressive attitudes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.69', 40, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman bear in mind the number of foreign nationals who come here for abortions? has he seen the formidable details about those women which i received in a reply by the secretary of state for social services?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.70', 562, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for that intervention. i will deal with that point later. i was completing my indictment of the hon. lady, and i do not wish to be distracted from this necessary task.\n when the hon. lady talks about educating the medical profession into adopting progressive attitudes, what she means is brainwashing them into accepting her own particular theological view of the right of women to have abortions on demand. that is the truth of the matter; that is what she means. i do not mind her being rude to me—i have forgiven her now, i have got over it—but i do object to her being so offensive and patronising to the medical profession.\n the hon. lady described the number of foreign women who came over to this country for abortions as minute, and she used a percentage figure of 6 to 7 per cent. but if one looks at the absolute figure, that represents over 3,000 abortions being carried out on foreign women per year. that is not a minute figure; it is a large figure. it may be made to sound minute by putting it in percentage form, but it is in fact a large, and, i suspect, a minimum, figure. i know returns are sent in, but i doubt whether they are entirely accurate and whether the addresses which are given always indicate the place of origin of the patient. now i have finished with the hon. lady and will pass on to develop my own argument.\n there are strong feelings and deep anxiety throughout the country about the working of the act. my correspondence shows that the worry about the bill is widespread amongst those with strong religious views and those with none. my correspondence is not confined to letters from roman catholics, and it is unfortunate that an attempt is made to dismiss the protest against the abortion act as a religious lobby. it is not. it is a protest from people of all religions and of none who are concerned about our public morality and state of health after the passing of the act. abortions have now reached 54,000 a year. one cannot be definite about figures, because one does not know the number of illegal abortions before the act came into operation, but there has probably been a three-fold increase. it is furthermore a steadily rising graph. if the graph is projected as it is going at present, within a measurable time we shall be faced with an abortion rate of 100,000 a year.\n one effect of the bill may be to reduce the number of abortions, and one should face that. if one thinks that rackets are operating under the present law, one wants to get rid of them, and one effect will be to reduce the number of abortions. i face that, and it is something which, all things being equal, i should welcome; but that does not mean that the bill is specifically aimed at reducing the number of abortions and nothing else. it is aimed at getting rid of these legalised rackets, which my right hon. and learned friend the member for st. marylebone (mr. hogg) warned the house in a prescient speech would rise up if the bill passed into law unamended. on this matter i have strong moral views, and i shall, i hope, continue to express them—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.71', 64, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before the hon. gentleman comes to his moral views, would not he agree that those features of the act and of the implementation of the act which he has outlined are very important and serious, but is it not equally serious that many women who are suffering a normal illness are being kept out of hospitals because of the accent on the abortion act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.72', 37, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is a valid point. one could spend the entire budget on the national health service, such is the demand for healing, and still it would not be satisfied. it therefore must be a question of priorities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.73', 4, 'uk.m.21767', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. brooks rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.74', 60, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a very odd form of priority in social expenditure that one should make abortion easy and family planning difficult. perhaps the hon. gentleman who has done so much in this sphere has something to contribute. i will give way to him. it would be much better to spend the money on instruction in family planning than on abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.75', 67, 'uk.m.21767', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i would be the last to dissent from what the hon. gentleman has said. but would not he agree that if there is a danger that women with normal gynaecological problems are being kept out of national health service hospitals because of abortions, this bill, far from improving matters, is likely to make them worse, as there will be a greater loading upon national health service hospitals?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.76', 37, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one is dealing with too many imponderables to make a prophetic announcement as firm as that. it all depends on the policy adopted by gynaecologists and that, as we have seen, is a matter of great dispute.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.77', 5, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' dr. david kerr rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.78', 14, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is always courteous to me; i will give way to him.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.79', 72, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the point that worries me about his argument is what will happen to the 50,000 women wanting abortions if they do not have them? his argument is based on the assumption that they do not need treatment or hospital beds after the termination of pregnancy. but they do need more expensive health facilities if the pregnancy is allowed to continue, apart from the social consequences of unwanted pregnancies inside or outside marriage.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.80', 304, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am afraid there is a basic difference between us. i do not regard the birth of a child as being a disaster. i regard it as being a good thing. i do not regard the birth of a child as being equivalent to an abortion. it is a moral question not a question of which one prefers. the hon. gentleman's approach is not a frame of argument that is mine.\n i must pass on to my argument. in deference to the house i will leave out my moral views; i assume that they are well known. i will pass to the question of the law. the law should be based on the general moral consensus in the community. as far as can be judged from polls and other evidence, the consensus is that the country wants—and this is what parliament wants—abortion for serious reasons but not abortion on demand. secondly, the country and the medical profession want it to be carried out under the best possible medical conditions. both those conditions are violated by the present situation. under the act abortion may be had on demand, provided a person can pay enough. i have no criticism of the national health service, i am purely concerned with the private sector and with the legalised rackets which are operating there.\n we must face the fact that we have crooks in every profession. we have crooks in the legal profession and we have them in journalism—we may even have them in parliament. we have crooked people in the medical profession, and the act has given them a licence to run their racket free of any threat from the law. here are people who are in it only to exploit suffering and not to relieve it, and, in exploiting it, to make as much money as possible.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.81', 39, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can the hon. gentleman give the house any evidence at all that the crooks in the medical profession, to which he has just referred, are any less plentiful among consultant gynaecologists than among the generality of the medical profession?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.82', 347, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not want to compare the impact of original sin on gynaecologists and general practitioners. i am not basing my argument on such a comparison, and i would be very foolish to do so. the point of bringing in a consultant gynaecologist is that we bring in a person holding a very responsible position who, because of that responsible position, is more likely to insist that the law be enforced than is another person who does not hold that position. that is my argument.\n we know of the rackets, and we read about them from time to time. they can be exaggerated in the popular press and by individuals, but they exist. there is evidence, i have it here, for instance, of the foreign women coming here, and the touting going on at london airport. this is not the fabrication of sensation-seeking journalists. we know of the package deals that have been arranged in the united states—the combination holiday and abortion. we know too, that there are a number of doctors who, whilst observing the strict letter of the law, are completely ignoring its spirit. so there are these rackets.\n my second point is that of the medical conditions. i stress here that in many cases abortion can be a most serious operation. here i rely not on my expertise but on that of the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, mr. jeffcoate, who in a speech earlier this week said: there is evidence to show that even in experienced hands recognised rupture of the uterus occurs at least once in every 200 abortion operations. in others the accident can pass unnoticed. rupture of the uterus not only offers a considerable threat to life and may require major surgery, it leaves the uterine walls so weakened that rupture is likely to occur spontaneously in a subsequent pregnancy and labour, again threatening the life of mother and child. we should also note the statistic of the death rate after abortion, which was 15 in the last operable year—considerably higher than the maternal mortality rate—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.83', 6, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman allow me?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.84', 567, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i am very sorry, but i cannot. i have given way to the hon. lady once, and there are many other hon. members who wish to speak.\n i am not quoting on my own authority but the president of the royal college of gynaecologists.\n we had the recent case of the tape recording of the young woman who was aborted in a london clinic and left in an appalling state—bleeding and in intense pain—and had to be treated as an emergency case.\n i want at this stage to make a correction to what i previously said of the case. i referred to it as having taken place at the calthorpe abortion clinic in birmingham, and i wish to be fair even to the calthorpe abortion clinic in birmingham. i mixed up the cases. the case to which i referred at the calthorpe clinic was another case but, in a way, it was almost as bad. it took place in november, whereas the most recent case took place in december. there, again, there were medical complications and an emergency operation had to take place in birmingham under the national health service. therefore, the record of the calthorpe clinic, although i was, i think, unfair to it, is not unblemished though i welcome this opportunity to put the record right.\n these cases are occurring. how can one improve the situation? one can do it by having an effective check. one can only do that in two ways; either by having a definition or by having a responsible person intervening in the process. definitions can always be got round, so i think that my hon. friend is right in insisting that a responsible person—namely, a consultant gynaecologist in the national health service—should be involved.\n the argument about numbers is very important in relation to the bill. the figure given by the president of the royal college, which i prefer to that given by the hon. lady, is 555 consultant gynaecologists. it must be remembered, however, that in the majority of cases consultant gynaecologists do not themselves carry out the operation. they have working under them registrars and other people who do the operations. that means that we have nearly three times as many people, namely, about 2,000 people, competent to carry out these abortion operations. it is not a question of creating areas where a service would not be available. even in areas like plymouth and elsewhere where there is a shortage of gynaecologists, my hon. friend has provided for the appointment of doctors from panels supplied by the royal college of gynaecologists so that nobody shall be denied their right under the law. i agree with that and i know that he is sincere in putting it forward.\n my hon. friend dealt cogently with the question of the reduction in the number of those admitted to hospital under the emergency bed service. i will not go into the statistics again, but he was challenged by the hon. member for wandsworth, central (dr. david kerr) who said that the total number of abortions was going up and therefore this represented a higher rate of decrease than before. but he could not possibly make that statement unless he knew the number of illegal abortions. this is the great imponderable. we do not know the number of illegal abortions before the act, nor do we know the number after the act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.85', 58, 'uk.m.17989', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with respect, i did not make that statement, and the hon. gentleman is quoting the reverse of what i said. the hon. member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine) was saying that the number of abortions had fallen. if the number by which they have fallen remains the same, then the proportion by which they fall goes up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.86', 87, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend was quoting the fall in the number of people admitted for treatment under the emergency bed service as a result of abortion. he said that had been falling previously. let us leave these statistical points. statistics are misleading and clearly they have misled us both. they are a contribution to the argument, but they cannot decide it.\n i will quote one more statistic, which is that in the first 12 months of the act the death rate from abortion went up rather than down.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.87', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what is the figure?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.88', 68, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "if the hon. lady wants the figure in percentages it went up by about 20 per cent. but i would not mislead the house in the way the hon. lady misled the house, and will give the absolute figures. deaths from induced abortion: three before the act, four after the act. therefore, the figure would be 25 per cent. if i use the hon. lady's method of calculation—\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.89', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'very significant.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.90', 61, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, it is very significant. even one death is important, even the death of a foetus is important, though the hon. lady may not think it is. [an hon. member: "you are in a mess."] as i was saying—[an hon. member: "carry on, norman."] there seems to be a division on the other side of the house as to my status.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.91', 11, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. interruptions prolong speeches and many hon. members wish to speak.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.92', 370, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am totally in sympathy with that sentiment, mr. speaker. interventions when made seated and when one has not given way are even less justified, because one cannot control them.\n i wish to deal now with the point about conscientious objection, which is a matter of great importance. somebody has to carry out these abortions and, of course, those who have to carry them out are the members of the medical profession. they were given a right, which was built into the act in the conscience clause and supported by the promoter of the act, reinforcing their common law right, to abstain on grounds of conscience from abortion operations.\n if a gynaecologist or doctor does not wish to carry out an operation, what is going to be done with him? what would the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east do about doctors who wish to exercise this right? does she think that they should be forced against their will to carry out operations to which they have strong objections? if that is the case, then it is the end of freedom in the medical profession. that is why any bill dealing with a medical matter should only be put forward with the support of the medical profession, otherwise the situation is reached, as now, when parliament lays down one thing and the medical profession say something else. we pointed out in committee to the then minister the precise dangers in the situation. the then minister had already abandoned his duties in regard to the medical profession. he had not taken their views sufficiently into account and the fact that, whatever the rights or wrongs of abortion, it is in the end the members of the medical profession who carry out the operation.\n i hope that the house will give a second reading to the bill. it is not a bill which totally accords with my views, but it strikes a more reasonable balance between the needs of women, the rights of the foetus or the unborn child and the requirements of public morality. i congratulate my hon. friend on seeking to improve the law in a reasonable and sincere way and i hope that he will be successful in his object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.93', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.94', 22, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i remind the house that only 50 minutes remain for this debate and that many hon. members still wish to speak.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.96', 1201, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Joint Under-Secretary of State, for the Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i will try to be brief because i appreciate, mr. speaker, that many hon. members still desire to speak. however, i wish to refer to a number of points that have been made.\n the abortion act is an important piece of social legislation and discussion of it arouses strong feelings among its opponents and supporters. at the outset i wish to tell the hon. member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine) that i feel a certain sympathy with him, and while i believe that his proposed amendment is misdirected. i am grateful to him for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problem again.\n as the house will be well aware, a number of amendments were tabled during the passage of the measure which subsequently became the abortion act, 1967, seeking subsequently a limitation on the doctors empowered to perform terminations of pregnancy. to introduce such a limitation is, of course, the primary object of the hon. gentleman's bill.\n in committee, for example, amendments were tabled, including one pro- posed by my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), which sought to limit operations to a consultant holding an appointment involving the practice of gynaecology or to a practitioner holding such an appointment and nominated by the consultant. however, parliament rejected that and other amendments mainly because of the difficulty of finding a generally acceptable formula which would not seriously limit the number of doctors available to perform abortions.\n an amendment of the kind which the hon. member for rye proposes would have the effect of reducing the numbers of abortions carried out in approved places by doctors without specialist qualifications. a likely effect of such an amendment might be a decrease in private abortions and a consequent increased demand on gynaecological departments in national health service hospitals, which are already under considerable pressure.\n it could, perhaps, be argued that this would lead to improved care for the women concerned, but in practice there would be a number of serious objections. for example, by limiting the number of doctors available to perform legal abortions, we could also produce an increase in illegal backstreet abortions. again, by introducing a requirement that the secretary of state should approve practitioners for the purpose of undertaking abortions, it would impose on him an unrealistic obligation and require him to undertake the most difficult and invidious responsibility, which he would find quite unacceptable, of making distinctions between individual doctors.\n it is fair to say that the hon. gentleman's bill is directed at the private sector and, by implication, criticises private practice in this field. for this reason, i will at this stage say something about the actions which my right hon. friend has taken to raise the standard of places approved for the purpose of the act.\n there are at present 56 private establishments functioning under his approval and they are all nursing homes registered with the appropriate local authority under the public health act, 1936. the question of the standards to be demanded of these homes is a matter which has occupied a great deal of our attention during the last year.\n with one exception—and here an inspection will be carried out within the next month—every one of these approved places has now been inspected by a departmental inspecting team of medical and nursing officers, in co-operation with the registering local authority. in the case of those approved places with a high turnover of abortions in the north west metropolitan region, two and sometimes three inspections have now been made. all proprietors of these establishments have been told that approval and renewal of approval will be dependent on their satisfying my right hon. friend that the standard of their premises, of their facilities, of their conduct and their staffing are all adequate.\n among the steps which he has required to be taken to ensure that deficiencies revealed by these inspections are remedied are structural alterations to premises to ensure safe post-operative management; reorganisation of booking arrangements to ensure that the number of women operated on for abortion in any one day does not exceed the number of beds available on the same night; and the installation of suitable autoclaves.\n while it is not possible to lay down precise criteria for approval, because of the variety of circumstances, of these places the question of ensuring adequate standards is something which is under constant review. as an illustration, we have now considerably expanded the form of application which each home is required to complete when seeking approval or renewal of approval. i should make it clear that for the present in no circumstances is the secretary of state prepared to grant approval for a period in excess of one year. indeed, in some instances approval has been for a much shorter period.\n the form of application is extremely detailed and lays particular emphasis on facilities required to ensure that the patients are safeguarded in emergencies. the form also sets out the secretary of state's requirement which i mentioned earlier, that the number of patients booked for termination of pregnancy on any given day should not exceed the number of beds available for such patients on the same night. it calls for written evidence of arrangements entered into with suppliers of blood and of the agreement of doctors who will be respon- sible for providing medical cover in an emergency.\n immediately a completed application form is received within my department the registering local authority concerned is contacted and asked to check the information given on the form and to let the secretary of state know as soon as practicable whether there are any circumstances or, in the case of applications for renewal of approval, whether any new factors have arisen since approval was last given, which indicate that approval should be refused or withdrawn.\n when sending the completed form to local authorities the secretary of state emphasises his concern that the facilities should be such as to safeguard the life and health of the patients. to this end he asks authorities to pay particular attention in carrying out their investigation into the arrangements at the home in question for dealing with emergencies which may arise. he also asks the authorities to make full use of their statutory powers of inspection under the public health act. they are further asked to bring to his notice immediately anything which, in their view or that of their medical officer of health, might make continued approval of a particular establishment undesirable. my department maintains close contact with registering authorities and has, in fact, met representatives of the local authorities most concerned.\n whatever measures may be taken by the secretary of state to improve standards at approved places, it must be remembered that the use which doctors operating in approved places make of the facilities provided at these establishments is a matter for their own clinical judgment. this is not something in which my right hon. friend has any power, or wish, to intervene. he refers any cases of alleged professional misconduct to the general medical council which is, of course, fully alive to the need to complement the government's efforts by ensuring that they take whatever action is proper to them.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.97', 55, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in this debate there has been some discussion about the discrepancy between the time that is spent in hospital for abortion operations by national health service patients and private patients. can my hon. friend clarify this situation and say whether he is satisfied that a one-night stay for a serious operation like this is adequate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.98', 1028, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Joint Under-Secretary of State, for the Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'the decision as to the timing of the discharge of a patient is very much a question of clinical judgment, and neither i nor my colleagues in the department would consider it appropriate for a minister to interfere in a question of clinical judgment. if a patient has criticism to make of the medical profession, there are avenues open to that patient. it is not the role of government to interfere in questions involving clinical judgment.\n i turn now to the questions which have been raised about the adequacy of provision for abortions in national health service hospitals. i think it is significant that the latest figures show that over 70 per cent. of all abortions notified in respect of women with addresses in england and wales are being carried out in national health service hospitals. no one denies that there are considerable variations in the numbers of abortions carried out in national health service hospitals from one region to another, and further that within individual regions one can find variations from town to town and unevenness in the extent to which the needs of the community are being met locally.\n there are a number of factors which contribute, in varying degrees, to the unevenness of the service across the country. one is the conscientious objection which some doctors and other staff have to participation in abortion operations. the right of any person to opt out of participation in the treatment authorised under the act, except when he has a duty to help save the life or prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman, has been debated at great length in this house, and i am sure that it would be quite contrary to the wishes of the house and of the public at large if this right of conscientious objection were to be withdrawn.\n other factors bearing on regional variations within the national health service include the availability of facilities for examination, assessment and treatment of patients seeking abortions. such patients in hospitals are normally seen first in the out-patient department, and generally speaking it seems that those seeking abortion take up more time than others in the gynaecology department. so there are limits on the numbers of additional abortion patients who can be fitted into clinic lists without additional staff or detriment to the treatment of other patients en the gynaecology list. it has been suggested that one solution to this problem and also to the problem of fitting these cases into gynaecological lists in the hospitals is that we should set up special out-patient clinics specifically for patients seeking abortion. this has been done in some hospitals, and with some success, but there must be sessions available and the staff to provide the service.\n some of our hospitals are short of operating theatre space and time. additional operations involve more theatre time and this is not always easy to find, since surgeons aim, quite rightly, to make the best possible use of the resources available. theatre sessions tend therefore to be fully taken up some time ahead. the development of "day surgery" where patients are discharged after minor general surgery the same day is providing more operating theatre time and this will help with other surgical operations including abortion.\n the other main area in which availability of resources limits the work that can be done is in the wards. the majority of patients who have abortions in national health service hospitals are admitted to hospital beds and occupy them for a few days. broadly speaking the longer the pregnancy has continued the longer the period of in-patient treatment which may be necessary.\n suggestions have been made that special abortion units should be set up in the health service to cope with this demand. i am sure that it would be wrong to set up isolated units to undertake this work. abortion, like any other surgical procedure in the health service, should take place in a general hospital with full pathological and gynaecological facilities and a blood bank for use in emergencies. fragmentation of limited hospital resources is most undesirable. but even if it were considered appropriate to set up separate units of this kind i doubt whether sufficient hospital doctors and nurses could be found who would be willing to spend all their time doing this work. most people like to use the full range of their skills, and repeated abortions do not offer this opportunity for surgeons, nurses, social workers and all who would be involved in the treatment of those cases. it could result in the other skills falling because of their disuse in treating abortion alone.\n there may be scope for improvement in hospital services for termination of pregnancy. it is now possible to identify those hospitals where very few abortions, or none at all, are being done, and to consider what additional staff, resources and facilities might be needed to get adequate services established. where a service is already being given it may be posible to make improvements in the arrangements for patients seeking abortions. where an adequate service is not possible at present, i hope that hospital boards and committees will be able to make arrangements for it to be provided. i am conscious that the difficulties in some localities are severe. but i do not see the problems as insoluble if they are tackled with imagination and good-will on all sides.\n facilities for abortion in the national health service cannot be considered in isolation. they form an integral part of all the other health services for the community. the health service has developed considerably over the last 20 years and a great deal has been achieved. it remains true however that there are many fields in which improvements still have to be made to bring standards up to those which we should all like to see. against this background one sees the difficulty of providing a uniform service throughout the country for patients needing abortion less than two years after the abortion act came into operation. i should like now to turn to the inquiries into the act which are being undertaken.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.99', 53, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what my hon. friend has been stressing very greatly is the difficulty of finding skilled personnel, professional people and nurses for this service. why is it that we can have the same professional consultants and surgeons and nurses for all other operations that are taking place? why for those and not for abortion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.100', 790, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Joint Under-Secretary of State, for the Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "we face difficulties in terms of staffing right across the board and it would be wrong to suggest that we do not have problems in other fields. one need only look at the waiting lists—fortunately they are falling slightly but they are still very long—for routine surgery of various kinds, and the difficulties experienced in finding hospital beds for mentally handicapped children, and so on. this is not a problem confined to one part of the service.\n there are some grounds for dissatisfaction about the operation of the abortion act as far as private practice is concerned, and we are watching the situation in the private sector closely. a very small number of doctors operating in the private sector are doing things of which neither my colleagues in the medical profession nor we in the house would approve. but there is reason to believe that, in relation to provision within the national health service, the act is working reasonably well. certainly, it is not possible to arrive at a considered assessment of the overall working of the act until current inquiries are complete. these include the inquiry being carried out by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists on the basis of a questionnaire sent to its members asking for detailed information about their experience of the workings of the act. we hope that the findings of this inquiry will be available shortly and that they will provide valuable information on current practice.\n apart from the inquiry being carried out by the royal college, we are ourselves in the department carefully studying the detailed analyses of information deriving from the forms of notification prepared by the general register office in respect of 1969. they include information about many aspects of the operation of the act, including the method of termination, the length of stay in hospital or nursing home, and complications arising from abortion. we are also continuing the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths, which include deaths arising from abortion. until current inquiries into the working of the act are complete, it would not be advisable, in the government's view, to give support to any particular amendment such as proposed in this bill.\n i have mentioned the problems which, i think, we face in certain respects in the private sector. i assure the hon. gentleman the member for rye that, if he has any evidence which concerns him about poor conditions, i shall be only too pleased to look into it if he will let me have it. the same offer is open to all hon. members. we should welcome any information which they might feel to be of use.\n i assure hon. members that we shall continue to investigate very carefully all the reports which come to us containing prima facie evidence of contravention of the act, and we shall seek the assistance of the home office and police authorities wherever appropriate. there have been references to a report in the press earlier this week about a particular clinic, in connection with which a tape recording was sent to my department. i have read the transcript of the tape recording. this is a case which we have under urgent consideration at present.\n this process of investigation—and a very time-consuming process it is—is something on which we are constantly engaged. i reiterate the view expressed several times lately by my right hon. friend the secretary of state that, while there may be some grounds for dissatisfaction about the operation of the act in the private sector, we must not concentrate our attention exclusively on unfavourable features of its working. indeed, some of the discussion about the act is exaggerated and ill-informed.\n this is a subject which arouses strong emotions and prejudices which make rational consideration difficult. but it must be our aim in the house to debate the question reasonably and sensibly and arrive at a balanced conclusion. our task today is to survey dispassionately the workings of the act since the house passed it 18 months ago. i believe, on the basis of our experience over these 18 months, that the abortion act is generally operating satisfactorily.\n i believe that most people would agree that it has brought advantages. the rate of emergency admissions to hospital for abortion is falling. i have the figures here for the last three years in respect of the emergency bed service: about 4,300, about 3,700, and about 3,200. i do not put too much weight on these figures, and i do not suggest that the act would be the only factor. i do not even go so far as to say that it would necessarily be the main factor, but there is a definite decline in the rate of emergency admissions for abortion.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.101', 26, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'do not those figures relate to all maternity cases, not only abortion cases? the improvement may be the result of better organisation in the hospitals concerned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.102', 159, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Joint Under-Secretary of State, for the Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i doubt that there has been any really significant improvement in organisation over the last two or three years. i said that i do not put too much reliance on these figures. they cover quite a broad diagnostic group. that is true. the figures i quoted were for the emergency bed service in london, and do not take into account the picture over the whole country. but there is an undoubted trend of a reduction of admissions. in the same way, there has been a reduction in the mortality rate consequent on abortions. in 1968 there were 50 deaths from abortions. in the first 10 months of last year there were 28. again, i would not put too much weight on that, but these are perhaps encouraging trends. i think that we have in them some evidence of the way in which the act is causing a real reduction in the sum total of human misery in our society.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.103', 26, 'uk.m.21938', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it true to say that 47 per cent. of the abortions are for single women, therefore stopping the bringing of illegitimate children into the world?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.104', 68, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Joint Under-Secretary of State, for the Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'the hon. lady is right. the figures show that 47 per cent. are for single women, while 44 per cent. are for married women and the remaining 9 per cent. are women who are widowed, sepaarted or divorced.\n i hope that by what i have said i have convinced the house that this would not be the appropriate time to amend the abortion act in a significant way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.106', 696, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i would like to return in a moment to some of the minister\'s points about the unsatisfactory working of the act in the private sector in one or two clinics.\n but i would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine) on the manner in which he introduced the bill. in the two or three years during which the subject of abortion has been sometimes a heated subject of debate in both houses of parliament, it has been a pleasure to listen to a moderate and well-reasoned speech such as that which the hon. gentleman made in introducing the bill.\n the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas), on the last occasion he chose to introduce a similar bill, said that it was a pity he was not an agnostic mother of nine. at least this afternoon he appeared in the guise of a protestant father or two, which was no doubt a step of some significance.\n i have no doubt that the hon. member for rye introduced the bill with the best of intentions, but its results and consequences have not been fully understood by him. and since the hon. member for chelmsford is a sponsor of the bill, and was so critical of the drafting of my act, i am surprised that he has not noticed a major drafting error in the bill, which gives the secretary of state for social services a sovereignty over health services in scotland that exists in no other field. that would have to be put right if the bill went beyond second reading.\n some of the main arguments for and against the measure have been debated twice in full here and in another place. constantly the point is made that because the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and the b.m.a. are pressing for this change, as they pressed for it during the passage of my act, we must accept it. i cannot accept that argument. the house must take into account representations from a wide spectrum of opinion, knowledge and expertise on the subject. of course, we must give special weight to their views, and 95 per cent. of their views, i would say, were incorporated in the main act. but they cannot dictate to parliament what should be the provisions of an abortion act.\n one very serious result of the bill\'s being passed would be that the tendency would grow for abortion to be delayed because of the limited number of people who, even if one appointed others and extended the phrase "under the supervision of" would be qualified to sign the certificate. because they would have to sign it, whereas at present they do not, this limited number of people would have to be involved not just in the operation but in the diagnostic process. that is a factor which has not been brought out fully, and there would inevitably be delays.\n the figures i have show that 63 per cent. of abortions have been carried out up to and including the twelfth week of pregnancy and 35 per cent. after the twelfth week. i consider that 35 per cent. to be too high. if abortions have to be carried out, they should be carried out at the earliest possible time, from both a medical and ethical point of view. therefore, any red tape, any restriction, any queue-forming, would be very undesirable.\n second, it would have the effect of encouraging a restrictive practice on abortions in certain parts of the country. it is all very well for the hon. member for chelmsford—i think that it was the hon. gentleman, but if i have attributed somebody else\'s remark to him i apologise—to say that in addition to consultants there are registrars and other people who can do this work. we know that if a consultant at a hospital takes the view, which he is entitled to do, that he is opposed to a liberal practice on abortions there is no question of registrars and others on his staff taking a different view. the effect of an amendment of of this kind would be to encourage a restrictive practice on abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.107', 4, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. dempsey rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.108', 711, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i think that the hon. gentleman has had a fair innings of interruptions during the debate.\n it is unfair to suggest that because the leaders of the b.m.a. and the r.c.o.g. are pressing for the amendment it would be widely welcomed in the medical profession. today's edition of the lancet, one of the most authoritative journals says in its editorial: … mr. irvine's bill is out of place. what difference can it really make? few of the abusing doctors will be excluded from the market by legislation which requires a government department to pronounce that they are, or are not, of 'equivalent status'. perhaps, under cover of this device some supporters of the bill are now reviewing a long-rooted opposition to reform. that is the case, whatever may have been the laudable intentions of the sponsor of the bill. the hon. lady the member for wolverhampton, north east (mrs. renée short) quoted a national opinion polls survey of general practitioners which showed that 66 per cent. are either satisfied with the existing law or want to see it amended so that it is easier, and not more difficult, to get a legal abortion.\n finally, in considering medical opinion, an editorial in yesterday's medical news-tribune strongly came out against the act and said: the only motive which we can realistically ascribe to the perpetrators of this amendment is to wreck the abortion act by drastically reducing the number of abortions performed. it would be a mistake fundamentally to alter a piece of legislation when we still have comparatively little knowledge of its consequences. i have here a letter which a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology in aberdeen sent to a member of this house asking him to be present to vote today. he says: we have in aberdeen for the past 18 months been running an interdepartmental study into the way in which women react either to having a pregnancy terminated or having to carry on with the pregnancy for which they have requested termination. it will probably be another year before the final results of the study are available, but until such results are available, and aso fuller analysis of the workings of the abortion act throughout the country have been made it seems premature to make any alterations in the act. we have to consider the fact that this is a very wide bill, a point which hon. members might consider before voting. the long title merely says that its purpose is to amend the abortion act, but all sorts of clauses could be added in committee.\n we have to consider the effects of the present act as it has operated in the country. the figure which i have for the first year of its operation is that the death rate for abortions was 21 per 100,000, whereas the death rate in respect of child births was 24 per 100,000 in the same year. at the time of the passage of my bill i should never have dared to predict that the death rate from abortions would be lower than the death rate from childbirth, and that is a very satisfactory conclusion. this is not statistically significant, but there have been more deaths in national health service hospitals than in private practice clinics.\n we can say from the provisional evidence available that there has been a reduction in criminal abortions. i do not want to go into the mathematical argument again about the london emergency bed centre figures, but they show a certain definite trend in the right direction. the death rate given by the minister just now showed that from an average of 50 from abortions, both criminal and medical, for many years, the figure fell last year to 28 in the first ten months, and that was a very significant and welcome drop.\n nobody has quoted precise figures, but the house should notice that the illegitimacy rate had been on the increase. in 1955 it was about 4 per cent., and rose by 1968 to more than 8 per cent. for the first six months of 1969, which is the latest period for which i have figures, there was a small, but nevertheless significant down-turn in the illegitimacy rate which i think can be credited to the act.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.109', 19, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman accept that if there has been a reduction, it has been induced by other exigencies?\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.110', 1126, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not suggesting that the abortion act is solely responsible for the downturn in the illegitimacy figures. however, we have seen for the first time—this in the first full calendar year since the abortion act came into operation—the illegitimacy figures decrease. can it be described as only a coincidence that the first downturn should have occurred at this time?\n to get the arithmetic correct, one should note the rates of abortion in this country compared with the rates in other countries. i deplore the use of headlines such as: london: the abortion capital of the world". that is not true. the rate since the operation of the abortion act has been 6·8 per cent. per 100 live births. that compares with 8·3 per cent. in denmark and 10 per cent. in sweden. in countries which do not have adequate family planning provision the figures are horrifying, such as 38 per cent. in japan and 34 per cent. in czechoslovakia. i hope that those figures are never reached here.\n the hon. member for chelmsford referred to 3,000 foreign women having had abortions in this country during the last year. presumably that number includes a substantial number of foreign women who are, in any event, resident here. i do not know what the percentage of foreigners here is at a given time. what about the 30,000 danes who, we were told, would be coming here for abortions? they have not appeared. what about the american package tours of which we read? not one has arrived. these things may make good newspaper copy but they bear very little relationship to the facts of how the abortion act is working.\n the other day i read an interesting conservative central office pamphlet about abortion. i confess that conservative pamphlets are not among my normal staple reading, but this one suggested that it might be worth considering establishing abortion clinics in certain parts of the country. i have never found that an attractive idea, but i appreciate that if there is a restrictive practice operating in certain parts of the country it may be necessary for the ministry to consider this matter.\n it is true that private clinics as a whole have a good record, as the death figures show. there is no doubt, however, that one or two clinics in london—and there are only one or two such clinics—have been abusing the spirit and, perhaps, the letter of the abortion act.\n i was interested to hear the minister say that an inquiry was going on and i welcomed his remarks about the instructions which he had given. there is a case, in the light of our experience of the working of the abortion act, for changing the ministerial regulations applying to private practice. i see no reason why the same notification forms—which are, in essence, simple—should not be used for both national health service and private patients. more information might also be required from private clinics about each case. for example, we might require the signature of the patient on discharge from the clinic saying that she was satisfied that she had received proper medical attention. the dates of entry and discharge should also be included on the notification form.\n i would go further and say that there should be no objection to including on the notification form the amount of fee charged because there is a suggestion that no receipts are given, that cash is always demanded, and that the inland revenue is being defrauded.\n one clinic—the minister referred to this case—has aroused considerable interest, and it is the case of the tape recording. i believe that the hon. member for chelmsford had this case in mind. i have made inquiries into the matter following the publicity which the case received last week. i spoke to the person in the pregnancy advisory service in birmingham who first met this applicant for an abortion.\n the first thing to remember is that the girl came from birmingham. she was referred to the pregnancy advisory service by her own family doctor. i suggest that if she had lived in newcastle, aberdeen or many other places she would not have been in a clinic in london to start with; and that is the first lesson to be drawn from this case.\n the girl was aged 18 and went to the pregnancy advisory service accompanied by her father. this service is a voluntary body and not a money-making organisation. it is a charitable body, providing a social service. the woman who interviewed this girl gave her services voluntarily, as a social worker in the evenings in this centre. as for the charge of providing abortion on demand, about 30 per cent. of the women going there for abortions are refused. those are the centre\'s figures. it was untrue, as suggested in the tape recording, that the first thing said was, "how much can you pay?" or "it will be £125." the normal particulars were taken and the father of the girl in question then asked how much it was likely to cost if it were carried out in a private clinic.\n i should like to know why this case, which occurred in november, was not referred to the general medical council by the national health service people who took it over. i should like to know why they kept it in cold storage until a week before the bill was introduced.\n the most important fact of all was that the doctor who carried out this operation in the clinic was an f.r.c.s. and a member of the royal college of obstreticians and gynaecologists who, under the bill, could not be regarded as other than of equivalent status. therefore, the bill would have provided no safeguard in respect of the case that has received so much publicity during the past week.\n we would all welcome a reduction in the figures for abortion, but i believe that that reduction must be achieved not by denying a facility that is badly needed for women in unfortunate circumstances but, rather, by reducing the need for resort to abortion at all. a great debate is now going on about sexual responsibility and sexual education. i welcome this, and also the steps that the secretary of state for social services has taken to encourage local authorities to use their powers under the family planning act to set up local authority family planning clinics. it is disgraceful that the secretary of state for scotland should have issued instructions preventing this in scotland.\n the slogan that should go out from this house should be, "no unwanted pregnancies", which is a very much better slogan than, "no unwanted babies". i hope that the house will divide on the bill, and will reject it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.112', 1173, 'uk.m.17849', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is many years since i spoke in a debate on abortion. throughout that time, however, i have been a strong supporter of a change in the cruel offences against the person act of 1861. the hon. member for rye (mr. bryant godman irvine) seemed to be unaware of the full implications of what he was doing. the house knows him, and we all know that he would never have any intention of introducing a bill which might have heartless and cruel effects, but i am sure that this bill would have.\n in introducing the bill the hon. member relied mainly upon the opinion of the two medical bodies that are asking for statutory limitations to be placed upon the activities of gynaecologists and others outside the national health service. as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, and as the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. david steel) has just mentioned, these views were expressed in the house when the abortion bill was under consideration; they were fully debated in committee upstairs, and later on the floor of the house; they were debated in another place—and they were rejected all the time. the house will realise that medical bodies—important as they are, and having influential opinions as they do—are not the last word in what should be written into the law of the land. this house is in charge of the law and having decided—as it did less than three years ago—on the form of the law in this case, it would be unwise to make a change at this stage.\n the bill proposes to place a statutory limitation upon operations done by gynaecologists and other qualified people. it seeks to restrict the lawful conduct of these operations to consultant gynaecologists in the national health service, or persons acting under their supervision. a statutory limitation of this kind can be justified only if it can be shown that it is in the interests of the community. it is a surprise to me that an hon. member opposite should seek to restrict the freedom of choice of the citizen in the matter of medical care. neither the b.m.a. nor the royal college would wish to see this freedom eroded in other fields of medicine and surgery. why, then, do they want it eroded in this? is it because there is some special risk attaching to this operation?\n certainly that is not proved by the mortality rate of abortion operations. in fact, there is, unfortunately, a higher proportionate death rate in the national health service than there is in the private sector, but this is no reflection on the health service. it usually gets the bad cases, the cases which have been too long delayed by the time that they reach it. there is no evidence from the mortality rate that it is necessary to restrict this operation to gynaecologists and others acting within the national health service.\n what other considerations, then, can there be? is it a matter of skills? there are skills outside the national health service as well as inside. some gynaecologists in the national health service have done few, if any, terminations. some, quite properly, holding the views that they do, have refused to do them. it cannot be a question of skill, because skill is not the monopoly of the national health service.\n is it suggested that ethical standards are higher inside the national health service than outside? if so, is that a view which the b.m.a. and the royal college accept? is it their view that it takes the national health service to make upright doctors? are we to regard ethical standards as one of the great reforms of the national health service?\n what do the two medical bodies think of the proposal implicit in the bill that if a gynaecologist who did not hold a consultative appointment in the health service were to perform a termination outside the national health service he would be committing an offence for which the penalty is imprisonment for life? this is what we are talking about. the penalties were never interfered with when we reformed the original act in 1967.\n is it suggested that a termination is lawful if it is done by a consultant gynaecologist in the health service and near murder if it is done by a gynaecologist outside it? is that the distinction which the law should make? is it suggested that the health service can now take all the terminations which would come to it under the bill? no evidence which the hon. gentleman produced, except the law of averages, would justify such a conclusion. have we reached the stage, in this field and in none other, to force people into the national health service? is this a new monopoly in state medicine being suggested from the benches opposite? this is the astonishing thing. is this a new tyranny coming from the opposition?\n the hon. member for rye, in dealing with the average of terminations which might be spread over the available gynaecologists, had little to say about the regional variations which are the great mischief of the working of the abortion act. it is a strange thing that if the national health service can cope with the terminations which are now needed it is necessary for pregnancy advisory services to deal with so many referrals from general practitioners, hospital doctors and family planning association doctors. fifty-four per cent. of all the referrals to the london pregnancy advisory service in the first year came from general practitioners, and 42 per cent. were by hospital doctors, family planning association doctors and others.\n in fact, some of the cases that went to it had been refused under the national health service. two girls under 14 were refused, as were five girls under 15 and 40 women over 40. another patient, a girl of 17, pregnant by her father, was refused a termination under the national health service. four married women with five or more children and 10 unmarried women with two or more illegitimate children were all refused, and all were sent to the london pregnancy advisory service to see whether a termination could be made available elsewhere. so long as the national health service cannot meet the demand and there are these regional variations, the time is not right to change the law.\n the real problem in abortion is the difficulty of getting people to consider it and discuss it rationally. it is so full of emotion and offers so much scope for headlines, drama and exaggeration. it is almost impossible to get good publicity on abortion, because the good that the abortion act is doing is not news, while the mischief and abuses under it are. we hear nothing of all the thousands of women who have been relieved of suffering, whose health has been improved, whose families have been safeguarded, whose children have been safeguarded against ill treatment, neglect, and even cruelty, where these considerations were taken into account when the decision on termination was reached.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.113', 5, 'uk.m.22068', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. peter mahon rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.114', 7, 'uk.m.17849', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yet these are the thousands of cases—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.115', 4, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. mahon rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.116', 9, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the right hon. gentleman is not giving way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.117', 232, 'uk.m.17849', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am sorry. i have only two minutes before four o'clock.\n we get all the publicity about alleged wealthy foreigners and distressed girls arriving from other countries. we hear a lot about the touting going on and the package deals. may i utter one warning in this connection. a good deal of this is propaganda in other countries to secure a change in their own abortion laws. they are suggesting that it is a national humiliation that their women should have to come to england for abortions, and they want to change their law in their own country.\n there is so much mischief surrounding the question of abortion that it is the duty of both sides of the house to apply rational and temperate opinion to the working of the act. are we going through this again and again? is this part of a persistent campaign to change the 1967 act? first there was a ten-minute rule bill. then we had an early day motion, and now we have this attempt. i sincerely hope that hon. members on both sides will give the act a chance to work under the wise directorship of my right hon. friend the secretary of state for social services.\n i hope that the house will register a vote on the bill, and that all hon. members will keep their seats and allow a vote to be given.\n ", datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.118', 7, 'uk.m.18226', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir stephen mcadden (southend, east) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.119', 21, 'uk.m.22079', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. peter m. jackson (the high peak) rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.120', 12, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am not prepared to accept the closure. sir stephen mcadden.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.121', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'shame.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.122', 5, 'uk.m.18226', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir s. mcadden rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.123', 6, 'uk.m.22079', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. peter m. jackson rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.124', 18, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have not called the hon. member for the high peak (mr. peter m. jackson). sir stephen mcadden.\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.125', 29, 'uk.m.18226', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not know why it should be considered that anybody holding a certain point of view should not be allowed to express it in this house—nor do i—\n ', datetime.datetime(1970, 2, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6']]
['ABORTION']
[['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.1', 940, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "with permission, mr. speaker, i should like to make, in association with my right hon. friends the secretaries of state for scotland and wales, a statement on abortion. since march of this year a select committee has been considering the abortion (amendment) bill of my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). the committee made nine recommendations in its third special report to the house on 5th august, most of which follow up proposals made last year by the lane committee on the working of the abortion act. i am glad to tell the house that the government accept in principle all the select committee's recommendations.\n my intentions, announced earlier this year, to strengthen the safeguards which apply to abortion in the private sector are similar to those recommended by the select committee. action has already been taken following consultation with the medical profession with a view to requiring private nursing homes which concentrate on abortion to give me an assurance concerning the total fees charged to patients. assurances have also been sought from all approved nursing homes about financial arrangements with referral agencies. only those private nursing homes with adequate facilities will be authorised to carry out terminations of pregnancy after the twentieth week.\n i have also written to those nursing homes which concentrate on abortion asking for information on the number of foreign patients treated during the 18 months to 30th june 1975 and i shall be seeking such information from all approved nursing homes at quarterly intervals in future. i am reviewing the arrangements which are made by the nursing homes for the reception, counselling and after-care of foreign patients on the lines proposed by the select committee and i will require changes in these arrangements where necessary.\n the committee recommended that the health ministers should produce a list of approved bureaux and refuse to approve clinics which accepted patients from unlisted bureaux. we are proposing to implement this change shortly, and application forms have been issued to bureaux and agencies. i am, moreover, concerned to ensure that adequate counselling facilities are available for all women who indicate that their pregnancies are unwanted, and a draft paper as proposed by the select committee giving guidance on counselling will be circulated for consultation to bodies representing the medical, nursing and social work professions.\n in the national health service the select committee's recommendation that terminations after the twentieth week of pregnancy should be carried out only in hospitals possessing appropriate facilities, including resuscitation equipment, have been accepted, and discussions have been held with regional medical officers who will be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations. i have issued a circular to health authorities on the report of the peel advisory group on the use of fetuses and fetal material for research asking for the adoption of its recommended code of practice where not already in use and i put a similar requirement on private nursing homes.\n some of the other recommendations of the select committee will require amendment of the abortion regulations 1968. my department is undertaking a study of the procedures and forms set out in the regulations as proposed by the select committee, and in the light of its report i shall be considering the whole question of the procedure for the certification and notification of abortions. another recommendation which would require amending the regulations is to allow the disclosure to the general medical council of information taken from the notification to the chief medical officers of the health departments. this recommenda- tion is accepted, and the regulations will be amended to permit disclosure to the president of the general medical council at his request.\n a further change in the regulations recommended by the select committee is designed to ensure that the doctors who certify that the condition of the abortion act are met in a particular case should examine the patient. the regulations will be amended to ensure that a question asking whether the patient has been seen and an examination has been carried out will be put on all forms.\n i think the house will be glad to know that action is being or has already been taken on all the recommendations made by the select committee in its third report and on many of the major recommendations of the lane committee. i have issued guidance on day care systems to health authorities and hope to authorise day-care services in some private clinics with a record of high standards. the most important preventive action which the government have taken is to introduce as part of the nhs a comprehensive family planning service which started to function fully this summer. i can only regret that this was not introduced a decade or more ago.\n during the second reading of the abortion (amendment) bill in february 1975, a commitment was given by the government that if the bill were withdrawn the government would propose the establishment of a select committee to examine and report on the proposals contained in the bill and would also propose its re-establishment for the 1975–76 session if this were necessary. in the event, the house did not allow the bill to be withdrawn but instead committed the bill itself to a select committee. under this procedure the bill and the select committee lapse at the end of this session. the government feel that the house, in the light of the committee's reports already published and of this statement, should be given an opportunity to decide whether the select committee should be re-established as the committee itself has requested, and a motion will be tabled early in the next session.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.2', 139, 'uk.m.10212', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "we welcome this statement. is the right hon. lady aware that there is a strong feeling on both sides of the house that the select committee should continue its work and that that part of her statement will be particularly appreciated? is the right hon. lady also aware that there is very strong support both in this house and outside for any measures which will eliminate abuses?\n i should like to take one further point from the statement. as the secretary of state realises, many of us attach particular importance to the select committee's recommendation that every woman contemplating an abortion should receive proper advice on the dangers and the alternatives. can the right hon. lady give the house a little more detail on what she has in mind in this important new counselling procedure that she is proposing?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.3', 153, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "on the re-establishment of the select committee, i think we all agree that it has done very useful work. the items now remaining for consideration enter into some of the basic points of controversy on which hon. members will wish to consider whether the select committee could or could not produce useful advice to the house. therefore, we propose to allow the house to decide whether it feels that the select committee's work should continue. as far as the government are concerned, that will be on a free vote.\n regarding counselling, as i have said i shall be consulting organisations representing the medical, nursing and social work professions and a consultative group of regional health authority officers. we want to see that proper counselling is given in which the alternatives to abortion are made quite clear and to ensure that proper after-care, advice and counselling after a pregnancy has been terminated are provided.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.4', 104, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i congratulate my right hon. friend on the speed with which she has moved on this matter. i should like her to know that many thousands of people throughout the country share my views. i am fed up telling people that there has been a great deal of dubiety about whether the select committee will meet again in the next parliament. again, the government are keeping a pledge. this proposal will come before the house for us to carry on. what my right hon. friend has already done will go a long way to clearing out some of the "rackets" in the medical world.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.5', 102, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "i am grateful to my hon. friend. he is absolutely right that the action that we have taken or are taking following the select committee's recommendations will deal with the abuses which have alarmed hon. members on both sides of the house in the past and will make some important and far-reaching changes in the situation. i repeat that the re-establishment of the select committee is a matter for the house itself to weigh up. there are many factors to be weighed up. i should like to feel that hon. members will be free to follow their judgment and consciences on it.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.6', 54, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before the right hon. lady brings before the house her proposals for tightening up the act, will she consider withdrawing at once the directive to hospital boards not to employ junior and freshly qualified obstetricians unless they undertake to carry out abortion operations, since this is a grave invasion of their freedom to operate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.7', 246, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "i am sure that the hon. lady is suffering from a misunderstanding of the situation. there is no such directive. i shall be happy to send her a copy of the chief medical officer's letter on this matter. we have made it quite clear that doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion are not being exluded from working in the national health service, but we have also pointed out that the nhs is under an obligation to provide an abortion service as laid down by parliament. it may happen that in some areas consultants normally dealing with abortion cases do so on behalf of colleagues who have a conscientious objection. when one of those providing a service which parliament has decided should be provided moves away, if the service is to be continued it will be essential to ensure that the means exist of continuing the facilities.\n i should point out to the hon. lady that the chief medical officer has been notified of only nine appointments made since 1st march this year in obstetrics and gynaecology and anaesthetics where there was a specification of the need for a willingness to carry out abortions. only nine such appointments have been made out of a total of some 70 appointments which would normally be made in such a period. the ratio of nine appointments out of 70 still leaves an overwhelmingly large area for those with conscientious objections to continue to practise in the national health service.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.8', 31, 'uk.m.19526', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my right hon. friend realise that the members of the select committee will greatly appreciate her ready and prompt reaction to the recommendations that they were able to reach unanimously?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.9', 52, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i am grateful to my right hon. friend, who has done an excellent job on the committee, for his comments. i appreciate, too, the spirit in which the opposition front bench has responded to my statement. it is important that we should cease to deal with these matters on a party basis.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.10', 17, 'uk.m.16530', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the select committee is reconvened, will it consist of the members of the existing select committee?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.11', 22, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'we think that this is a matter for the house. the motion will be considered by the house when the time comes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.12', 128, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my right hon. friend be ready to acknowledge the thanks of a large number of people now that she has activated her department, which has been so tardy in the past in dealing with abuses which are now revealed as being in existence and needing considerable attention?\n the select committee, which has been able to reach unanimity on so many matters and to help my right hon. friend, has expressed the opinion that there is a need for a select committee to be re-established to deal with matters such as conscientious objection and many other issues. if the select committee were not re-established, it would be regarded in the country as though once again an attempt was being made to sweep abuses and wrongs under the carpet.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.13', 141, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "i am sorry that my hon. friend has spoilt the harmony and atmosphere that was prevailing by that quite unfair allegation against my department, because anyone who listened to the speech of my hon. friend the minister of state during the second reading debate on the bill would have realised that we were already proceeding to act against abuses of which we were aware. but that does not prevent me from paying a tribute to the work of the select committee for continuing, as it were, to round up the abuses still prevailing in the private sector. i pay a tribute to my hon. friend's work in the select committee, but i shall not accept his indictment against my department. as for the re-establishment of the select committee, i think that my hon. friend's remarks were really appropriate to that debate.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.14', 70, 'uk.m.22183', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i remind the right hon. lady that in february the abortion (amendment) bill was given a second reading by a large majority of 115 and that there is no evidence that the opinion of the house has changed substantially since then? apart from the possibility of reconvening the select committee, what action does the right hon. lady propose to take to give effect to the wishes of the house?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.15', 109, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i do not know what my statement has been about if it is not about the steps that we have taken, without any delay, to give effect to the recommendations of the select committee with regard to abuses of the abortion legislalation.\n as for the support of the house for the continuance of the select committee, that is a matter that we shall discover when the motion is debated, because it could well be that some members will feel that the action taken on the third report of the select committee is the answer to the anxieties that they had when they voted as they did on second reading.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.16', 221, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i ask my right hon. friend exactly what her statement about the number of foreign women coming into this country for abortion implies? is she aware that, according to the figures given to me recently by her hon. friend the minister of state, it is clear that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of foreign women coming to britain because of the more liberal abortion laws in france and elsewhere? secondly, can my right hon. friend say exactly what is intended to be done for women who present themselves after 20 weeks for a termination of pregnancy? very often these are women who do not seek advice early in pregnancy, they are unable to take proper contraceptive care and there are also medical conditions that present themselves after 20 weeks of pregnancy. if my right hon. friend means that they must all be dealt with in national health service hospitals, is she prepared to give a guarantee now that facilities for women to have a termination of pregnancy operation will be made available in every region in the country? is she aware that one of the major abuses is that in many regions women are not able to get the termination of pregnancy to which they are legally entitled? this is an abuse which needs urgent attention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.17', 220, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'my hon. friend is right in the first part of her question. there has been a dramatic fall in the number of foreign women coming to this country for an abortion. in 1974, about 51,000 abortions were performed on women resident outside the united kingdom, which represented a fall of about 10 per cent. on the 1973 figures. in the first eight months of this year there has been a decline of about 30 per cent. on the figures for the corresponding period in 1974. i think that my hon. friend is right also in saying that this is connected with the more liberal abortion laws obtaining overseas. on a recent official visit to france one found almost open recognition of the changes that were taking place as a result of the alterations in the abortion law in france.\n i also agree with my hon. friend that there are areas of the national health service where facilities provided by parliament under this legislation are not available. this is connected with my earlier reply about doctors and conscientious objections. i should like to see a more uniform and better coverage of provision in the national health service, which is one of the lane committee recommendations, because this would reduce dependence on the private sector which has been the source of abuse.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.18', 139, 'uk.m.10399', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i congratulate my hon. friend and the government on their decision to bring back to the house the question whether a select committee should be established. whatever views individuals may have on this issue, it is right that this matter should be decided by the house on a free vote, and my right hon. friend is to be congratulated on what she proposes to do.\n is my right hon. friend aware that, as a member of the select committee, i paid particular attention to the question of counselling and the provision of counselling facilities? it is most importand that my right hon. friend should not only lay down procedures but should ensure that there is adequate training and that all the facilities and alternatives are known not only to patients but also to those who are giving the advice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.19', 100, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "i am grateful to my hon. friend for his congratulations to the government, and i pay tribute to his work on the select committee. he is right in saying that counselling is an important part of this procedure, and, as i said in an earlier reply, counselling will include the full presentation of alternatives that are available. with regard to my hon. friend's suggestion that this should involve careful training, i hope that this is one matter that will be dealt with effectively and helpfully in the consultations that i am having with organisations representing medical, nursing and social workers.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.20', 76, 'uk.m.17552', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "when the right hon. lady says that the reconvening of the select committee should be left to a decision of the house by a free vote, does she mean a genuine free vote on this issue or the sort of so-called free vote that we had on the murder (abolition of death penalty) bill when the labour party was whipped through the sponsor's lobby by the then government chief whip, the present leader of the house?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.21', 63, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i think that the record of this government in recognising that a sensitive subject is a matter for individual conscience is unparalleled. i think that once again the hon. gentleman is unfairly and unnecessarily trying to stir it up, especially when one remembers the free vote that was fully operational on our side of the house for the second reading of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.22', 22, 'uk.m.22502', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. what the hon. member for st. albans (mr. goodhew) has just said is utterly untrue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.23', 30, 'uk.m.17552', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i assure you, mr. speaker, that i was a teller in the lobby on one occasion when the right hon. gentleman cleared the lobby and whipped hon. members through it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.24', 165, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as a member of the select committee, may i congratulate my right hon. friend the secretary of state on the alacrity with which she has acted on our recommendations? does not this indicate that the area of abuses of the abortion act 1967, which quite rightly agitated the house and the country, has now been cleared for action by her department? i commend her for repudiating the allegations made by the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) about directives to doctors. if i believed that directives of the kind the hon. lady mentioned applied, i should be extremely concerned. when my right hon. friend considers abuses of the abortion act—and there have undoubtedly been abuses—will she take into account the abuses to which my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) referred, namely, abuses of an act of parliament because many women in this country cannot take advantage of this legislation because of the attitude of some members of the medical professions?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9.1.25', 213, 'uk.m.14155', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend for his generous remarks about the speed with which we have acted. we have acted with speed because throughout it has been our policy to deal with these abuses vigorously and comprehensively. we had already proceeded against a number of the abuses, but undoubtedly the work of the select committee, on which my hon. friend played a distinguished part, has helped us to complete the work. i am confident that in the list of measures i have announced there will be a comprehensive and effective attack on those abuses, which will be eliminated.\n i am grateful to my hon. friend for his remarks about doctors with conscientious objections. he is right. it would be intolerable if directives of the kind which the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) insinuated were to be issued. my chief medical officer would be the last person to agree with them.\n i agree with my hon. friend the member for east kilbride (dr. miller) that there are areas in the national health service in which women are unable to obtain the facilities provided for by parliament, and many of them have been driven to the private sector. in difficult circumstances i shall do my best to provided a uniform service.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-10-21.9']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.1', 326, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. speaker. i wish to raise a matter which i think will be of concern not only to the whole house but to the entire country.\n yesterday morning the committee that is dealing with the abortion (amendment) bill was sitting in committee room 10. whatever one's views about that bill might be, there is widespread and growing public concern about it throughout the country. the consequence is that in that committee room the accommodation for the press and the public is completely inadequate, so much so that yesterday morning the press association representative and a large number of other press representatives were unable to get access. several members of the committee, on both sides, raised the matter with the chairman. he sought to give an undertaking that he would do something about the problem. however, looking at all of the committee rooms, one finds that there is simply not enough accommodation for all of the people who want to get access to hear the debates on this bill.\n i think that it would be generally agreed that we all want to encourage maximum public access to our proceedings upstairs and downstairs. if there are any physical difficulties to prevent that, the house authorities should take every possible step open to them to ensure that this problem does not occur.\n the chairman of the committee has given undertakings to us that he will do what he can for the next sitting, next wednesday. however, i should like to ask you, mr. speaker, to use your good offices through the leader of the house. the leader of the house is listening now. he has a view on the bill, but he also has a view on the need to democratise our proceedings and expose them to public scrutiny. in those circumstances, i hope that you, mr. speaker, will use your good offices to ensure that the undesirable occurrence of yesterday is not repeated.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.2', 146, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "first, i am deeply grateful to the hon. member for fife, central (mr. hamilton), who gave me 48 hours' notice that he would be raising this point of order this afternoon. as the house is aware, i have no jurisdiction over the proceedings of the committee, but the hon. gentleman raises the question of accommodation. i have asked the authorities who manage our affairs on our behalf to examine it to see whether there is any way in which they can help. of course, it could well be that even if we had the central hall there would not be room for everyone who would want to attend for that particular subject. however, i can assure the hon. gentleman that i am taking an interest in this mattter, and i know that the responsible authorities are having discussions to try to find a way to help.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.3', 98, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "further to the point or order, mr. speaker. may i ask for a little clarification? in committee we asked whether it would be possible in this particular instance, without necessarily creating a precedent, to allow the press into the seats that are normally used by hon. members. it is a very small committee, comprising 17 members in a fairly large room. therefore, the accommodation that is available to members is far in excess of what they need. if the press were allowed to use members' accommodation—again without creating a precedent—that would satisfy opposition members serving on the committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.4', 135, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i am grateful to the hon. gentleman. i am afraid that it would create a precedent. whatever we said, someone on a future occasion would advance the argument that for the first time in our history we allowed strangers into members' seats.\n we are very particular not to allow simply anyone into the chamber. when i was chairman of a standing committee, i always firmly observed the rule that that part of the committee room allocated to members was allocated to them only. i am afraid that i cannot offer much hope to the hon. gentleman in that regard. however, i can tell him that there is no objection to the press taking notes in the public part of the committee room. perhaps members of the press will get up early and form a queue.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.5', 67, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. since my name was mentioned by the hon. gentleman, may i say that i shall be very glad to assist in any way that i can in solving this problem or finding some other accommodation? but you, mr. speaker, with your usual dispatch, have set the whole operation in motion and i can only be a rather minor accomplice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.6', 27, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'before we leave this matter, let me put it back on the shoulders of the leader of the house. i want him to take responsibility, not me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.7', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8.1.8', 18, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i have had notice of a point of order from the hon. member for tiverton (mr. maxwell-hyslop).\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 11, 1, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-11-01.8']]
['ABORTION']
[['uk.proc.d.1965-06-15.14.1.2', 1768, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the law on abortion. i seek to introduce a bill, supported by hon. members of all parties in the house, that would put into statutory form what is now established case law on abortion, and would provide that a registered medical practitioner might lawfully terminate a pregnancy at the request of a patient or her guardian when it was necessary for preserving the health or life of the woman; when there was serious risk of a defective child being born, and when the pregnancy resulted from a sexual offence.\n reform of this kind has been advocated over many decades by many organisations, including the british medical association, the magistrates' association, the townswomen's guild, the women's co-operative guild, the family planning association, the abortion law reform association, rotary clubs, the federation of university women and many other progressive and enlightened bodies.\n the medical termination of pregnancy is legal on these grounds in very many countries where it is done easily and without risk to the patient in the early stages of pregnancy. new techniques make it possible for it to be accomplished without surgical intervention, and in some of these countries the back street abortionist has either largely or entirely disappeared. contrary to what many opponents of my bill claim, there has been no increase in promiscuity there. i have visited hospitals in those countries, where this practice is carried out simply and swiftly. for many years i have observed in this country, as a member of a hospital management committee, the cost in human life, in misery, in unhappiness and in money that the present unsatisfactory and confused legal position causes.\n i pay tribute as a woman to those countless devoted campaigners—laymen as well as members of the medical and legal professions, some of whom are in this house today—who, for many decades, have been striving for a reform of the statute law on this subject. the law up to 1803 permitted the medical termination of pregnancy. the law enacted in 1861 has remained unchanged since that time, 104 years ago, and makes it a felony unlawfully to administer drugs or to use instruments to procure an abortion. for a long time the termination of pregnancy for the purpose of saving the life of the mother has been regarded as the exception to this rule by the courts.\n in 1939, that case law was extended to include the mother's health as well as her life. this arose from the celebrated bourne judgment and was later reinforced in 1948 in the case of rex v. bergman and ferguson. however, many cases have occurred which demonstrate the confusion and uncertainty which exists. in 1949, for example, a husband living in distressing conditions with his wife and two children attempted to abort his wife who died as a result. he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. mercifully, lord justice goddard, in the court of criminal appeal, discharged the defendant. but in 1961 a doctor whom the trial judge described as clever and not slovenly in the attention he bestowed on those who sought his help was sent to prison for six years.\n there are variations in judicial attitudes in ordinary crimes, but these appear to be accentuated in abortion cases, depending on the outlook of the judge. while some lawyers may feel that the present case law based on rex v. bourne is quite clear, evidence shows without doubt that the medical profession, those most involved, is by no means equally clear about its members' position. the result is that inevitably different interpretations of case law are made in different hospitals and practices to the severe detriment of women and children. a minority of gynaecologists will terminate in the hospital without subterfuge and in accordance with recognised procedures of the profession, but most doctors are too apprehensive of the legal position to perform the operation at all. there is no doubt that the medical profession requires the clarification which a bill of the kind i seek to introduce would bring and that the majority would support it.\n the abortion law reform association carried out a most valuable survey at the beginning of this year among doctors in the london area. of those replying, 53 per cent. said it was difficult or uncertain to know when termination was legal, 89 per cent. said they approved the changes in the law proposed by the association which i am supporting today, 84 per cent. said it would be quite safe, 57 per cent. thought that to compel a woman to bear a child against her will causes more psychological harm than hospital termination.\n these figures show a considerable shift in medical opinion during recent years and should be given considerable weight by hon. and right hon. members in this house. my hon. friend the member for wandsworth, central (dr. david kerr) drew the attention of the house recently to the rise in illegitimate births from 60,000 in 1962 to 68,000 in 1964. the department of education and science gives the number of illegitimate births to girls under the age of 16 at 220 in 1941 and 1,131 in 1963, a fivefold increase in 20 years. if we accept that this situation is the responsibility of society as a whole, as surely we must, it must also be wrong to expect them alone to bear the penalty of a blighted life.\n it has been estimated that there are about 100,000 illegal abortions a year, a terrible pool of human misery and unhappiness. the figure may well be higher, for there is a considerable amount of camouflage on medical certificates. some of these abortions are brought about by women themselves using terrifying instruments to bring abortion about. can the house stand a recital of the desperate lengths to which frightened women will go to prevent the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy? i quote from a report published in 1939 by the government abortion committee: things inserted in the womb, often with disastrous consequences, included knitting and darning needles, crochet and button hooks, pencils, scissors and hairpins, disinfectants, washing soda and other irritants, drugs which frequently damage the foetus without killing it, and other violent methods. then there are those women who go to back-street abortionists and who have similar terrifying interference carried out in ghastly and dirty conditions. damage is done to the unborn child, deformed babies often result, and sterility, and very frequently death. then there are those fortunate women who can have a termination carried out properly in aseptic conditions either because they have found a sympathetic surgeon in hospital, or because they know where to go and have the money for secret, expensive termination in a private clinic or nursing home. after two or three days that woman can return home and resume her normal life.\n the results of self-induced or backstreet abortions come to our hospitals for the damage to be put right. it can take two or three weeks and it costs about £33 per patient per bed per week. the house can work out the comparative cost between two or three days and two or three weeks. with the septic cases there is a disproportionate strain on scarce medical and nursing skill. they need more nursing, more drugs, more blood transfusions. in 1962, the london emergency bed service was asked to find beds for 5,734 abortion cases, an increase of 40 per cent. over the past eight years. the consultant gynaecologist at one of our most famous teaching hospitals told me only last week that in 1959 his department cared for 138 abortion cases. by 1963, that figure had risen to 274. it had doubled in four years and 192 of those were probably self-induced or criminal abortions.\n abortion is the second most common cause of maternal death; 61 per cent. are procured by the patient herself, 22 per cent. of deaths from this cause occur among women with four or more children—think what happens to those children—and almost 90 per cent. of women having abortions are married. since my right hon. friend the minister of health attempted to introduce his own private member's bill in 1961, the thalidomide tragedy has occurred. this adds urgency to the need for reform. it caused a great shift in public opinion.\n as recently as last march a national opinion poll carried out in depth on abortion law showed that almost three-quarters of the people of this country—just over 72 per cent.—are in favour of reform on the lines i have suggested. seventy-five per cent. of church of england people interviewed were in favour, 68 per cent. of nonconformists, 75 per cent. of presbyterians and 60 per cent. of catholics were all in favour. seventy per cent. of those interviewed thought there should be no punishment at all for doctors who carried out abortions which they believed morally justified.\n the religious divisions on this question were equally interesting. seventy per cent. of church of england members, 68 per cent. of nonconformists, 73 per cent. of presbyterians, and 63 per cent. of catholics thought there should be no punishment of the doctor. if one believed catholic writers to the press, one would get a very different impression of catholic opinion. i believe that the house, too, must give considerable weight to this shift in public opinion.\n i have had very many letters from individuals and from organisations welcoming the reform which i hope to initiate. i have not had one letter of protest, either from an individual or from an organisation. i was greatly heartened by the resolution which was carried recently by the annual conference of the townswomen's guild in favour of reform. the conference represented over 200,000 women. it is my belief, therefore, that only a very small minority of people would oppose reform on religious grounds, but that small minority can no longer be permitted to impose its views on the majority. this would be the negation of democracy.\n if a foetus can be aborted spontaneously up to the 28th week of pregnancy without the church or state being concerned, without a birth having to be registered, without a burial service having to be held, if that seven-month foetus can be buried in the back garden or burned in a hospital incinerator, why should there be opposition to the safe termination of pregnancy up to 13 weeks on properly defined grounds? i therefore hope that the house, with its great tradition of humanitarianism and reform, will allow the bill to be presented and will facilitate its passage.\n ", datetime.datetime(1965, 6, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1965-06-15.14']]
["ABORTION ACT (MEMBER'S QUESTION)"]
[['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.1', 9, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'mr. st. john-stevas. to raise a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.2', 173, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'mr. speaker, i wish to raise a point of order of which i have given you notice. it arises out of question time yesterday, when i addressed a question to the secretary of state for social services on the working of the abortion act.\n it was then put to the secretary of state by the hon. member for manchester, exchange (mr. will griffiths) that in a widely publicised statement i had said that thousands of foreign women were flocking to london to use the facilities of the national health service made available by the abortion law. that statement was made without any attempt to check the facts, and i was rebuked by the secretary of state for making it.\n owing to the manner in which the matter was raised i had no opportunity to defend myself. i have never made any such statement, either inside this house or outside it, and i seek your guidance as to how this kind of injustice can be remedied within the rules of order of the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.3', 129, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. member is entitled to seek my private advice, as he did this morning, but he will appreciate that guidance from the chair on how to raise matters during the course of future proceedings in the house cannot be dealt with by question and answer now. the personal explanation which the hon. member sought my permission to make would, in my view, inevitably have led to controversy, and, consequently, to an irregular debate.\n in those circumstances, i could not allow it, and that is as far as the chair can go without being drawn into an argument which would be wholly out of order this afternoon. the hon. member will find the rules and guidance on personal statements at page 373 in the current edition of erskine may.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.4', 23, 'uk.m.21679', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. could not this matter be concluded if the minister responsible apologised to my hon. friend?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.5', 20, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. and gallant member must not seek to draw the chair into matters of controversy between hon. members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.6', 8, 'uk.m.18679', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.7', 7, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i was hoping that we could proceed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.8', 57, 'uk.m.18679', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i know. the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas) was in the house yesterday, as i was, when this exchange took place with the minister. the hon. gentleman made no effort to repudiate the statement, and i suggest that as he did not attempt to correct it then he has no right to do so now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.9', 34, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if the hon. member reads tomorrow the ruling that i have just made, he will see that we cannot enter by question and answer on a controversial topic like this at this moment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.10', 66, 'uk.m.22568', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. as the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas) has mentioned me, i should like to say, first, that during the years i have been in the house i have never known such a procedure as has been employed today, inasmuch as i was not informed by the hon. gentleman that he intended to raise this matter today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.11', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'oh.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.12', 124, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'second, hon. members join in the exchanges and debates and put supplementary questions, and what i said yesterday was based upon my recollection of an interview which the hon. gentleman gave on b.b.c. radio in the "world at one". had the hon. gentleman done me the courtesy of informing me of his objection—and i agree with my hon. friend the member for salford, west (mr. orme) that the hon. gentleman made no attempt to raise this matter yesterday—i should certainly have looked at the transcript of the programme, and, as is the custom of the house, if i had done the hon. gentleman an injustice then those who know me know that i should have had the good grace to withdraw what i said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.13', 5, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. st. john-stevas rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.14', 57, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. even mr. speaker has the right to speak.\n the exchanges that are taking place at the moment show just how wise erskine may is in the rulings and the advice that it gives on personal statements and in the discretion that it gives to mr. speaker not to allow them if he thinks they are controversial.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.15', 93, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that last point of order, mr. speaker. i entirely accept your ruling, but may i say that at half-past ten this morning i rang the secretary to the hon. member for manchester, exchange (mr. will griffiths) to inform the hon. gentleman that i intended raising this matter with you. i also wrote a letter to the hon. gentleman, which i left on the letter board before luncheon, so that he should be present. i do not wish to pursue the matter further. i am satisfied that my point has been made.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.16', 88, 'uk.m.22568', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'mr. speaker, i apologise to you and to the house. i just want to record as a matter of fact and truth that i have just walked into the chamber and i have been given two letters from the board. neither of them is from the hon. gentleman, and i have received no message of any kind. i am not accusing the hon. gentleman, but i owe it to myself and to my hon. friends to record all i know to be the truth as i understand it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9.1.17', 27, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'there is obviously a failure in communication between the two hon. members. the house accepts in good faith the words of each of the two hon. members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 5, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-05-20.9']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-05-12.25.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 5, 12, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-05-12.25']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.3', 6, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the motion is not agreed to.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.4', 74, 'uk.m.17616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. may i seek your guidance on this matter? although i am in no way seeking to suggest that the objection is in any way without the procedures of this house—i appreciate that it is not—this bill has had a second reading and my understanding is, that being the position, that it means that this house wishes to consider it in committee. all that this motion does—\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.5', 27, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that that is not a point of order. it is not a matter that the chair can answer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.6', 41, 'uk.m.19168', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i raise a matter on the same subject, mr. deputy speaker? the hon. member for surrey, north-west (mr. grylls) has the support of hon. members on both sides of the house and of the people in the country in general—\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12.1.7', 18, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i must explain that we are dealing with unopposed business. i cannot take that point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-21.12']]
['Abortion Clinics (Access)']
['ABORTION CLINICS (ACCESS)']
[['uk.proc.d.1993-05-19.4.1.1', 1177, 'uk.m.10123', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to prohibit interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, any person using an abortion clinic or any person employed therein, and the obstruction of access to such premises; to provide remedies for persons affected by such acts; to require information on counselling services to be given to persons seeking an abortion; and for connected purposes. the activities referred to in the bill should be written into our law as a clear criminal offence. when it boils down to it, such activity is another form of violence towards women, in this case women who are already in an anxious state.\n abortion is legal. it is outrageous that, after making a painful and difficult decision, perhaps after careful counselling and discussion with their partner, women attending clinics for treatment should be the subject of abuse and harassment and placed in fear of violence. the same goes for clinical workers.\n seven weeks ago, rescue america despicably forced several women to run the gauntlet of its abuse and intimidation. a report of that appeared in the guardian on 2 april. one woman said: i couldn\'t believe the way they just descended on me. they swarmed around me and i was very frightened. when she arrived at the clinic, she burst into tears. she said: having an abortion is not an easy decision and i was already feeling emotionally unstable. these people just took advantage of that. i was shaking and crying and had to go and sit in a room to calm myself down …they are not going to achieve anything like this. women think very carefully about having abortions and these people are not going to change anybody\'s mind. i think they are all sick and very intimidating. i believe that everyone has the right to hold an opinion but these people hounded me. i felt like a criminal and am still very disturbed by what happened … it was very distressing and occurred at a time when i have enough to worry about already. those were the words of a woman who was harassed by rescue america.\n the activities of rescue america and rescue outreach are becoming increasingly violent in the united states. the groups do not merely block access. they have undertaken fire bombings, arson attacks and acid attacks on clinics. they have stormed hospital theatres. there have been shootings. a florida doctor was shot dead outside his clinic earlier this year. the director of rescue america, don treshman, called it "unfortunate" and added chillingly: had he not been killed, many more babies would have died at his hands. last year marked a record for violence against clinics in the united states. there were 1,107 acts of serious violence such as bombing, arson, chemical contamination, invasion and vandalism. it cost almost $50 million. special camps were set up to train members to read licence plates, follow people and harass them at home, and illegally enter schools to leaflet children with pictures of foetuses.\n with such fanaticism, there must be a real danger of harm to women arriving at abortion clinics and to the workers there. the people involved are trying to export this intimidation and violence to the united kingdom. they have set up rescue uk, and training courses have been organised by their american counterparts. these include instruction on how to intervene physically, with violence. james morrow, the founder of rescue uk, has been arrested more than a dozen times, and in 1989 he was convicted of assault on a pregnant clinic manager.\n i believe that, for infamy and ignominy, the demonstrations that took place outside abortion clinics seven weeks ago were on a par with those of the racist dockers in the 1960s. the rights of women should be protected by law, yet the role of the police was far from satisfactory. they did not ensure complete freedom of access or freedom from intimidation. they put the demonstrators first and the women second. at some demonstrations, they refused to allow women to go through on their own, despite the fact that these women were engaging in lawful personal business, and, on grounds of public order, they also refused to allow escorts, such as those from the national abortion campaign, to accompany the women.\n with such tactics, the police were, in effect, doing operation rescue\'s job for it. it is also known that some of the police officers involved expressed their support for operation rescue. policing tactics were inconsistent, being down to individual police officers. that is most unsatisfactory. the home office should produce some consistent guidelines and ensure that women\'s rights are paramount.\n in our democracy, anti-abortion groups have the right to demonstrate. they can lobby parliament and march through london or any other town. however, they should not be allowed to abuse individual women who, having made an often painful and difficult decision, are attending clinics for treatment that they are, by law, allowed to have. threatening individual women who are seeking treatment is cowardly. my bill puts the women\'s rights and their safety first. it creates a clear criminal offence where there is intimidation or where people\'s access is blocked.\n it is necessary to give women a choice at an earlier stage, when they are considering what to do. that is why my bill puts on general practitioners an onus to inform women what sort of counselling is available and might be helpful to them. violent demonstration and intimidation should be no part of the process. the home secretary was right to have don treshman of rescue america arrested and deported on the grounds that his activities were not conducive to the public good. however, that was not a satisfactory mechanism. in any case, we have our own home-grown intimidation and women bashers. nor are obstruction laws the right ones to use in these circumstances. we saw how the police implemented those laws: they prevented women from securing their legal rights. we need a clear-cut law making it illegal to block access to abortion clinics.\n it is ironic that one outcome of these incidents is that demonstrations in the royal parks are not acceptable. in the interests of the women and clinic workers, demonstrations outside abortion clinics should not be acceptable. we should have this law in place before these dangerous fanatics return in september, as they have vowed to do.\n the bill is supported by the national abortion campaign and the abortion law reform group. last week, one anti-abortion hon. member tabled a motion on obscenity. it urges the government to balance freedom of speech with their responsibility to protect children, women and men from degradation and violence. i similarly seek to protect women who are lawfully using abortion clinics from this latest form of violence by anti-abortion extremists. an editorial on this issue in the independent concluded with these words: women should know that they can have abortions within the law without fear of intimidation or more distress than they will in any case experience. my bill enshrines that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1993, 5, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1993-05-19.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1993-05-19.4.1.2', 834, 'uk.m.10646', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i wish to oppose the motion. the hon. member for leyton (mr. cohen) raised a number of important issues on which opinions in the house and outside are deeply held and strongly felt.\n i share the hon. gentleman's concern about the recent scenes that we have witnessed outside both abortion clinics and the administrative headquarters of those who advocate abortion. those of us who are members of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group have no truck whatever with those individuals or organisations, whatever their views or philosophy, who advocate violence, intimidation or the flouting of the law as a means of furthering their ends.\n that rejection of violence and intimidation applies to those from the socialist workers party and the national abortion campaign who have turned up with the deliberate intention of disrupting peaceful demonstrations, rallies and religious services. it applies equally to those who share our abhorrence of abortion but adopt methods with which we have no sympathy and to which we give no support.\n our opposition to the criminal destruction of property in abortion clinics is as strong as our opposition to the destruction of property that took place during the debate on the bill introduced some time ago by the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), when the headquarters of the society for the protection of unborn children was ransacked by pro-abortion extremists. our opposition to assaults on any person seeking or advocating an abortion is as strong as our opposition to the sort of cowardly attack which was perpetrated some time ago on the then father of the house and right hon. member for castle point, sir bernard braine, who was assaulted by a gang of pro-abortion thugs outside a prayer meeting at the royal albert hall.\n i hope that i have shown that there is some common ground between myself and the hon. member for leyton, but despite our common rejection of violence as a means of achieving political change within our parliamentary democracy, i cannot support his appeal. violence and intimidation are already illegal in this country, as indeed are crimes against property. there already exists a wide range of powers available to the courts to deal with such activities, whether they take place outside abortion clinics or outside factories.\n i wonder whether the hon. gentleman would be so keen to ask for tougher action against those on the timex picket line? the law surely must be applied firmly, but fairly and equally, to protect all who seek to exercise their right to demonstrate peacefully, and to prevent violence and intimidation wherever it arises.\n the hon. member for leyton seeks also to liberalise still further the abortion act 1967 by creating a new requirement to provide information and counseling services, which suggests that there is a right under present legislation to have an abortion. that is not the case. the legislation merely provides a defence against prosecution if abortion is performed under one of a given set of circumstances. it does not provide for a right of access to abortion.\n that is an important legal point, because it is now common practice to interpret the legislation differently, with many doctors openly operating a policy of abortion on demand. the result is that more than 90 per cent. of abortions are performed for reasons of social convenience. a staggering 3·7 million abortions have now been performed under the terms of the abortion act. of those, only 151—or 0·004 per cent.—were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother.\n the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (sir d. steel), when he promoted the legislation 25 years ago, told us that abortion would liberate women and make every child a wanted child. the opposite has been the effect. abortion has allowed society to sweep under the carpet the very problems for which it was hailed as a panacea.\n abortion has failed abysmally. it allows the continuing exploitation of women and their health and, as the inexorable increase in child abuse has shown, the devaluation of human life before birth has altered society's attitudes to children after birth. the hon. member for leyton and those who profess their faith in the nostrum of liberal abortion laws can now look back on 25 years of failure, of the exploitation of women, and of the slaughter of unborn children.\n for those reasons, we should not give the hon. member leave to bring in his bill. those listening to what is said today should take note of the fact that a decision not to divide the house should not be taken to mean support for this measure. it is simply a sign that there are many important issues on today's order paper—issues on which hon. members want to make progress without wasting time by dividing the house over an issue which is little more than a stunt to enable those who share the hon. gentleman's extremist views to curry favour with their supporters in the pro-abortion lobby outside the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1993, 5, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1993-05-19.4']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)']
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)']
[['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5.1.1', 48, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. may i ask you to consider adjourning the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for glasgow, cathcart (mr. taylor)? the motion has been put down extremely late today, and it is a matter of considerable concern—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5.1.2', 25, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am afraid that i must tell the hon. lady that i have no power to adjourn it. i must call it in due course.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5.1.3', 43, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i accept your ruling, of course, and i do not in any way question your judgment. but the composition of this select committee is a matter of enormous importance to every woman in the country—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5.1.4', 29, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'if the hon. lady studies standing order no. 13 she will appreciate that i have to hear one side and then the other side and make my own judgment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.2', 2, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.3', 23, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. i understand that standing order no. 13 bequeaths unto you two discretions. i wish to put—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.4', 67, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if i am to have points of order on how i should exercise my discretion, the whole proceeding will be counter-productive. i am well aware of the terms of the standing order. i have every intention of listening to two brief explanatory statements, one on each side, and considering them. if hon. members attempt to tell me how to do that now, it will not help.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.5', 113, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not wish to waste the time of the house, but i should like to put one point for your consideration, mr. speaker. i understand that the procedure of proposing a select committee in this way has not been used for many years. i realise that all hon. members are aware of that. however, i should like you to take on board the possibility that frequent use of this procedure could drive a coach and horses through the time of this house, because any hon. member could put down such a motion on any vexatious idea or principle. i should like you to bear that point in mind in exercising your discretion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.6', 75, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have listened to the hon. gentleman, but it is somewhat tiresome, because if i appear to give in to this kind of pressure regarding the exercise of my discretion it would seem that i am being told how to use it. the standing order leaves the matter to me. i am well aware of these factors. i intend to exercise discretion as best i can, but i must first hear the brief explanatory statements.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.7', 55, 'uk.m.16389', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i am not asking for your discretion. i want to make it clear that if there is a vote against the motion, it is not a vote against the principle of a select committee but only against the selection that is currently set out in the motion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.8', 22, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'if we get to a vote, i will do my best, if there is any doubt, to indicate what it is about.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.9', 895, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that mr. leo abse, miss betty boothroyd, mr. andrew bowden, mrs. elaine kellett-bowman, sir bernard braine, mrs. joyce butler, mr. john biggs-davison, mr. anthony fell, mrs. helene hayman, mr. kevin mcnamara, dr. miller, sir george sinclair, mr. david steel, mr. james white, and mr. frederick willey be members of the select committee on the abortion (amendment) bill. the motion refers to the setting up of a select committee to consider the abortion (amendment) bill so that it can proceed with its work without any delay.\n as has been said, i move the motion in the terms of standing order no. 13, which, as far as i can establish, is a procedure rarely used in the commons but i believe was designed for the kind of situation which has been created by the repeated objections of a small group of hon. members to the membership of the select committee proposed by the treasurer of her majesty\'s household, which coincides with my choice.\n hon. members will recall that on friday 7th february the abortion (amendment) bill presented by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) and sponsored by hon. members of all parties, including myself, was given a second reading by a substantial majority—203 in favour and 88 against.\n thereafter, the house unanimously agreed, without a vote and without any dissenting voice, that the matter should be referred to a select committee. these were clear decisions of the house, one by a massive majority and the other unanimous. therefore, the will and the intention of the house were clearly established.\n i understand that shortly afterwards there were discussions through the usual channels which led to the government putting down the motion on the order paper proposing the names of a number of hon. members to serve on the select committee. the membership proposed, in my view, and, i believe, in the view of the vast majority of the house, included respected and fair-minded members. the proposed membership also reflected the opinion of the house on the merits of the bill: some supporters, some opponents, and some who did not vote on 7th february. four of the proposed members were women, two of whom had voted against the bill and the other two had not voted on 7th february.\n however, as must have been obvious to everyone who has stayed late in the commons in recent nights, the motion nominating the members to serve on the select committee has been blocked by a small minority of hon. members, all of whom, so far as i am aware—[an hon. member: "women."]—are bitter opponents of the bill, which, as i said, was approved in the house by a substantial majority. in my view, these blocking tactics are frustrating the will of the house that a select committee be established and allowed to get on with its work. it has been clear that there were these feelings. we must not allow such tactics to continue. the list of amendments to the membership of the select committee despite points which have been made to me about disagreements on its composition, are frivolous and demonstrate the real intentions of the objectors to delay and frustrate the setting up of the committee.\n i will give one example. the amendments propose that all the male members on the committee be removed, including the promoter of the bill. i suggest that, while there might be disagreements about the right persons to serve on the committee, it is frivolous on a bill of this nature to suggest that not only the pro- moter of the bill but all the male members be taken off it.\n although it is distinctly unwise these days for any conservative to minimise the contribution that ladies can make to the political progress of britain, i cannot believe that the house would consider it appropriate that a bill of this kind should be considered by a select committee consisting entirely of women members and effectively packed with opponents of the bill which the house approved by a substantial majority. it cannot be right that minorities within this house should be able to ignore the will of the house and impose their will on it. that is what is happening. we might as well propose that the finance bill committee should consist only of chartered accountants and that the coal bill committee should consist only of miners.\n the working of the abortion act has caused grave disquiet in the nation. that was reflected by the attendance in the house of commons on 7th february and the clear decision that was taken on that day. the house agreed that a select committee should be appointed. the only issue now remaining concerns who should serve on it. as a result of consultations, a list of hon. members has been proposed. i believe that the vast majority of reasonable hon. members will agree with the choice that has been made. if not, we must come to a decision so that the committee, of whatever membership, can get on with its job.\n the object of the motion is to enable the house to express a view on the membership of this proposed select committee so that it can get on with its work. i believe that is the intention of the vast majority of the house and that that intention is being frustrated.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.11', 620, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should like to inform the hon. member for glasgow, cathcart (mr. taylor) that there is nothing less frivolous than abortion to the women members of this house, to the women of this country, to the men who care for those women, and to their families. the use of the word "frivolous" nullifies any serious attention that the house should give to this preposterous motion.\n i do not oppose the use of standing order no. 13. it is a very good standing order because it protects the rights of this house. i regret that we have fallen into a habit of thought which accepts that the usual channels shall appoint members to select committees. in fact, according to the rules of the house, the whole house selects members. that is the origin of the term "select committee".\n in the course of my brief researches, i discovered that up to about 1817 it was not unusual for members of select committees to be chosen by ballot. had we done that on this occasion, we might have had a better result. but let us cherish the rights of the house to have some say in these appointments.\n it is in some ways invidious for hon. members to discuss the nominations to the committee, but we must do so as a matter of duty. if it is said that the number of women—four out of 15—on the committee represents the proportion of women members, i must confess that my rather inadequate arithmetic suggests that we should have only 4½ per cent. of one woman on the committee. i therefore submit that we cannot appoint the membership of committees on the basis of that kind of arithmetic. it is not our fault that there are so few of us here to represent the women of this country, who are more than half the population.\n our request for more women on the committee was represented by the hon. member for cathcart and some of his hon. friends as part of the pro-abortion lobby. we reject that entirely. we are exposing ourselves by asking—[hon. members: "hear, hear."] how cheap, how vulgar. by asking for more women members on the committee we might, god forbid, find ourselves joined by the hon. member for dunbartonshire, east (mrs. bain) and the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight). but they have a point of view which should be represented on the committee.\n i am not making this speech on the basis of a pro-or anti-abortion stand but on the basis that there should be more women members representing a wide range of the opinions of women in this country. i know that there is a big division among women, but let us have women on the committee to put these points of view.\n when i first came to the house, the late herbert morrison said to me "you will do all right, girl, so long as you stick to women\'s questions." i was so angry about that that i made my maiden speech on foreign affairs. he said to me afterwards "i am sorry that you did not take my advice." i said "i did—i was trying to speak about peace." throughout my 20 years in this house i have taken the view that there are very few questions which should be pigeonholed as "women\'s" questions. i do not believe that prices is a women\'s question or that the care of children is a woman\'s question. that suggests that fathers do not care about their children. very few matters can be specifically defined in that way.\n however, not one hon. gentleman in this house has ever had an abortion or has had to contemplate having one. [ laughter. ]\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.12', 4, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'they have had children.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.13', 213, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i want it on the record that i am shocked by the laughter that we have just heard, which obviously came from insensitive members who do not realise the seriousness of this matter.\n this is one of those unusual questions which should be discussed in a committee consisting primarily of women members. i do not say that they should all be members who support one side of the argument or the other. we appreciate the heavy difficulties of those who have had to make this selection, but our point is that the motion should not be carried without a reassessment of this matter, which has caused so much concern throughout the country. it will be seen that this is a very special select committee.\n finally—i am not trying to be funny or frivolous, as the hon. member for cathcart was—if we were setting up a select committee on vasectomy it would be odd if it had a majority of women members—[ interruption. ] i doubt whether there would be one woman on the committee. i hope that those who are concerned, as i know my right hon. friends arc, to achieve a fair balance in this committee will look at the matter again and give it the grave attention which its importance merits.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.14', 277, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am grateful to the two hon. members for their explanatory statements. standing order no. 13 says: mr. speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the member who makes and from a member who opposes any such motion respectively, shall put either the question thereon or the question, \'that the debate be now adjourned\'. my decision has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of this bill. it is not for me to express any view upon that at all. my decision also has absolutely nothing to do with the composition of the select committee. again, that has nothing to do with me. that is a matter for the house. i have to regard this as a procedural matter. i have to consider the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority.\n i have come to the conclusion that, if i were to take the first alternative and put the question on the motion at once, that would be wrong. that would be to take it upon myself to cause an immediate decision by the house. i think that the house should make this decision whether or not to decide at once itself, so i have decided to take the second choice. therefore, i shall put the question "that the debate he now adjourned" the debate is the debate on the composition of the select committee. it is on that and only that. that is the question which i think the house must decide. i must not decide it for the house by adopting the first alternative. i shall therefore put the question now "that the debate be now adjourned."\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.15', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'aye.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.16', 17, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. if the debate is adjourned, what happens to the motion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.17', 34, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'if the debate is adjourned, the debate upon the motion is adjourned and can continue subsequently.\n the question is, that the debate be now adjourned. those in favour say "aye"; to the contrary "no".\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.18', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'aye.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.19', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.20', 14, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i think the ayes have it, in which case the debate is now adjourned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.21', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, no!\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.22', 5, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.23', 7, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i thought that the voices were collected.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.24', 53, 'uk.m.22502', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. the government will, of course, provide some more time for this matter to be debated. i suggest that we should not debate it further today, because it will eat into a very busy programme. certainly the government will provide some more time to end the debate—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.25', 1, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.26', 15, 'uk.m.22502', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', 'i do not know when, but we shall certainly do so as soon as possible.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.27', 12, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. in view of the fact—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.28', 7, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.29', 5, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'mr. mikardo, point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.30', 53, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "could i ask for your further guidance, sir, because i am sure that we are not altogether clear? when there is the further debate to which my right hon. friend has referred, will it be on the motion which we have just debated or on the government's motion which is in identical terms?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.31', 2, 'uk.m.22502', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.32', 76, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it will be on this one.\n on the question of collecting the voices, i waited quite a long time. i put the question twice and on one occasion it appeared that there were no noes. however, this is a matter in which the chair must be tolerant. if there is still some feeling among hon. members that they want to vote on this question, then let them. this is a matter for me.\n the question is—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.33', 36, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. i understand that the question has been put to the house once and that it was quite clearly the will of the house that this debate should be adjourned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.34', 20, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i will hear the hon. lady in a moment. under the standing order i must put the question again.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.37', 2, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'mrs. short.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.38', 19, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): i was making the point, mr. speaker, that you had already put that question\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.40', 21, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i believe that there was a certain amount of confusion. i think i took a right decision, but we shall see.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.41', 18, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): i must raise this point again, mr. speaker. you have already declared that—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.45', 7, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that means that the debate continues now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.46', 50, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. in view of the fact that the house has now expressed itself in two votes by a substantial majority and in one vote unanimously, would it not be appropriate to move "that the question be now put"? we could then have a division.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.47', 2, 'uk.m.21994', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'mr. price.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.49', 193, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "now that we are faced, mr. speaker, with quite a long debate about the abortion (amendment) bill—a debate which could last until ten o'clock tonight or until such time as it is closed —it might be wise to look into some of these arguments. it is quite appropriate that somebody like myself, who spent nearly two years as a member of the original standing committee on the abortion bill, should remind the house of the principles in respect of the committee on the original abortion bill—principles which were adopted on that occasion, in 1966, when that standing committee was set up.\n you will remember, mr. speaker, that the original vote in 1966, when the second reading of the 1967 abortion bill took place, produced a quite overwhelming vote in favour of reforming the law on abortion. if on that occasion the proponents of abortion had claimed the right for the membership of the committee to be exactly in proportion to that second reading vote, i am quite sure that the 1967 abortion bill would have passed through the house very much more quickly than it did. but nothing of the kind took place.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.50', 97, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "as i was one of the members who voted for the second reading of that bill in common with many others, i should like to say that we agreed to vote for the second reading on the understanding that the bill would be fundamentally altered to prevent the abuses which unfortunately have arisen. therefore, is not my hon. friend's argument entirely specious, as so many of us who voted for it had qualifications and reservations, and, therefore, the composition of that committee reflected all those who had voted, including those many who had voted with many reservations?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.51', 127, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that it is wrong for my hon. friend to describe my argument as specious, as i am only in the foothills of it. i have not reached any plateau or peak of the argument. i regard myself as an expert on the twistings and turnings of the views on abortion of my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse). i have watched every point at which he has changed course over the years in this matter. i am an expert on his heterodox views on the matter. when i have finished my arguments, i assure him that he will be the last person in the house to say that i have been using an argument which is in any way specious—or any similar adjective.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.52', 54, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when my hon. friend advances further in his reply to our hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), will he take into account the fact that if it is true that on the first occasion some who voted for the bill did so with reservations, that was equally true on the recent occasion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.53', 104, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i could not agree more. i am sure that that is a very good point. if hon. members are pondering the sort of point that they might like to make in the debate which lies ahead of us, i am sure that they will consider that to be a point which would be very important to make. i am sure that hon. members on both sides of the house will want to join in what looks like being a long and very interesting debate and that they would wish to make such a point. i was on a different point before i was interrupted.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.54', 94, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman and i were both members of the original standing committee, but he will allow, surely, that since the house gave its verdict in 1967 there have been considerable changes, including the development of a racket in the private sector which has caused grave alarm. the lane committee has sat and reported, although the house has not had an opportunity to debate that report. all this was reflected in the abortion (amendment) bill, which was given an overwhelming second reading. what is being questioned now is the will of the house itself.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.55', 664, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am absolutely familiar with the various points which the hon. gentleman has made. on the other hand, i am trying to keep myself within the confines of the motion before us now. no doubt if i were to stray into such general matters as abuses and so on, it is just possible that mr. speaker might call me to order. if i may return to my original point, i certainly promise the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) that later i shall go into those particular points.\n my original point was that on the 1966 bill there was a quite overwhelming majority in favour of its second reading. but the proponents of the bill, the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) and his hon. friends, of whom i numbered myself one, quite generously, in the interests of a proper debate taking in every aspect of the abortion argument, decided that they would not insist on anything like a numerical balance in the membership or the standing committee in 1966 which corresponded proportionately to the vote on second reading.\n in fact, the proponents of the bill, through all the usual channels—it went through somewhat more smoothly in those days than it seems to go nowadays—gave what one might call very loosely the anti-abortion lobby quite considerable representation on that committee, which, as the hon. member for essex, south-east will remember, they used to the full throughout long days and, later, long nights of 1966 and 1967. it was only because in 1966–67 we had a unique and extraordinarily long session, running from the spring of one year to the autumn of the next, that the bill ever passed through parliament.\n the house of commons works on precedent. we respect precedent. we accept that, having done a thing in one particular way once, there is a very good argument for following roughly those lines when next we come upon the question. here we came to a situation in which, as my hon. friend the member for bethnal green and bow (mr. mikardo) has pointed out, we had a substantial second reading vote supporting the bill of the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). those who supported that bill did so for a variety of reasons. some supported it because they were against abortions altogether. others supported it because they were against abortions except in a very small number of medical cases where the life of the mother was in jeopardy. others supported it in relation to looking after physical health but had grave doubts about the mental health aspects. others supported it on health grounds but had great objection to the eugenic clause—and vice versa.\n a vast number of those who went into the lobby to support the bill of my hon. friend the member for pollok, whom i am glad to see to my left this afternoon, did so for the very good reason that some quite scandalous abuses were taking place in the private sector and they wanted those matters cleaned up, and in no way did they support the various other parts of the bill which purported to introduce such words as "grave" and "serious" into the bill, and which put upon the doctor the onus of proving before a jury that his actions had been in good faith and properly undertaken. there was, therefore, a sort of balance.\n what happened after that? there was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing and, of course, the usual channels are very complicated in terms of private members\' bills of this kind. in fact, one of the troubles about the government refusing to take on board the clearing up of abuses such as exist in the private sector of abortion is that—if i may use the phrase—we get our parliamentary knickers in the sort of twist that they are in today. if either of the previous governments had decided to clear up these abuses in the private sector—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.56', 29, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i presume that the hon. gentleman is aware that we are debating the selection of the committee and not the general case of abortion, whether for or against it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.57', 49, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am, indeed, only too closely aware of that, mr. deputy speaker. i feel absolutely certain that as i proceed, the thread of my argument will come back exactly to the selection of the committee. in fact, that is what i was about to do just as you interrupted.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.58', 46, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman agree that whether he weaves a thousand threads in the course of today, nothing he does can stop us making a decision on this matter tonight and stopping the blatant delaying tactics by the miscellaneous group of wreckers in the labour party.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.59', 972, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "we are in the middle of a debate in which the hon. member for glasgow, cathcart (mr. taylor) has made his speech. we all listened to it with great care and noted his points. he has made certain accusations to which i do not want to reply at the moment, although i am sure that there are on the benches behind me other hon. members who are thinking of the sort of thing they might be able to say in this debate and who may well take up the various accusations with which i do not for a moment agree.\n as i was saying before the hon. gentleman intervened, after the second reading, the usual channels set to work to select a select committee, set up in rather unusual circumstances, in order to consider this bill. as i understand it, the usual channels were the official usual channels—the two-party usual channels—and the unofficial usual channels—that is to say, my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok and his most able lieutenant, or perhaps major-general-—i do not know which rank in this matter i ought to give him—who represents pontypool.\n as a result of this discussion, after some to-ing and fro-ing and lifting the numbers from 11 to 12, and then to 14 and then 15, the balance came out, on the kind of precedent to which this house is accustomed, fairly according to precedent.\n what i am saying about the committee is that we have here in our abortion precedents a far more proper precedent whereby the virulent opponents of abortion and the virulent proponents of abortion on occasions such as this can come together to produce a select committee which properly balances all the very fiercely held divisions of opinion within this house without getting too mathematical and neurotic about percentages and proportions, in the way that it seems is permitted by the usual channels, prompted perhaps by the hon. member for pontypool—i do not know; i was not privy to any of those usual channel discussions—and prompted perhaps by a feeling on the part of the official usual channels that these things should be done strictly according to precedent. whatever the reason, it came out as it has done. the point i am making is that since we have this precedent of the generosity of the proponents of making abortion rather more free in 1966, there was a very good case on this committee also for that same spirit of generosity, with a precedent to which this house so often generously responds.\n i should like to come to what might be called the sex imbalance on this committee. i do so with some trepidation because i am surrounded by a host of female witnesses who may be able to put this point a good deal better than i can, but i have some qualifications. i have some right to do so since my very brief speech—you will remember, mr. deputy speaker, that it lasted for no more than three minutes, as i promised—on second reading was devoted solely to this topic.\n it is rather grotesque for 600 grown men—some of them very elderly, or at least getting on a bit—solemnly to pronounce on what women should do with their bodies. the difficulties that we are having with this committee, i believe, were reflected in the selection of people to speak during the second reading. of course, i make no criticism whatsoever of the selection of speakers, but as it turned out in the second reading on the abortion bill the women's voice in this house was sadly quashed. many women wished to speak in that debate but did not succeed because of the shortness of time on a friday. if the pattern of membership on the select committee is to reflect that trend again, not only will the select committee be unbalanced from the point of view of the proper proportions of opinion in the house, but it will also have far too small a voice from the women in this house for all the reasons of which we are fully apprised, having listened to my hon. friend the member for holborn and st. pancras, south (mrs. jeger) in her very able speech this afternoon.\n i should like to respond, if i may do so without trespassing on the rules of order—because i think this is pertinent to the balance of the committee—to the point made by the hon. member for essex, south-east. he put to me the point that we should not be in this procedural difficulty today were is not for the fact of the abuses in the private sector, and i very much agree with him. i wish that the administrative matters which the minister of state announced on second reading had been put into effect seven or eight years ago.\n but, even more than that, we had a bill introduced into parliament by the hon. member for surrey, north-west (mr. grylls) in the february-october parliament—the 1974 rump parliament, if i may so describe it—which had the support of the government and could have gone through this house had it not been killed by the most virulent supporters of the anti-abortion lobby. it was not the pro-abortion lobby which killed that excellent bill, which could have gone through this house; it was the memebrs of the anti-abortion lobby, led by the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight), who is not in the chamber and does not seem to have been here for some time, and we have missed her in the debate. it is pertinent that it was that lobby, the violent, virulent, anti-abortion lobby, which was responsible for the fact that there are these abuses in the practice of abortion, which are quite rightly objected to by hon. members on all sides of the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.60', 11, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. this does not relate to the selection of the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.61', 10, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree. i put that point very much in passing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.62', 10, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. member has been a very long time passing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.63', 120, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not intend to trespass on your indulgence mr. deputy speaker—if indeed i have been trespassing on it—for very much longer. but, if i may sum up in a single sentence, i think that the rigid mathematical basis of the composition of this committee and the quite unjustifiable male domination of this committee make it a quite unsatisfactory balance for a select committee. it is for that reason that i hope that when this question is put for decision, as i am sure it will be put either today or in the very near future, this selection, this balance of the select committee, will be turned down, so that we can get a very much better balance in future.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.65', 519, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one could accuse the hon. ladies and hon. gentlemen who have attempted to wreck the select committee of a gross miscarriage of parliamentary procedure. it seems to me that we are witnessing a very real wrecking exercise on the part of certain hon. members opposite. we are witnessing not only the quite legitimate use of wrecking tactics, but something that almost amounts to casting aspersions on a group of very distinguished hon. members on both sides sides of the house. i would submit that the proposed membership of the committee, which has been drawn up after a great deal of thought by many people, contains within it a combination of views, experience and expertise that can only serve this house and the country well in considering the matter under discussion.\n i do not wish to transgress the rules of the house by debating the merits of the case for and against abortion, and i shall attempt to pass by a little more quickly perhaps than hon. gentlemen opposite have done, because i believe that what the house wants and what the country wants is the abortion act to be considered by a select committee and proper and constructive recommendations to be made. i am glad that in that at least i carry with me every hon. member in the chamber at the moment.\n i should like for a moment, because this is what we are debating, to look at the composition of the proposed select committee. i am quite certain that, if one looks at it, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that it is balanced and sensible, and i should like to advance my reasons for saying that.\n first of all, i was grieved by one remark made by the hon. member for holborn and st. pancras, south (mrs. jeger), when she referred to the fact that she represented women. of course she does. we all do. she is elected by her constituents, as i am elected by mine, and in her constituency, as in mine, there are men and women, people of all ages. they choose to send her to this honourable house to represent them, as she does with diligence, great tenacity, and all the rest of it, because we are not debating party politics here. she is the representative of her constituents and i am the representative of mine, and all hon. members represent their constituents, whatever their sex.\n it would be a gross perversion of parliamentary practice if we said that merely because an issue concerned a particular section of the community, that section of the community alone should be represented on the committee. only this past week we had debates on, and references to the proposed composition of a standing committee of the house, and certain criticisms were made. whatever view one takes of that issue, i am sure that every single hon. member of the house would object most strongly if every member of the standing committee on the industry bill were a trade unionist, just as every hon. member would object very strongly if none was a trade unionist.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.66', 38, 'uk.m.10511', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman not accept that there are both male and female trade unionists, and can he give some examples of other cases in which only the female sex is involved, as is the situation with abortion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.67', 312, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman illustrates the paucity of his argument by his intervention, and here i must for a moment touch upon the subject under discussion. many of us would say that this concerns the sanctity of human life and that every man and woman in this country has the right to an opinion on that issue. [ interruption. ] also, as the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith) says, there are male as well as female foetuses. it would be quite wrong to suggest that the select committee should be composed predominantly of hon. lady members of this house. what the committee should reflect, and what i submit it does reflect, is the composition of the house and the variety of sincerely-held and contrasting views on this abortion issue. that is really what it is all about.\n if we look at the composition of the committee numerically, four of its 15 members—that is a much higher proportion than in the house as a whole—are women. i not only accept that but applaud it; i think it is a splendid thing. but if we look at the people who are on the committee—i believe everybody present would agree that if we are debating whether or not this committee is balanced, we must look at the composition and the individuals—nobody who has spent any time at all considering the issue of abortion and the way in which it has been debated in the house and in the country over the years could dispute the absolute right of the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) to be a member of it. he has spent a great deal of his parliamentary life, and devoted much of his considerable energy and intellect, to discussing and debating this matter. it is right that he who has devoted so much time to it should be on the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.68', 56, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have always found the hon. member a reasonable man. if he cannot accept the argument that there should be more women on the committee, will he accept the argument that it should consist equally of those who are for abortion reform and those who are against it so that a balanced argument can take place—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.69', 1, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.70', 20, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '—because the situation is that 11 members of the select committee are against reform and only four are in favour.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.71', 4, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is not so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.72', 20, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is another reason why i and my hon. friends are so distressed. this will be a deplorably undemocratic committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.73', 72, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am grateful at least for the opening words of the hon. lady's intervention. nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to see her name on the list of members of the select committee instead of one of the other hon. ladies, but she is not on it. it has been decided that she should not be a member. she has alleged that there has been a cooking of the committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.74', 1, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'rigging.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.75', 151, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'very well, i am prepared to delete "cooking" and substitute "rigging". the hon. member is sadly mistaken in her allegation, because the committee should reflect the feeling of the house of commons as expressed in the division lobby when the bill was debated some time ago. it is indisputable that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. members, irrespective of their party and their religious or other convictions, tend to think that the act needs substantial amendment. there may well be a great deal of debate as to how it should be amended, but the consensus as expressed in the division lobby was that there should be substantial amendment of the act. it was also the opinion of the house that the best way of achieving a balance rather than a hasty conclusion to the various debates and deliberations was to have a select committee rather than a standing committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.76', 65, 'uk.m.22555', 'uk.p.SDP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the majority of hon. and right hon. members voted neither for nor against the bill. on the hon. gentleman's reasoning, surely the committee should consist of a majority of those who abstained. a number of hon. and right hon. members did not vote against the bill because they knew it would go to a select committee and they believed that to be the correct procedure.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.77', 109, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "that intervention is not entirely worthy of the hon. member's considerable knowledge of parliamentary procedure. if hon. members chose, for one reason or another, not to vote, if they chose not to be here because they had a constituency commitment on that friday or, in the case of some, because they did not want to be here, that was their free choice. they were able to exercise that choice by abstaining or absenting themselves. i am informed by my hon. friend the member for glasgow, cathcart (mr. taylor), who has done his research with his usual diligence, that some of the proposed members of the select committee did abstain.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.78', 45, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is not the case that of the four lady members on the committee two voted against the second reading of the bill and two did not vote? does that not mean that of the four not one actually committed herself to support the bill?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.79', 137, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with his helpful, sensible and constructive intervention the hon. member has anticipated part of my argument. perhaps later i might deal with his point.\n let us look at the next name on the list of selection. it is the hon. lady the member for warley—east or west—who is a highly respected member and a government whip and is known in the midlands—and i know because i come from the midlands—for her independence of view and her strong judgment. i suggest that none of her female colleagues on the government benches could have the remotest objection to being represented by the hon. member for warley. i have debated matters with her on television and in other places, and i can assure every hon. member that she will put whatever case she chooses to put with conviction and eloquence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.80', 32, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. memsaid that he came from the midlands. i used to represent a constituency in the west midlands and i know that my hon. friend represents west bromwich, west, not warley.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.81', 94, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i apologise to the hon. lady the member for west bromwich, west (miss boothroyd) if i got her constituency wrong, but there are 635 mps and we are not always as perfect in our knowledge as the hon. member for lewisham, west (mr. price).\n the next name on the list is my hon. friend the member for brighton, kemp-town (mr. bowden). he falls into the same category as the hon. member for pontypool. he has devoted a considerable amount of his time and talents in this house and outside to campaigning on this issue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.82', 5, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'he has never had children.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.83', 63, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for northampton, north (mrs. colquhoun). [hon. members: "why?"] because she does her duty with diligence and good sense. she says that my hon. friend has never had children. my hon. friend has fathered children and is capable of so doing and he is fully entitled to a place on the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.84', 38, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wonder whether the hon. member would care to deal next with my hon. friend the member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel), who has a meeting and should hear what the hon. member has to say.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.85', 144, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall deal in just a minute, as the hon. member for isle of ely (mr. freud) has courteously suggested, with the hon. member for the triple-barrelled constituency of roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel). nobody in this house could for a moment say anything other than that he has the most impeccable credentials for being a member of the select committee. he is known throughout the country as a pioneer on questions of social reform. it was he who brought before the house the first abortion bill which is now the potential subject of this select committee. if he needed anything else to commend him to the house, the distinguished, brilliant and scintillating speech that he made on the second reading of the latest bill would have indicated his absolute right to be a member of any committee, be it standing or select.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.86', 129, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is hardly for me to interrupt the hon. member when he is in this vein, and i am grateful to him for enabling me to hear these warm tributes. will he accept that one of the points that some of us who are troubled by the motion feel is that since the bill's promoters wanted to secure a consensus bill it is desirable that the select committee should be largely a consensus committee while reflecting every viewpoint? those who have objected to the motion are using normal parliamentary procedure. i would have thought that the onus lay on the government to provide that the motion could be debated with amendments in the normal way late at night. we are now being asked to accept the motion or nothing.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.87', 57, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is a very valid point, but we are by the will of the house debating this motion, and, therefore, i must address my remarks to it. we are debating the composition of the select committee as set out in the order paper, and it is to that, and that alone, that i am addressing my remarks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.88', 65, 'uk.m.10418', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman might mention a well-known game in which the hon. member for isle of ely (mr. freud) participates. one of the rules of that game concerns repetition. i suggest that the hon. gentleman is becoming somewhat repetitious in his praise. another rule of the game suggests that he should now sit down and allow a speaker from the labour benches to take over.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.89', 79, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with an air of total non-partisan impartiality, i am talking about the attributes and not about the defects of hon. members in all parts of the house. how i can be accused of repetition by praising the hon. gentleman, having praised the hon. member for west bromwich, west, i do not know.\n i now come to my hon. friend the member for lancaster (mrs. kellett-bowman). i am delighted, as is every hon. member, to see her in the chamber.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.90', 7, 'uk.m.10511', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is in difficulties now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.91', 83, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on the contrary, by her vigilance and constant attendance in this chamber, by the flashes of inspiration which she brings to our deliberations, she is entirely qualified to be a member of this or any other select or standing committee. no one on the opposition benches could have anything other than the utmost confidence in her total competence to deal with any of the intricate matters which may arise. she brings to the task of deliberation the forensic mind of a trained barrister.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.92', 37, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman must surely be aware, having perused the amendments, that the whole house shares his opinion of the forensic qualities of the hon. lady, because none of the amendments suggests her removal from the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.93', 166, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am glad to have that warm, unanimous endorsement of the sentiments which i have just expressed. the hon. gentleman and i have often, in a playful way, crossed swords on certain matters, but have supported each other on others. my rejoinder to him is that part of my hon. friend's qualification to be on the committee is that she is part of the balance of a balanced team. the team would lose in its balance if she remained on and certain other hon. members came off. i am certain that my hon. friend would be the first to agree with that.\n we now come to my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine). nobody can suggest for a moment that he has not earned his place on the select committee. he is far more capable than any other hon. member of discussing at length any subject that is the cause of concern, be it national or local. he will be a counterweight.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.94', 11, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with friends like him, the hon. gentleman does not need enemies.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.95', 217, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend would be a counterweight to those who would perhaps expedite too hastily, in the view of some hon. members, the proceedings of the committee. with my hon. friend on the committee, we can have a total assurance that every aspect of this many-sided, deep and complex problem will be discussed with due deliberation and concern. i believe that my hon. friend, who so ably wound up the debate three weeks ago, has earned his place on the committee.\n we now come to the hon. lady the member for wood green (mrs. butler). she is universally regarded as one of the most able female politicians in the house. she has sat in the house for many years, and has served it well. all the causes which she has embraced, she has embraced with a due sense of mission and moderation, an unusual combination. she deserves a place on the committee.\n we now come to my hon. friend the member for epping forest (mr. biggs-davison), who is a distinguished roman catholic. nobody could deny the right of the roman catholic church to have one or two members on the committee, because many members are roman catholics. coupled with my hon. friend—[ interruption. ] sedentary interruptions merely prolong speeches. i am good for another couple of hours.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.96', 4, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i hope not.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.97', 85, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'your implied aspersion, mr. deputy speaker, grieves me considerably. i had thought, from the attention with which you were obviously following the proceedings, that you were hanging upon every word and hoping that there would be many more to come.\n with my hon. friend the member for chingford, i couple the hon. gentleman with whom i was proud to stand at the table a little while ago, the hon. member for kingston upon hull, central (mr. mcnamara). he is a devout and distinguished roman catholic.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.98', 9, 'uk.m.10511', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has missed two hon. members out.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.99', 46, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i will come back to them. it is appropriate that i should pair the hon. member for kingston upon hull, central and my hon. friend the member for chingford. nobody can deny the right of the roman catholic church to have distinguished members on the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.100', 112, 'uk.m.10399', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am most grateful to the hon. gentleman. i do not wish to fall foul of him when he is dishing out kind words, but i am not aware that the roman catholic church put up candidates in the last general election. hon. members are here as labour or conservative members or as members of other parties. if people hold a view on a non-party matter, they may hold it for a variety of reasons, but if my party had a line on this problem with which i disagreed i would vote against it, as i have voted against it in the past on matters which i regard as matters of conscience.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.101', 182, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman merely underlines his own credentials for being on the committee. i made similar remarks when talking about the presence of women on the committee. nevertheless, the hon. gentleman will not disagree that there are a goodly number of members who are professing and devout roman catholics, as he is. this is an issue of conscience and not party politics. because the roman catholic church has a very strong, definite and, i believe, in many ways commendable line on this subject, it is right that there should be roman catholics on the committee to ensure the balance of the committee and the balance of views. it is in that context only that i refer to the hon. member's religious beliefs and to the beliefs of my hon. friend the member for chingford. i express pleasure that they are on the committee. the committee would be the poorer without them. it will be the richer for their participation in its debates, which must of necessity be long and detailed and deal with the many complex aspects of this deeply human subject.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.102', 27, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. can you advise us what we can do to protect ourselves against the ersatz eloquence of the hon. member?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.103', 12, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i myself have spent a lot of time wondering about that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.104', 64, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i suggest that the hon. gentleman is the last person to ask for that sort of advice. if i have learnt anything of the art of ersatz eloquence and of the ability to hold the house enthralled, it is because i sat for four years on the government benches while so many able practitioners in the art displayed their talents from the opposition benches.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.105', 6, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is too kind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.106', 82, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. i suggest that every remark that i have made has been entirely in order and has in no way detracted from the reputation of the house or from any one of its individual members.\n in going through the list i must refer to my hon. friend the member for yarmouth (mr. fell). of course, on any committee on which he sits he will bring his own highly individual and considerable talents.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.107', 2, 'uk.m.18240', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, individual.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.108', 148, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman echoes my very word. how splendid it is that my hon. friend should have individual talents and that we should have such an idiosyncratic member of the committee. on many of the moral issues that have been debated in the house he has taken an extremely forthright line. i choose my words with care. i remember the long debates that took place, largely at the instigation of my hon. friend, on vasectomy. he showed the house at that time—[ interruption. ] it is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i sometimes believe that evil is in the ears of the listener. no one who witnessed the feasts of eloquence which emanated from my hon. friend when he stood at the corner seat below the gangway could say that he has not established a real right to sit on the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.109', 86, 'uk.m.17381', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'a short time ago the hon. gentleman said that he always chooses his words carefully. i remind him that he began his speech by saying that he would pass by quicker than my hon. friend the member for lewisham, west (mr. price). in fact, he has already taken longer. first, he has not carried out his promise to complete his remarks within a shorter time than was taken by my hon. friend. therefore, he does not choose his words as carefully as he thinks he does.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.110', 60, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman knows that i have passed by on the other side. unlike the hon. member for lewisham, west, i have not spent a great deal of time talking of or alluding to the merits of abortion. i have devoted almost all of my remarks to the composition of the committee. that is the subject of the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.111', 5, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have plenty of time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.112', 209, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes, as my hon. friend reminds me, there is plenty of time. it is a great help to have my hon. friend behind me at this stage. he has reminded me that we have plenty of time and that we can debate the composition of the committee until 10 o'clock tonight if necessary. i give the house an earnest promise that i will sit down by nine o'clock.\n we now come to the hon. member for welwyn and hatfield (mrs. hayman). the hon. lady has been a member for only a short time, but in the time she has graced us by her presence—i use those words deliberately and carefully—she has shown herself not only to be a master of debate and someone who is able quickly to absorb the complexities of an intricate subject but as someone who brings a high mind and pleasant presence to any committee on which she sits or to any activity in which she engages. therefore, it would be totally wrong that the hon. lady should be removed from the committee. i appreciate that no one has suggested that she should be removed. i suggest that she is a part of that rich pattern of balance that goes to make up the committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.113', 137, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'some of the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and the manner in which they have been phrased, reinforce my fears about the male chauvinism that exists within the house. i return to what the hon. gentleman said a little earlier when he was talking about the people who are trying to wreck the committee. he suggested that they are people who are resentful in some way because they are not on the committee themselves. as a member of the committee—it was with some difficulty that i came to be a member—i believe very strongly that the composition is not satisfactory, even though my graceful presence, as the hon. gentleman described it, could adorn it. i make the point forcefully that some members of the committee are not happy with it as well as those outside the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.114', 63, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that when the hon. lady reflects upon her opening remarks in her intervention she will realise that i can hardly be accused of male chauvinism. after all, i played a modest but public part in supporting the claim of my right hon. friend the member for finchley (mrs. thatcher) to be where she is so rightly installed at this moment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.115', 15, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. member has defended himself enough now. perhaps he will return to his catalogue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.116', 28, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, indeed i will. the only thing that grieves me, mr. deputy speaker, is that i cannot extol upon your own many virtues in going through this catalogue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.117', 1, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'try.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.118', 37, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend asks me to try, but that would be out of order. i think it can be said, mr. deputy speaker, that we are all delighted that you are in the chair at this moment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.119', 93, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "is my hon. friend aware that had it not been for the fact that we are having this excellent debate and my hon. friend's excellent contribution we might have had to wait for many weeks in suspense without knowing whether or not the hon. member for welwyn and hatfield (mrs. hayman) would be able to serve on the committee? further, is my hon. friend aware that the value of this debate is that we can make a decision here and now and either let her get on with the work or stop her?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.120', 178, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as we would expect, that is a most constructive intervention. the very reason that i and my hon. friends shouted "no" was that when the lord president indicated at the dispatch box that government time would be made available for an adjourned debate he was quite unable to say when it would take place. i do not criticise the right hon. gentleman for that. i appreciate the difficulties under which he has to operate. the fact is that we are having a debate now and, as my hon. friend has reminded me, we have plenty of time.\n when the lord president was at the dispatch box—and we listened carefully to what he had to say—he was not able for the best possible reasons to indicate when we could resume the adjourned debate. that is what prompted us to call a division. many labour members entered the "no" lobby. as i stood outside i said to my fellow teller that there could not be a broader and more splendid cross-section of the house than came out of that lobby.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.121', 3, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'a spectrum, perhaps.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.122', 92, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend assists me by adding to my vocabulary.\n i return to the hon. member for welwyn and hatfield. when she intervened she said that she did not feel that the committee was balanced. the hon. lady will have the opportunity to express her opinion in the lobby tonight. perhaps she will be able to do so on her feet in a little time. it seems that the hon. lady is too modest. any committee of which she is a member cannot be underrepresented as far as her sex is concerned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.123', 1, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'oh!\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.124', 25, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry that the lion. lady takes these well-meaning remarks in such a churlish manner. i can assure her that they are meant sincerely.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.125', 45, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i ask for your protection, mr. deputy speaker? this is an extremely serious debate. it is a matter that concerns not just the members of this house but every woman in the country. to have this superficial claptrap is a disgrace to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.126', 28, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. all that i am able to rule on is whether the hon. gentleman is in order or out of order. unfortunately, the hon. gentleman is in order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.127', 31, 'uk.m.17907', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the hon. member for crewe (mrs. dun-woody) referred to women's being concerned. is she suggesting that in this matter men play no part?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.128', 7, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is not a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.129', 46, 'uk.m.21848', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. is the hon. member for staffordshire, south-west (mr. cormack) aware that many of us who voted did so with the express desire of seeing the committee get on with the job and that many of us are concerned?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.130', 18, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. what the hon. gentleman thinks, knows or believes is not my business—for which i am duly grateful.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.131', 114, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have heard many things from the chair but never such a fervent prayer.\n i am in no way delaying proceedings on the bill. we are debating the composition of the committee. the debate on the bill, be it in standing committee, select committee or any other committee, cannot take place until the committee is set up. the committee cannot be set up until a vote is taken tonight. in the same way as hon. members who put down the motions that led to the debate, i am doing no more than exercising my parliamentary rights and those of my hon. friends.\n let us come to the hon. member for east kilbride (dr. miller)—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.132', 63, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before the hon. member for staffordshire, south-west (mr. cormack)—for whom i have a great respect—continues with this charade, which seems to be a cross between leonard sachs\'s "good old days" and hughie green\'s "opportunity knocks", will he realise that this is a serious matter? he is treating the subject with considerable flippancy and levity and not imbuing it with the seriousness it deserves.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.133', 526, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "to talk about the merits of colleagues on both sides of the house is hardly being flippant. if some hon. members have listened to my remarks with good nature and good humour and have expressed that by the odd laugh, that is not my fault.\n it is important that a committee to discuss a bill of this nature should have among its members someone with a detailed medical knowledge. the hon. member for east kilbride (dr. miller), representing as he does his constituents and not the medical profession, will bring to the proceedings the cumulative wisdom and experience of many years as a practising doctor. to remove him would be to diminish in significance the composition of the committee and would be scandalous.\n i come to my hon. friend the member for dorking (sir g. sinclair). he has been in the forefront of many of the more enlightened social movements, and any group of hon. members from the opposition benches which did not include my hon. friend the member for dorking would be the poorer. his membership is entirely justified.\n i come now to the promoter of the bill, the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). who can say that the promoter of the bill, who has done such a signal service and has sacrificed a great deal, is not entitled to a place on the select committee? i remember seeing him in a corridor of the house, surrounded by thousands of letters from all over the country, attempting to deal with them without the proper secretarial assistance we all should have. he of all people, the servant of the house in bringing before us this measure and using his good fortune in the ballot for that purpose, is fully entitled to a place on the committee.\n what select committee would be complete without a father figure? i come finally to the right hon. member for sunderland, north (mr. willey), whose skill and ministerial experience, if not without equal, is not excelled on the government benches. he is an elder statesman of vision and moderation who will be able to contribute a great deal to the committee's deliberations.\n i begin to get the feeling that i may perhaps have said enough about the merits of the many members of the committee to convince the house beyond peradventure that its composition could not be bettered. i rest my case there. we have here 15 hon. and right hon. members, four of whom are women. they represent a cross-section of opinion and they come from all classes of society and all walks of life. they represent both sexes and have eloquence, skill, grace and dignity. no better committee could be submitted to the house for its approval, and it would be a shame and a disgrace if any members of the committee were criticised and removed. i hope that their names will remain properly on the order paper, that the committee will soon begin its valuable work, that the country will see that this subject has been treated by these hon. members with proper concern, and that we shall have some sensible amendments to the abortion act.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.134', 14, 'uk.m.22202', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.137', 57, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i believe that under standing order no. 30 it is an infringement of the right of the minority to propose that the question be now put, because there is a minority attitude on the government benches which the filibustering has prevented from being heard.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.138', 50, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'in reply to that point of order, the house itself will decide whether the question will be put, but when the question is moved the chair has discretion whether to accept it. i accepted the motion, and the house will now decide whether or not the question will be put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.139', 49, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. under standing order no. 30 the question whether the question be now put rests with the chair. if it appears to the chair that such a motion is an abuse or an infringement of the\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.141', 43, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. by standing orders i now have to put the question.\n the question is, that the question be now put. tellers for the ayes, mr. pavitt and mr. stoddart.\n there being no tellers for the noes, i declare that the ayes have it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.143', 3, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the question is—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.144', 5, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.145', 23, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am not able to take a point of order when the house has just decided that the question should now be put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.151', 126, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. without challenging your ruling, may i ask for a word of explanation, within the rules of order, on behalf of many hon. members, who understood that the previous vote of the house was very much in favour of a wide debate on the principle involved in the setting up of the select committee as well as its membership. we heard only two speeches, one from each side, the second lasting 43 minutes and being a recital of the names of the 15 hon. members who were effectively appointed to the committee. at least a dozen hon. members wished to speak in the debate. i wonder, therefore, on what grounds the chair chose to accept the closure so early.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.152', 59, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'hon. members must realise that whoever is in the chair must take the decision. the house, in its wisdom or otherwise, decides whether the question is to be put. i decided that there had been two speeches of considerable length, one from each side. i am not required to give reasons to the house why i accept the closure.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.153', 47, 'uk.m.21756', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. are there not considerations with regard to the protection of minority views in the house which the chair must always be careful to have in mind, whether or not it says that it has those considerations in mind?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.154', 16, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the house cannot debate my decision to accept the closure, at least not at this moment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.155', 23, 'uk.m.16421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. may i properly interpret what has happened today, which was new to most hon. members—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.156', 20, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. member may seek to raise a point of order but he may not interpret what has happened.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.157', 62, 'uk.m.16421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. are we to assume, from the rulings given by the chair, that it is possible for a select committee to be imposed by a snap vote of this house, whether or not in collusion with other channels in the house, rather than as a result of the judgment that emerges from discussion and debate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.158', 17, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it is an old custom here that the result of a division is accepted by the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.159', 41, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order. mr. deputy speaker. may i assure hon. gentlemen that there has been no collusion, apart from that of back benchers? the first duty of the house is to protect the majority against exploitation by the minority.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.160', 22, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we are beginning to reach the point where hon. members are using alleged points of order to argue with each other.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.161', 42, 'uk.m.19176', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. am i in order in asking for your guidance as to how long the next debate will be allowed to go on, since we have already lost about two hours out of the time?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8.1.162', 8, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'my business is to begin the next debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 26, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-26.8']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-07-14.27.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 7, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-07-14.27']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-03-03.5.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 3, 3, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-03-03.5']]
['Orders of the Day — Abortion']
[['uk.proc.d.1991-12-19.11.1.1', 201, 'uk.m.16423', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg leave to present a petition from the roman catholic parish churches of st. anthony\'s, fulwood; our lady and st. edward\'s, fulwood; st. claire\'s, fulwood; our lady and st. michael\'s church; st. peter\'s stoneyhurst college and other lancashire parishes. the petition contains some 1,600 signatures.\n the petition deals with the abortifacient mifegyne, known as ru486, which causes the death of unborn human beings. it reads: the humble petition sheweth that we the undersigned wish to note with regret that the abortion pill mifegyne (known as "ru486") has been granted a product licence. we believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. we deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings, and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically. wherefore your petitioners pray that your house, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of mifegyne (known as "ru486") and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. \n ', datetime.datetime(1991, 12, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1991-12-19.11']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-04-21.17.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 4, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-04-21.17']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.2', 1026, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time.\n i apologise if the late rising of the house last night was in any way due to me. there was some talk that there would be a filibuster so that today\'s business would not take place. i am sincerely happy that that did not occur.\n more important, i humbly and sincerely apologise to the house for the late publication of the bill. i realise that that caused problems to hon. members on both sides of the house. that was in no way meant as a discourtesy to the house.\n i found it a complicated matter to try to amend the abortion act 1967, which in turn must be read in conjunction with the infant life (preservation) act 1929, which in its turn does not cover scotland. i was working with scottish lawyers, and we encountered difficulties. i apologise to the house. i regret that the bill is now in its present form, due to circumstances beyond my control. any drafting errors can be corrected at a later date.\n i am well aware that this is a highly emotional subject. i make one point clear at the outset. in my election campaigns i always strongly supported the strengthening of the 1967 act. i did so because of a personal conviction, because of the way in which i felt about the matter, and not because numerous organisations outside the house supported my view. the fact that we have the same view is beside the point.\n any legislation that has attracted so much attention since it went on the statute book cannot be right in the eyes of the house or in those of the public. there is the other side of the coin. while i want to tighten up the regulations, the national abortion campaign wants them relaxed. that organisation supported the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) when he sponsored the 1967 measured. it wants abortion on demand by a doctor, a nurse or any other woman. to me that it is totally wrong.\n this subject has been well debated, but no conclusion has ever been reached. there was a long sitting of and a report from the lane committee, which took evidence from many bodies and individuals. that did nothing to quieten the outcry against the 1967 bill. that was followed by a bill introduced by the hon. member for dunbartonshire, west (mr. campbell). that went to a select committee. that was followed by bills from my hon. friends the members for buckingham (mr. benyon) and for essex, south-east (sir b. braine). back in 1970 there was an attempt by the right hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. johnstevas) to change the law. for all that, i make no apology for once again bringing this matter before the house. the issue will not go away until it has been resolved and some of the existing anomalies tightened up.\n my bill has been criticised for containing too much, but it is a wise counsel that puts in something that can be given away. others have criticised the bill for not having enough in it. at the end of the 1967 debate the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles said that it was not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request. sadly, that is exactly what happened. many right hon. and hon. members who supported the 1967 act are now deeply and sincerely worried about its effects. now we must decide whether we continue to support that act.\n as far back as 21 july 1971 professor peter huntingford first stated in the daily telegraph that he was practising abortion on request. he said: i have no qualms about this at all, and i am quite certain that it does not contravene the abortion act. he added that the act allowed abortion when the risk of permitting the pregnancy to continue was greater than the risk of the abortion. the simple fact is that when an abortion is carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy it is safer than allowing the pregnancy to go to full term. he said that he was certain that no legal or disciplinary action could be taken against him and that the hospital governors were aware of his policy and had no objection. a working party of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, in its report on unplanned pregnancies in 1972, stated: those doctors who feel that abortion on demand is correct are able to apply that belief to their practice. it is not surprising that there has been some dismay at the interpretation of that act. the whole area of statistical risk must be looked at.\n it seems to me that those are not the criteria that the 1967 act tried to lay down. this matter was much discussed in committee. the lane committee declared that the criteria should be left alone. however, the select committee recommended in its conclusions that a decision must be left to the individual consciences of members. that can be done only if a change in the criteria is offered in the bill. that is why i included the wording of the original bill. if that had not been done, it would have been unfair to the house. the other place changed the wording of clause 1 of the 1967 bill and inserted the statistical risk provision.\n there have been many complaints that the words " grave ", " substantial " and " serious " cannot be defined. the words of section 1(1) (b) of the 1967 act are: that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped ". two of those words are already used in the bill. i accept that " grave " is not, but in a recent poll 78 per cent. of the gynaecologists asked said that they were perfectly happy with the word " grave " and would be able to define it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.3', 24, 'uk.m.10171', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman tell the house when this poll was conducted and also make the contents of the poll available to hon. members?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.4', 44, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i cannot say when it was conducted, but i have a photostat here. i shall let the hon. member have a copy afterwards, if he would like it. [ interruption. ] it is described as a " social survey, gallup poll limited—gynaecologists\' survey ".\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.5', 5, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on whose behalf, and when?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.6', 108, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it does not say.\n i had a telephone call yesterday from a doctor who was opposed to what i was doing. he said " it does not matter what wording you use in the bill, at the end of the day the doctor himself will make up his or her mind ". that is a cynical view, but it shows that, whatever a politician\'s views are, the medical person is the one who sees the patient and who will make the decision in the end. to me it is wrong that a statistical risk should be considered to be enough reason, and therefore this house must pass judgment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.7', 142, 'uk.m.10396', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'clearly, the attitude of the profession of obstetrics and gynaecology is exceedingly important in deliberating upon the bill. is the hon. member suggesting that we should accept, as an authoritative view of the profession, a poll commissioned by a body whose name he is not able to give the house? more important, is he aware that the late publication of his bill has prevented the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists from considering the precise terms of his bill, and that in so far as there is a body that can speak with authority about the views of the profession, it is that one? is the hon. gentleman further aware that in respect of the last abortion bill considered by this house that body expressed itself clearly as having taken the view that the amendments suggested would appear to serve little purpose?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.8', 303, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the hon. member for those words. i apologised humbly at the beginning of the debate for the late arrival of the bill. i said that it was because of technical difficulties. i have had conversations with many gynaecologists, from both within the gynaecologists\' organisation and outwith it. many of them support what i am doing; many do not. they are split, just as much as this house is split. i remind the hon. member for caithness and sutherland (mr. maclennan) that it was the select committee which suggested that the wording should be brought hack to this house and that hon. members should decide whether to reject it or not.\n when i was drafting the bill, i started with all the select commitee recommendations because i felt that that was only fair. i went through them to decide which ones i felt should be brought forward. having fed these ideas out, i found that there was a fairly immediate reaction from many sources, as one would expect.\n it is four years since the select committee made its recommendations. it recommended various things for which i do not think it is possible to legislate. for example, it suggested that legislation should be introduced to require any person who terminates a pregnancy to notify the woman\'s general practitioner of the treatment she has received, provided her consent has been sought ". that sounds an extremely good idea, but, ethically, doctors are already supposed to do that. it is extremely difficult to legislate for that sort of thing.\n a further recommendation by the select committee was: the legislation should make provision to restrict the publication of particulars identifying any complaint ". it is very difficult to legislate for this. it would open the door to malicious accusations about someone whose identity would be protected.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.9', 69, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i have just been to the vote office to ask for a copy of the abortion act 1967, to which reference is made in the earlier part of the bill. i have been informed by the vote office that copies are not available. members cannot, therefore, address themselves to that act. can anything be done by the chair in that matter?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.10', 24, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am sure that if the hon. gentleman is in trouble he will find a number of copies of the act in the library.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.11', 6, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there were obviously other things within—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.12', 38, 'uk.m.19168', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i have been to the vote office and to the library. there was only one copy of the act available, and a photocopy had to be taken for me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.13', 80, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "another area that i considered was the possibility of fathers' rights. that raised a few eyebrows from those who opposed me. we have the strange position at the moment that the rights of the woman are total. it is she, and she alone, at the end of the day, who can decide whether to keep the baby. the father has no say whatever. it was obvious that in a bill such as this one could not legislate for those rights.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.14', 4, 'uk.m.10171', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. dobson rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.15', 68, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is perhaps unfortunate that very little is said about the after-effects of abortion. many people do not realise the after-effects. there is conclusive evidence that many complications can follow in later pregnancies, particularly in younger girls who have had first-time abortions. hundreds of abortions happen naturally every day, and the number, unfortunately, is rising. it is rising in many cases because of a previous termination of pregnancy.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.16', 25, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if what the hon. member is saying is correct, how does he square that with his previous statement that, statistically, abortion is safer than pregnancy?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.17', 578, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "because i was led by the doctors themselves to believe that it was safer to terminate before 12 weeks than to have the pregnancy run on to full time. it is, of course, important that it should be done before 12 weeks, because obviously the later it is, the more damage is done to the girl concerned.\n it is also an interesting statistic that 43 per cent. of all women who have terminations of pregnancy are pregnant again within one year. many of the women who have telephoned me over the last three weeks say that this is because of their conscience over what they have done. it is surely most important that there should be follow-up care for these girls.\n i have received many letters from unhappy women. many of them bitterly regret having had their abortion and express in their letters the importance of counselling. if only they had known what it all entailed, they would not have gone through with the abortion.\n it is against that background that i looked at the select committee's recommendations. having studied them all, i decided that the most important issues were, first, the criteria which i have mentioned; secondly, the reduction of the upper time limit from 28 weeks to 20 weeks; thirdly, the strengthening of the conscience clause in favour of nurses, orderlies and ancillary workers; fourthly, a clause to encourage better counselling, because i think that this is at the heart of the matter; and fifthly, an escape clause concerning possible damage to the foetus.\n i felt at that time that licensing should not be included because i was in the process of having talks with the minister and had high hopes that some arrangement could be made in this area. unfortunately, due to the tight schedule, and because there was not time to explore all the possible avenues, i was left at the last moment with the choice of leaving licensing out and hoping for some satisfaction about it from the minister today, or, if that was not forthcoming, inserting it in the bill in committee.\n i feel that it would have been grossly misleading the house if i had left out licensing and tried to put it in at the committee stage. it is too important a matter. i therefore put it in. i hope that today the minister will be able to comment on this. i should be delighted to withdraw it if something could be said that satisfies my supporters. i am fully aware that the minister is in the middle of talks with various people and may not be able to give us a full answer today, but i hope sincerely that he will be able to do that before the committee stage, to everyone's satisfaction.\n although i know that my hon. friend the member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram) and the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) particularly want to catch your eye, mr. deputy speaker, i must comment briefly on referral agencies and clinics and the financial connections. i am well aware that some of the anomalies that existed have been stamped out by department of health and social security recommendations, but i am still extremely worried about some of the reports that i have had in the past two weeks.\n to the layman, a pregnancy advisory service should mean just that. it should mean pregnancy advising. it should mean good counselling on what can he done, having become pregnant.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.18', 33, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member says that he has been disturbed by some of the reports that he has had about some sections of the charitable sector. would he care to give us some examples?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.19', 73, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give personal examples, because many of these were letters from people all over the country, writing in a personal capacity to their member of parliament. that is a private—[ interruption. ]. these were private letters between the member of parliament and his constituents. i shall certainly not give names. however, there are serious worries over the way in which things are being run in a very small number of places.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.20', 2, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'which places?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.21', 509, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'therefore, good counselling is very important. there should be a choice of helpful advice, as well as simply going to have an abortion. having the abortion should be the last resort, not the first. that is not what is happening in many cases. it is sad to see, for instance, that the pregnancy advisory service and the british pregnancy advisory service seem to have abandoned all pretence of acting as counselling agencies where advice can be given. they now openly advertise in the tube stations, in large letters, " abortion help " or " abortion advice ", and they claim almost a 100 per cent. success rate. it seems to me that pregnancy advice has gone out of the window and that these agencies have now simply become referral agencies for those who want abortions. if that is the situation, it is very sad indeed. what these girls want when they go to agencies is counselling on how they can be helped out of the difficult situation into which they have got themselves. many of these girls do not necessarily want to have the abortion. a large number of them probably do, but they really must get that sort of counselling.\n i question how ethical these agencies are, and i ask the minister to comment. surely, if these referral agencies are financially linked with the clinics, doctors in these clinics are sailing pretty close to the wind with advertising of this kind. i hope, therefore, for some assurance from the minister. again, i repeat that the clause could be withdrawn in committee if my supporters were satisfied.\n i now turn to what i consider to be the central issue of the bill and the one which causes most agony to doctors, nurses, patients and the general public; that is, reducing the upper limit from 28 weeks to 20 weeks. i am well aware that we are talking of a small number of abortions after 20 weeks, but we are talking about the number that cause the most severe problems to doctors, nurses and patients.\n various time limits have been suggested. the lane committee suggested 24 weeks. the dhss, way back in 1970, i think, in the report "the use of fetuses and fetal material for research ", put forward 20 weeks. much evidence was given to the select committee once again. perhaps i may quote what the select committee said: those giving evidence to last session\'s committee and your committee have generally been agreed that the upper limit should be less than 28 weeks but have not all agreed about what the limit should be. sir john peel, in evidence, repeated the view of his committee that it should be 20 weeks. the british medical association, as they had done to the lane committee, supported the peel recommendation. the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecology said that \' to terminate pregnancies at 20 and 24 weeks is on the whole a hazardous performance.\' the college supported an upper limit of 20 weeks subject to exceptions ". \n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.22', 44, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "in the letter received from the bma this morning, it comments on the hon. gentleman's bill by saying that the provision about which it is particularly concerned—and it has, in general, expresed horror at his bill—is the reduction of the limit to 20 weeks.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.23', 135, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'frankly, i am surprised that an organisation such as the bma can change its mind so many times. it fought bitterly against the 1967 act coming in, and it then supported the changes that came in in 1972. now it is coming out against me. it very much depends upon who is at the head of that organisation as to which way it will go, and that is perfectly understandable.\n it seems to me that 20 weeks is a fair time to put forward. this allows for mistakes of two to three weeks, because if viability is reached we all know the problems into which we run. if there is any doubt about the wording of the bill, it can be changed in committee. i give that assurance. that is what committee stages are for.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.24', 79, 'uk.m.16823', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the time limit is of crucial importance to some of us in deciding which way we shall vote at the end of this debate. therefore, can my hon. friend give an assurance that he is prepared to look co-operatively at possible amendments in committee to change the limit from 20 weeks to 24 weeks? in addition, can he assure us that he is prepared to see the word " will " in clause 7 changed to " may "?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.25', 218, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, i give my hon. friend that assurance. when the bill goes forward into committee, as i am sure it will, amendments will come forward and, of course, i shall look sympathetically at the weight behind them. i accept that this is a very important issue.\n the fourth major issue at which i have looked and inserted in the bill is the conscience clause to amend section 4 of the 1967 act. again, the select committee recommend that conscientious objection might be on religious, ethical or other grounds, that the proviso should be taken out and that the burden of conscience should not be nut on the nurse. that is exactly what i have done in the bill. i have certainly not proposed that section 4(2) should be taken out, as the bma suggested in its letter of yesterday.\n this is a very difficult area. large numbers of doctors, midwives and nurses have written to me—if the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) wants proof of this, she can come to see me—saying that their chances of promotion in gynaecological work are nil because of their beliefs. the choice in many cases seems to be one of doing the work in cleaning up after abortions, or getting out of the gynaecological wards. that should not be the choice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.26', 68, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman admit that the evidence given by the royal college of nursing and all medical organisations was in direct opposition to what he has just said, and that they have said that after constantly seeking information to prove that people had had some kind of bar put up against them, they could find no evidence of any sort to support what he has just said?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.27', 146, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'perhaps i may read a letter which i received this morning from the chief education officer of the general nursing council for england and wales. it expresses, obviously, a personal view. however, she says: speaking as a nurse and a teacher of nurses, i welcome the strengthening of the conscience clause and the proposed amendment to the 1967 abortion act. while nurses accept a commitment to respect the values and beliefs of individual people in their care, they themselves have a reciprocal right to be protected. nurses are particularly vulnerable by the nature of their employment in the health service. they may be expected to participate in abortion procedures which conflict not only with their own religious beliefs but with an internationally agreed code of ethics, under which respect for life and the promotion of health for every individual are fundamental principles. there is support there.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.28', 5, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'she is speaking for herself.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.29', 40, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there have been numerous other letters floating around among hon. members which purport to come from certain organisations but which perhaps have not actually come from those organisations. but i have no hesitation in quoting the letter from that lady.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.30', 104, 'uk.m.21918', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is a matter of serious import to many people, and there are those among us here today who would challenge the view that the hon. member for sheffield, hillsborough (mr. flannery) has put. may i suggest to him and to those who have apprehension on the matter that the time has probably arrived when an appeal should go out from the house that anyone who has a complaint in relation to the operation of the conscience clause should write in so that the matter may be placed, with the full knowledge of everyone concerned, before the committee when the bill reaches that stage?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.31', 49, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the hon. gentleman for that intervention. i think that the real worry among many nurses is that they will lose their jobs if they complain, and they are terrified to say anything to anybody within the hospital. i regard this as a very worrying state of affairs.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.32', 59, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it may help the house if i recall that the select committee, of which i was a member, took evidence from members of the nursing profession to the effect that great distress was caused and the conscience provisions of the act were not being properly regarded. there is no doubt about the evidence, if hon. members will read it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.33', 180, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my hon. friend for that intervention.\n in dealing with abortion, we are, i suggest, tackling the problem in reverse. we desperately need better education in the prevention of pregnancy rather than abortion of the foetus after it has all happened. this calls for better counselling and better advice. there are many arguments as to how that should be done and by whom. should it be done at home or in the school, by parent or by teacher? the problem is growing. it must be tackled urgently.\n i believe that in many cases it is easier for a child to be taught the facts of life by a good teacher rather than at home, but this depends enormously on the family background. as a farmer, i have brought up my children on the farm. my five-year-old knows everything there is to know about the facts of life, and it is perfectly natural to that child. if children can be brought up in that way, there is a far better understanding of the sort of life which they will live.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.34', 86, 'uk.m.10573', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has dealt with what he regards as the four main issues in the bill, but is he aware that a very high proportion of our constituents are under the impression that his bill has just one element in it, namely, the reduction of the upper time limit? can he explain how that impression has become so widespread throughout the country? further, will he say why he does not think that there might have been a case for confining his bill to that issue?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.35', 165, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "because there are certain issues raised in the report of the select committee which the select committee asked should be put before the house, and i feel equally strongly on some of those recommendations. that is why they come before the house. i looked at all the select committee's views and recommendations. when i was asked by representatives of the press, as i was on many occasions, what particular aspects of this matter i was looking at. i told them what those aspects were. if the hon. gentleman cares to look at press reports as far back as 25, 26 and 27 june, he will see that i was discussing then many different aspects and not just the one that he has just raised.\n therefore, i do not think it fair to say that there is a general feeling that only one aspect is covered. i regard it as the one important aspect. it is the one about which the general public are most worried.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.36', 120, 'uk.m.19168', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i go a long way with the hon. gentleman on the conscience question because i am a supporter of the original act. i am aware that many doctors are using the conscience clause. they are quite in order in so doing according to the act, and i support them in their attitude towards their right to refuse to take part in any abortion. but will the hon. gentleman go along with me and bring within the terms of his bill a provision that if any such doctor refuses to advise a woman to undergo an abortion—if he refuses to accept that part of the act—it should become his duty by law immediately to pass that patient on to another doctor?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.37', 348, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as i said earlier, i looked at that aspect of the matter, but many doctors to whom i spoke—naturally, i asked their advice—said that if their conscience was so strong that they simply did not want to do the job they did not see why they should be required by law to do it. moreover, it would be extremely difficult to carry out such legislation, since one would then have to put in penalty clauses, providing for a fine or perhaps sending a doctor to prison because he did not do it. however, i have no doubt that this is a matter which some hon. members on the opposition benches will bring forward when we go into committee.\n time is running on and i know that many hon. members wish to speak. i have tried to look at the problem factually. i have tried not to raise the temperature by using emotional phrases. that is not what this is all about. it is a desperately serious subject. no hon. member can take it lightly.\n undoubtedly, some improvements have taken place, and some of the abuses of the act which have come to light have been sorted out. i hope that the minister can support my proposals. i know that he has had talks with the bpas, and i hope that it is not too much to ask whether there is any outcome from those talks.\n i ask right hon. and hon. members to ponder deeply before voting today and to consider carefully where we should go from here. i present the bill, always remembering that it is this house which will finally agree its contents. it may go through much change, but the important thing to remember is the principle which it embodies. the house of commons is the guardian of the rights of the people. it should not be bludgeoned by large pressure groups. [hon. members: " oh."] nor should it be frustrated in its goals by small minorities whose aim is to destroy the aims of the majority. i ask for the support of the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.39', 187, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i congratulate the hon. member for bute and north ayshire (mr. corrie) on having come first in the ballot, but i am afraid that i cannot carry my congratulations any further. i deeply regret the fact that he decided to bring this bill before the house, and i am sorry to have to say that in almost every sentence of his presentation of the bill he gave me the impression that he does not fully understand the depth and complexity of the problem that he has tackled. i hope that some hon. members whose minds are still in doubt will reflect on the way in which the hon. gentleman presented his case.\n we are dealing with an issue that has been before the house on many occasions—i would say on too many occasions—but this is the first time that i have spoken on it. i have, in a sense, been involved in the neutrality of the front benches. but i take this opportunity to speak now, and i speak with the experience of five years in the department of health and social security, in 1968–70 and 1976–79.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.40', 7, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my right hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.41', 950, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "with respect, i do not wish to take too much time. i want to develop my argument a little, and i shall then give way. i shall deal with only a small number of points, and i know that many of my hon. friends will deal with others.\n my conclusion is that on balance the 1967 act was about right. i agree, therefore, with the heading to the leading article in the guardian this morning: abortion: leave the act alone. i am not one of those who want to see the balance disturbed. i do not believe in abortion on demand, and i think that the same view is held by many of those who have supported the act. but i cannot support, and i hope that the house will not today support, the second reading of a bill that would make abortion more difficult.\n as secretary of state, i honestly sought to tackle some of the abuses that existed. there is no doubt that there were abuses, and i believe that the effective licensing system to which the hon. gentleman referred, and other administrative measures in response to the recommendations of the lane committee, changed the situation.\n i agree entirely with dr. marks, deputy chairman of thg british medical association's representative body, in the statement that he made the day before yesterday. the house will not be surprised to know that the bma and i have not always been in agreement, but on this we are. dr. marks says: the policy of the association is made by the representative body, comprising 600 elected members from all branches of medicine. dr. marks goes back to minute 82 of a meeting in 1977 and he quotes it, as follows: this representative body opposes the present abortion (amendment bill) and reaffirms its view that the difficulties arising from the 1967 abortion act can be remedied by appropriate changes in the regulations and that amendments to the act itself are not required. dr. marks goes on: the necessary changes were made and the following year the representative body resolved ' that this meeting deplores the persistent attacks on the 1967 abortion act and reaffirms its belief that it is a practical and humane piece of legislation.' … those of us who are privileged to practise medicine have seen many advances in the last few years. the elimination of the septic abortion, a direct result of the abortion act, is one of the greatest. if this bill is passed it will put the clock back and do untold physical and emotional harm to many poor women who will again seek ' help ' under exceptional circumstances. it is known from backstreet abortionists. i read that out because that is the view of the british medical association. let there be no misunderstanding that that is where the bma stands.\n there have been many benefits from this bill because of the action that has been taken since 1967. only one death was recorded in 1976 after an illegal abortion, compared with 22 in 1968. septic abortions were referred to by dr. marks. the number of hospital discharges after treatment for septic abortion, a common result of botched illegal abortion, fell from more than 3,000 to 610 in 1975. i could quote many other statistics but i do not want to take up the time of the house.\n for two or three minutes, i want to deal with clause 1(1) (a) and (3) (c) which deal with the proposed change from 28 weeks to 20 weeks, which, of course, is the nub of the bill, as the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire accepted. happily—the hon. gentleman admitted this—the proportion of abortions carried out after 20 weeks is minute. it is still less than 1 per cent. the vast majority are carried out before 12 weeks from gestation, and it is an increasing proportion.\n no doctor wants to undertake a late abortion, but there are exceptional circumstances. perhaps i may touch upon four, because they are very crucial and affect the upper limit. first, there is the teenage girl or the mentally handicapped girl who has been hiding her pregnancy through fear or ignorance; secondly, there is the woman with irregular periods; and, thirdly, there is the woman whose pregnancy has been wrongly diagnosed and, fourthly, older women who mistake the symptoms of pregnancy for those of menopause.\n there are other exceptional circumstances in which a doctor can, using his clinical judgment and the rights provided by the 1967 act, under those very special circumstances, take action after 20 weeks.\n evidence was given by what was my department—the department of health and social security—to the select committee on 12 may 1975. it was as follows: the fact that less than 1 per cent. of all abortions are at present undertaken at 20 or more weeks gestation appears to indicate that doctors are prepared to perform them only that some of the women who present late for an abortion are those with a most pressing case—some of the mentally subnormal, and the under 16's. the clause would deny abortions to such women. again, while special provision is made for those likely to give birth to a disabled child, even a limit of 24 weeks might not always allow definite diagnosis of disability to be made and acted upon. on the other hand, it might lead to a decision to terminate within the legal time limits and in advance of conclusive evidence being available. that is the reason why so many doctors believe that if the terms of the bill were to be carried through we might well find that more pregnancies were terminated later than at present.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.42', 97, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the exact point that i wanted to make. is it not likely that the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie), who believes that the bill will have beneficial effects, will find a situation that will be much worse? of course there will be fewer abortions after 20 weeks, but there will also be fewer abortions before 12 weeks, because of the confusion that the bill will cause. therefore, more abortions will be carried out in the later weeks of pregnancy, between 16 and 20 weeks, which everyone agrees is much more dangerous.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.43', 237, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is, of course, a doctor. i am not sure whether the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire realised that when he answered the question from my hon. friend. my hon. friend has put the matter far better, and with greater authority, than i could—a point that i was just about to make. therefore, i do not now need to make it.\n doctors must be allowed to use their clinical judgment in all cases. that is something that the medical profession holds dear. i hope that the minister for health, when he intervenes, will make the point that the clinical judgment of the doctor is something that must be preserved, but that it would be undermined if the terms of the bill were to be carried.\n we have to ask ourselves who wants this bill. the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire, of course, wants the bill. i do not know why he wants it. i listened to his speech with the greatest care. his concluding sentence was that we in this house must not be pushed by pressure groups. i suspect that he has come for- ward because he has been pushed so hard by a deeply committed pressure group that is opposed to abortion in principle and that would wish to go very much further than the hon. gentleman does in what i am sure he feels is a moderate bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.44', 95, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i assure the right hon. gentleman that this was solely my decision. as it happened, i walked into the house on the wednesday night when the ballot had been drawn. i was told by a press man that i had won it, and he asked me what i would do. at that moment i said that i would try to amend the abortion act because i had always felt very strongly about it. no other person had spoken to me up to that moment. it was my decision, made because i wanted to do it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.45', 36, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i accept that completely. that helps to answer the question that i put, namely, who wants the bill? i said at the beginning that certainly the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire wanted the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.46', 149, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. friend began his speech by declaring his neutrality whilst he was on the front bench in the last government. has not everything in his speech indicated that the reason why we are having this debate today is that when he was on the front bench he was so loaded with prejudices that it was impossible, by administrative or legislative means, to get the bill through? secondly, when he talks about 1 per cent., and asks who wants the bill, does he not realise that between 1,500 and 2,000 children are involved? when, next week, he and i will vote to ensure that a few psychopathic murderers are no longer hanged, or some evil terrorists are not hanged, because we believe in the sanctity of life, does he not think it important that he should pay the same regard to the fate of 1,500 or 2,000 children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.47', 322, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i take the last point first. i believe very much in the sanctity of life. i think that that is one of the central issues for all of us, whichever side we take on this bill. i do not want to see a situation in which we have more physically and mentally handicapped children; more sick and handicapped mothers; more deaths in childbirth; more unwanted children, with all the social problems that will involve; more child abuse from those who are unable to care for their children and did not want to have them; more broken lives, and more broken families. i believe that the bill would bring that about. that is my answer to my hon. friend's intervention. that is my view of the sanctity of human life, and that is what this issue is all about.\n my hon. friend also raised the question of my neutrality. there is a tradition, which i believe to be right, that this house votes according to the individual views of its members. the department worked extremely hard to ensure that the vast proportion of the recommendations of the lane committee were carried out in order that abuses that existed should be ended and that we had an effective licensing system. i had forgotten the figures, but the guardian reminded me today. nineteen nursing homes have lost their licences since 1969. there has been a black list of advice bureaux, thus eliminating the unscrupulous referral agencies. i believe that 23 were blacklisted. nursing homes that accepted patients from the black list risked losing their licences. there is now an approved list of 35 bureaux that are regularly and thoroughly inspected.\n i took my responsibilities very seriously indeed. having followed the debates and all that has happened since 1967, my conclusion was that the administrative actions taken by the department have responded to the most serious issues that i believe were the concern of this house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.48', 73, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was dismayed to hear the list that the right hon. gentleman gave of those whose lives should never be allowed to commence. is he implying that the handicapped, and those whose births were not originally wanted, have no contribution to make in this world? i have met many hundreds of thousands of people who have been at a disadvantage in this way but who have triumphed over the afflictions that they suffered.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.49', 308, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'how can the hon. lady ask me that question? she knows that over many years of my life i have been involved in the welfare of the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill. our task as a community is, of course, to give the love, support, care and protection to any children who are born handicapped. but we have a second responsibility, which is to minimise the number of those families that suffer from having a mentally or physically handicapped child. those two responsibilities must go together.\n i was trying to conclude my speech, and i shall not give way again. i asked who wanted the bill. i want to say who does not want it. it is certainly not the medical profession. of course there are isolated cases and of course the bma and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists cannot speak for 100 per cent. of their membership. but they speak for the majority of their membership, and they speak from the depths of their experience. is it the doctors or the nurses? we know from the royal college of nursing that it is not the nurses who want these changes. it is not the social workers, either, who had to accept some of the social consequences that existed before 1967. i fear that such consequences would again exist if we made these changes now. it is certainly not the general public who want these changes, if we can trust the conclusions of the gallup poll.\n of course, one can twist and misinterpret the conclusions. i know that there has been some argument between the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire and the gallup poll. i shall therefore quote only what the poll itself showed. it showed that while 38 per cent. of the sample thought that abortion should be more difficult to obtain—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.50', 3, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'thirty-eight per cent.?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.51', 127, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, 38 per cent. forty-five per cent. were in favour of an abortion law as liberal as, or even more liberal than, the existing one. therefore, no one can possibly quote that opinion poll to suggest that the public want to see a change in this act. certainly, the generation that would be particularly affected by it do not want this bill. that same poll pointed out that among the 25 to 34 age group—those most likely to need abortions—only 28 per cent. wanted a more restrictive law. it was the over 65s who held a very different view, perhaps for the reason that this was not an issue that touched their lives. i hope that the house will not give a second reading to the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.52', 7, 'uk.m.10374', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. nicholas lyell (hemel hempstead) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.53', 32, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way, because i want to conclude. i believe that if the bill is not defeated today it will hang like a dark cloud over this session of parliament.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.54', 53, 'uk.m.10374', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i apologise for trying to intervene in order to ask a question. i believe that we have become too heated in this debate. the right hon. gentleman has some special knowledge, which i seek to ascertain from him. he hurried over it in his speech—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.55', 19, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. whatever knowledge the right hon. gentleman has, he will impart it to the house as he sees fit.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.56', 236, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "in preparing my notes, i was tempted to deliver a long speech. i know that that is not what the house wants, because there are many points of view to be presented. i wish to conclude my speech. i may seek to intervene in the hon. gentleman's speech to try to answer the point. that is perhaps the way to deal with it.\n i believe that if the bill gets a second reading it will hang like a dark cloud over this session of parliament. we have enough dark clouds already, but this is one that we need not inflict upon ourselves and society. it is a dark cloud not just over this house but over the future happiness of many young people. in my view, it is the protection of the future generation that must concern us.\n it is in that spirit and mood, and with such experience as i can bring to the house, that i plead with any hon. members who have not yet made up their minds to recognise that the bill will, on balance, do more harm than good to an act that has brought great good to our society and has received wide recognition for what it has done. it has reduced abortion, and has brought abortion under control in ways of which this house approved and of which, so far as i know, it has never wished to disapprove.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.58', 1023, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the principle of the bill, which i both welcome and support. i should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) for the courageous way in which he proposed the second reading.\n like my hon. friend, i hope that the debate can be carried out in a calm and rational atmosphere, because the matter that we are discussing today, while emotional, is also serious. i believe that the right hon. member for norwich, north (mr. ennals) appreciates that point as well. i am sure that he will agree that in the interests of this debate and in the interests of the house coming to a rational and considered opinion, we should try to keep our tempers.\n abortion affects two areas of human life, and both of these should be the priority in our minds during this debate. first, abortion affects the woman who undergoes it. her health, well-being and protection from exploitation must be of paramount importance in considering the bill. secondly, it affects the child—a foetus, may be, but a putative human being for whom we cannot and would not deny responsibility and concern. i hope that on these two aspects we shall draw our conclusions today. in short, we are discussing the interests, welfare and scrupulous care of pregnant women and their unborn offspring.\n this bill is an amending measure. it does not seek to innovate or abolish. it sets out to regulate existing legislation. it sets out to regulate the workings of the 1967 act, which have created sufficient anxiety and disquiet to warrant rectification.\n very few hon. members can truly sit back and say that they are totally happy with the working of the 1967 act. indeed, the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel)—i am sorry that he is not here today but i have given him notice that i intend to refer to him—has, over the past few months, made it clear that he believes that the foetal age limit of 28 weeks is too high and should be reviewed.\n as recently as 5 july the right hon. member wrote to a constituent in very much the same terms as the statement that he put out on tuesday, in which he said that he would support a bill that implemented the peel committee\'s recommendation on the foetal age limit. however, when he discovered that the peel committee\'s recommendation was for an age limit of 20 weeks, he decided, in a statement issued this morning, that he was in error, and that he meant the lane committee.\n it is relevant to remind hon. members of the peel committee\'s report on this matter. i shall read a statement issued by sir john peel yesterday in the light of the statement of the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles. sir john said: i am puzzled by what mr. steel says when he states that he would support a bill implementing the peel committee recommendations, and then goes on to say that there is no authoritative recommendation by the peel committee for a 20-week limit, and that this is why he would not support such a recommendation. paragraph 31 of the peel report states that \' for ethical, medical and social reasons we recommend that for human foetuses evidence of a period of gestation of 20 weeks (140 days which corresponds to a weight of approximately 400–500 grammes) should be regarded as prima facie proof of viability at the present time.\' that statement by the peel committee was in 1972. sir john went on to say that the next paragraph in the report reads: this date (20 weeks) should be reviewed regularly to take account of the rapid changes taking place in medical knowledge. accordingly, consideration should be given to the amendment of acts providing for registration and notification of births and deaths, also the infant life preservation act 1929, and analogous legislation in scotland and northern ireland. that is what this bill sets out to do. i hope that when he considers that fact the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles, who was the author of the original act, will find that he is able to support this bill in its later stages.\n in effect, the bill looks at abortion from four aspects. the first is the viable age of the foetus—the limit that was set by the 1929 legislation and carried on in the 1967 act. the second is the criteria for abortion. the third is the conscience clause and the fourth is the proper control over the agencies and clinics involved in providing abortions.\n the hon. member for edinburgh, east (mr. strang), in an intervention, said that he thought there was too much in this bill. it could be argued that there is too little. there are other aspects which might well have been put in—aspects such as the practice of carrying out medical experiments upon live aborted foetuses which, because of the uncertainty of the definition of the law at present—[hon. members: " there is none."] there is more than evidence of this. if hon. members on the opposition benches will listen i shall try to provide that evidence.\n in 1970 the medical news tribune published a photograph of a baby in a tank. the description that was given of it was " an artificial uterus ". the research at cambridge university\'s department of experimental medicine was shown, and in an article accompanying the published photograph the situation was described as " keeping the foetus alive for experiments ".\n in april 1978 the scottish newspapers published reports of experiments being carried out on foetuses, minutes after the operation. at the time this was confirmed by top scottish gynaecologists and the scottish home and health department. this is the kind of evidence that should raise the possibility in the minds of hon. members on both sides of the house that this is a matter that could, had the bill set out to alter the structure of the act, have been included.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.59', 128, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member raises a most important point, on which hon. members and the public are confused. i say with authority that all claims that live foetuses have been aborted and left to die have been followed up by the dhss. in every case investigated no proof has been found, and the people who made the allegations did not continue to press them after the inquiry had taken place. i remember that during my period as secretary of state a case occurred at wanstead, in july 1978, and another in january 1979, at whiston, where, when such allegations were made and examined, it was perfectly clear that there was no live foetus. therefore, this issue should not be the basis on which the hon. member makes his claims.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.60', 104, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in answer to the right hon. member, i quote what professor walker said at the time these reports came out. he said: under the law we must seek permission to experiment on a foetus which has lived more than 28 weeks in the womb, but before that they are not covered by the law. the point that i wish to make—i make it almost outside the ambit of the bill, and i am sure that the right hon. member will agree with me—is that if the law is so indistinct that that could happen, this aspect might have been properly included in the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.61', 5, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'but it did not happen.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.62', 29, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this bill is trying to deal with the aspects that i mentioned at the beginning, although there are other aspects of which i believe the house should be aware.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.63', 61, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i suggest that when the minister speaks, the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram) should intervene then. the minister speaks with the authority of today, i speak with the authority of yesterday. i believe that the minister will confirm what i have said. i have seen letters that he has written on this subject since he became minister for health.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.64', 272, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "when that occasion arises i may well raise the matter with my hon. friend on the front bench. but this particular circumstance is not within the scope of the bill. this bill's scope includes the welfare of the mother and the child. no healthy and viable child should be aborted unless the life and ultimate health of the mother is at risk. much has been said about that aspect already, particularly by my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire.\n the test—this is why i was puzzled when i listened to the right hon. gentleman—must ultimately be the age at which the generality or majority of foetuses become viable. we are talking about the age at which a foetus can exist without its mother, outwith the womb, with an independent existence.\n it frightened me to hear the speech of the right hon. gentleman, in which i understand him to place the viability of the foetus in some senses lower than other considerations. if we are not to set the limit as, and test this legislation against, the viability of a child, there might as well be no limit at all. we should be going back not only to the 1929 position but back to the time before 1929, before the viable age was first defined.\n i have quoted the statement by sir john peel, expressing the opinion that on all the evidence, ethical and medical, 20 weeks is the age at which the limit should be set. if that opinion, with the weight of experience of its author behind it, is put before the house we should take it seriously.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.65', 4, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. dunwoody rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.66', 133, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have given way enough.\n for the reason that i have given, i support the clause.\n the second aspect of the bill on which i should like to touch is the welfare of the women involved in abortions. whilst it may be necessary, abortion is not a simple act for a woman to undergo. it is not simply a social convenience; it is a medical act. in many cases it is a medical operation, with medical, biological and psychological implications.\n i have no medical experience and i would not attempt to speak about the medical details, but what i can understand as a layman is the possible consequences of abortion, the physical injuries and disablements that can and do occur—uterine or cervical damage, the possible psychological effects upon the women who undergo abortion—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.67', 5, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'especially in the back streets.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.68', 42, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '—depression, psychological disturbance, and often suicidal tendencies.\n i raise these matters not so much as part of an argument against abortion as to give added emphasis, which i believe that all hon. ladies on the labour benches will be prepared to accept—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.69', 6, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.70', 49, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i finish this point? i raise these matters to give an added emphasis to the need for scrupulous and objective counselling and for scrupulous medical care. i shall be interested to hear whether the hon. lady is prepared to contest that that is a particular need in legislation.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.71', 85, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman presumes to talk about the way in which women react either to having an abortion or to not having one. is he aware that recent research indicates that the disruptive and difficult psychological effects of not having an abortion when one is wanted are greater and more widespread than the psychological effects of having one? i am of course referring to a legal abortion. in other words, the weight of the evidence is against the view that the hon. gentleman is expressing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.72', 447, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i can assess results and consequences as well as any other lay person, and i, too, can try to find out what the effects are.\n i refer the hon. lady to an extract from appendix 1 of the first report of the select committee on abortion in the session 1975–76, a note by dr. r. d. t. farmer and miss sally o'brien. in the note, based on a study carried out in three adjoining areas of london of young people who had taken an overdose of drugs in an attempt at self-poisoning, they stated: of the overdose group, 29 per cent. had had abortions compared to 13 per cent. of the control group … the investigation suggests that either abortion and self-poisoning occur in the same type of individual, or that abortion increases the likelihood of subsequent self poisoning. i am not using this evidence within the context of the bill as part of the argument against abortion. what i believe it emphasises—and i beileve sincerely that the hon. lady will agree—is the need for scrupulous and objective counselling and scrupulous medical care in dealing with people who are having abortions. i do not believe that any hon. member can disagree with that need. any situation in which women who find themselves pregnant can be, or are, exploited should be equally repugnant to us all.\n it is for that reason that a large part of the bill is concerned with the standard of control of the facilities available to women seeking pregnancy advice and treatment. if labour members look at clause 4 they will find the conditions for the licensing of clinics and referral agencies, many of which conditions i am sure they would not dispute. they cover medical standards, amenity standards, and so on.\n it amazes me how much antagonism there was, before the debate, to the proposals to separate counselling and referral agencies from the abortion clinics. surely, if a woman seeks advice on her pregnancy, she wishes that advice to be considered and objective. how can an advising or counselling agency be totally objective when a proportion of its income depends on the carrying out of abortions for cash at its associated clinics?\n i am making no imputations; i am stating the obvious. where there is a financial incentive to advise in a particular way, the objectivity of that advice must be suspect. it is like a house buyer asking the person from whom he is buying the house to do the survey and the valuation. the incentive to advise in a particular way is too strong to risk. most house buyers in those circumstances would seek an independent valuation and an independent survey.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.73', 10, 'uk.m.10464', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', " mr. martin j. o'neill (clackmannan and east stirlingshire) rose —\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.74', 347, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have given way on a number of occasions, and i do not want to detain the house much longer.\n if the charitable agencies are sincere about the objectivity of their advice, i cannot see why they do not demonstrate that by showing their willingness to break their links with the clinics with which so many are at present associated. only in that way can the risk of the exploitation of women, often in tragic circumstances, be completely avoided. if, as is apparently already happening, the national health service is beginning to farm out abortions to cash clinics, it is even more vital from the government's point of view that those institutions be seen to be above the possibility of exploitation and commercial activity.\n the whole clause is designed to protect the pregnant woman. her welfare, and not the welfare of the clinic, is what is important to us here today. i do not believe that any objective woman who studies this part of the bill can in her heart object to it.\n few women, in the knowledge that abortion can harm them, will want one unless it is both necessary and advisable. a woman must be able to be assured that the advice she receives in this respect is not possible of taint in any way.\n in the days leading up to this debate i received a great deal of literature from those who support the bill and those who oppose it. i have tried to read all the literature, and i have been struck by one thing. in the literature issued by those who oppose the bill there has been an intangible theme, a commonality of interest, which seems to have brought together many strange bedfellows. they include practitioners, purveyors of contraceptives, and humanists. i hope, although i doubt it, that i am mistaken in seeing that commonality of interest. i believe that human life and the welfare of women and children is too important to be the subject of pressure by vested interests. i urge the house to give the bill its full support.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.76', 74, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not take up the remarks of the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram), because he made so many sweeping generalisations and used words such as " taint ". i found it difficult to understand exactly what he meant. did he mean that some women who had abortions were in some way tainted? i am sure that all women who undergo abortions do so only after the deepest and most careful thought.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.77', 31, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in using the word " taint ", a was referring to the counselling. that counselling of itself has within it the possibility of taint, and i believe that that is wrong.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.78', 306, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i take exception to that view also, since i know a good deal about the charitable sector. i shall come to that subject in a moment.\n the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) has done a great disservice to women by introducing the bill. he has also done a great disservice to the house by introducing this legislation so late, although i appreciate that he apologised to the house on that account. it has meant that those of us who are interested in this subject have had only three or four days in which to examine the bill. it is one of the most badly drafted bills that i have ever seen. perhaps i am dim, but i have had to read each clause two or three times and still i am not sure what some of them mean. indeed, having heard the sponsor's opening speech, i am not sure that he knows what they mean. that worries me very much indeed. it is not good enough for the hon. gentleman to say that we can tidy up these matters in committee.\n let me give the house a clue as to why the bill was published so late. the sponsor said that it was entirely his fault and that things had been difficult for him. however, the catholic herald of 6 july, in reporting that the bill was to be published on that date—and it was not published then because it appeared a couple of days later—said that the reason for its lateness was partly to prevent the abortion campaign launching an attack upon it. it is a new principle of legislation that a sponsor should deliberately wait until the last moment before allowing the house to examine a bill in order to prevent an attack being mounted upon the bill from outside.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.79', 35, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should be delighted if i knew where that scurrilous report emanated and why it was printed. i should be delighted if i could discover the source of that statement. it certainly was not me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.80', 363, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i simply read the catholic herald. that journal should be more careful. i would have regarded that paper as very honest.\n the lateness of publication caused much speculation about the contents of the bill. we have heard of undertakings which the hon. gentleman gave to a group of doctors whom he met late in june—undertakings which do not appear to have been carried out when the bill finally saw the light of day.\n we know that the sponsor has been telling the guardian that if the bill does not say precisely what he means it to say, and if it does not fit in with undertakings that have been given, nobody should worry because it will all be put right in committee. i do not know on how many committees the hon. gentleman has served, but i ask him to think carefully about this matter. it is not all that easy to put things right in committee. i was a member of the standing committee on the previous abortion bill, which sat, in total, for 75 hours. we tried very hard to put that bill right and to make it more liberal. it was very difficult to get changes through the committee. although the sponsor of the bill may consider himself to be a liberal reformer of the 1967 act, i believe that some of the people behind him and around him may not be quite so liberal. once the bill reaches the committee, it will be open to those people to try to introduce further restrictions to make matters very much more difficult.\n we know that an organisation called life has some friends in this place, and they have said that they want to see further obstacles put into the bill. in another report in the catholic herald that body said that it would urge people to write to their members of parliament and press them to amend the bill further to tighten up on abortion. we are already warned that by bringing in the bill at all, even if it says virtually nothing, we shall provide a vehicle for those who are bitterly opposed to the 1967 act in its entirety.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.81', 23, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'did not life also express an opinion that, if the bill were passed, the number of abortions would be reduced by about two-thirds?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.82', 49, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that was one of the allegations. i do not know what conclusions we can draw from that. many women are most worried at the thought that restrictions may now be placed in their way if the bill is given a second reading. it will result in fewer abortions overall.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.83', 3, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'several thousand fewer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.84', 285, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with my right hon. friend. therefore, we now have some idea of the attitude taken by life.\n the hon. member for bute and ayrshire said that he was concerned about abuses. there is one abuse that nobody has tackled. i refer to the lack of national health service facilities for abortions in many areas. if the sponsor had brought forward a bill saying that every nhs hospital had to provide facilities for abortion, preferably moving towards day care clinics, which are now emerging, he would have earned the respect and support of the whole house.\n the percentage of abortions performed in different parts of the country is most revealing. hon. members should examine some of the statistics. for example, a woman can obtain an abortion provided that she has the necessary certificates, but whether the operation is performed in an nhs hospital depends on where she lives. in the north-east of england, parts of wales and parts of the south-west, more than 90 per cent. of women have their abortions in nhs hospitals. that is as it should be. i believe that the figure of abortions should be 100 per cent. in nhs hospitals, but 90 per cent. is not a bad figure. however, at the other end of the scale the position is horrific. in the west midlands, for example in dudley, only 6 per cent. of women are able to obtain abortions in nhs hospitals, in north birmingham only 7 per cent., and in wolverhampton only 8 per cent. it is disgraceful that that should happen in this day and age.\n if we had to have such a bill, it should have corrected that kind of abuse and provided proper facilities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.85', 58, 'uk.m.22503', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of information, as one who genuinely wants to know and who recognises the hon. lady's great knowledge, which she has displayed in committee before, may i ask a real question? if, as i trust, she favours a reduction to 20 weeks—or not?—what effect does she expect that will have on the pressures on nhs hospitals?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.86', 490, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "perhaps i might come to that in a moment when i deal with the charitable sector. i agree that it is relevant.\n it has been said—i am not suggesting that any hon. member has said it, certainly not today—that those of us who defend the 1967 act are pro-abortionists. i want to make it clear that i am not pro-abortion. i do not want people to have abortions. i should like them to have safe contraception if that is what they want. however, i am determined to oppose anyone who believes that the facilities for abortion should be reduced. we have a duty to provide facilities for people if they have to go to that last resort.\n we hope that they will not, but that is not a matter for me to decide. i do not decide for women, and other hon. members should not decide for women. women should be able to decide for themselves, one hopes in consultation with their families and with their doctors. it is not my decision. our duty is to see that proper facilities are available if they are necessary. that is all that we are seeking to do, and that is what the bill is seeking to limit.\n my right hon. friend the member for norwich, north (mr. ennals), the previous secretary of state, referred to the abortions that took place at wanstead and at whiston. those two cases have been dragged into the press in strange circumstances. the case involving the foetus at wanstead took place last year, and nobody heard anything about it. there did not seem to be any screams then from people working in the hospital. it is strange that it was not until a little while before the general election that this story came out.\n of course people are perturbed by a story such as this—and rightly so. however, the redbridge and waltham forest area health authority—an aha that i know well—has confirmed that the foetus was never alive outside the womb and that resuscitation equipment was not used because the foetus was too young to inflate its lungs. it is interesting that that case took place in the summer of 1978 yet it did not come to light until the very beginning of the general election campaign.\n in the case of the whiston foetus, the then minister of state, department of health and social security, wrote to the hon. member for liverpool, edge hill (mr. alton). i think that the minister wanted that letter eventually published in the official report. i have seen a copy, although it has not yet been published.\n in that letter, dated 22 june, the minister said that he had had a full report from the st. helen's and knowsley aha that the foetus was at no point capable of independent existence and that there had been no limb movements nor any struggling for breath. the foetus could not have maintained independent life.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.87', 120, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "may i correct one thing that my hon. friend has said about the wanstead incident? that matter was raised with a number of members of parliament by a member of the nursing staff who was present when the baby—or the foetus, whatever one wishes to call it—emerged. the matter was in no way connected with the general election. it came up before we knew that the general election was going to occur. that lady's statement—i shall not mention names, obviously—was that the baby was crying and moving. it may not have been able to survive, but that was because of the treatment that the mother had received previously to have an abortion. this was not an election issue at all.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.88', 4, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course it was\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.89', 38, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this lady, who was employed as a nurse, said to me " i thought that my job in life when i came into this service was to preserve life, not to destroy it." she was very distressed indeed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.90', 90, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i accept what my hon. friend says. he has described how the case was revealed, but i still find it strange that it happened last july and that it was only in march or april of 1979 that the matter exploded in the national press. if it was so terrible—i accept that it was a terrible experience for the nurse who brought the matter forward—why did she not then and there, in july last year, say " this is a dreadful thing and something should be done about it "?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.91', 99, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry to intervene again, but whether or not this was an election issue—i have sympathy with the point being made by my hon. friend—is not the important thing the result of the inquiry carried out by the health authority? that revealed that the foetus was of 19 weeks gestation and that medical staff had found it incapable of sustaining life. there was an inquiry and there was a conclusion. i hope that my hon. friend the member for leeds, south-east (mr. cohen) was not suggesting that the results of the inquiry were not entirely independent and conclusive.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.92', 15, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is absolutely so.\n i want now to turn to the provisions of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.93', 155, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'as the hon. member who had to fight the constituency of wanstead and woodford, perhaps i might add one other thing. i have repeatedly asked for those who have made this allegation to come forward and identify themselves to me, but they have not done so. i have discussed this case with the hon. member for leeds, south-east (mr. cohen) and i believe that it is true to say that the lady who gave him the information was unwilling to allow her identity to be disclosed. it must place considerable difficulties in the way of the health authorities which are asked to investigate—as i am sure the previous secretary of state was absolutely right to ask them to investigate—this allegation, if those who make these allegations are not prepared to stand up and be counted, and if necessary to support a case under the infant life (preservation) act, if that is appropriate, in the courts.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.94', 428, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the secretary of state for putting that important statement on the record. not all of us knew that no one was willing to come forward to be counted.\n i turn now to the provisions of the bill. as others have said, clause 1 changes the criteria. it rearranges words in some cases, but basically it introduces the words " grave ", " serious " and " substantial ", pushing them around in different directions from the original act. i have never been able to understand how one decides what is grave and what is not. what is a grave risk " and what is just " a risk "? how is one to decide this? how is a doctor to say that there might be a risk to the woman\'s life which might be grave or might not be grave? is it a little risk or a big risk?\n most of the medical evidence on this point, to the select committee, from distinguished people, was that it would be almost impossible for doctors to work when they had to define those words for themselves, that it was better therefore that the words were left untouched and in their simplest fashion.\n if we introduce descriptions and qualifications of risk doctors will say " since i cannot be absolutely sure whether my judgment that this is a grave risk will be shared by another doctor, i must err on the side of caution and decide that the pregnancy should not be terminated." that is what the supporters of the bill really want.\n i am seriously bothered about the proposal to reduce the time limit to 20 weeks. my right hon. friend the member for norwich, north drew attention to the type of women whom we need to protect by leaving the upper limit at 28 weeks. those are the women who may have made a mistake, thought that they were in the menopause or have recently stopped taking the pill and therefore have irregular periods. we must also protect young girls who become pregnant but who are too frightened to do anything about it, and mentally handicapped women who do not know what they are doing and try to hide their pregnancy.\n why should we decide that such women cannot have an abortion? i understand that the bill contains a provision which relates to a child after 20 weeks pregnancy but that it does not cater for the mental health of a woman. why should we place these difficulties in front of a few needy people?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.95', 35, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the british medical association, the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and the peel committee gave evidence to the select committee that the limit should be 20 weeks. surely those are the people who know.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.96', 160, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "the most recent circular from the bma arrived today, and it is dated 12 july. it has been said that one's opinion of what the bma says depends upon its spokesman. a resolution was passed by last year's 600-strong representative body of the bma. it resolved: that this meeting deplores the persistent attacks on the 1967 abortion act and reaffirms its belief that it is a practical and humane piece of legislation. i accept that some representatives of the bma gave different evidence to the select committee in 1975, but it is possible for its thinking to progress.\n when attacks were made on the abortion act by the introduction of private members' bills, medical opinion was not nearly so quick to come forward as it has been on this occasion. the bill was published only on tuesday of this week, and i am pleased to say that we have been inundated with expert and distinguished opinion from the medical profession.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.97', 95, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "my hon. friend is dealing with the situation after 20 weeks. does she agree that the situation is even worse than she has stated? i refer to the onus on the doctor. it will be possible for an abortion to be carried out after 20 weeks only if the purpose is to preserve the life of the mother. the onus is on the doctor to decide not only whether the mother's life is at risk—which is bad enough—but whether he should operate to save her life. that is an onus which no doctor will accept.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.98', 505, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is why the bill is so difficult to follow in many ways, and why it is so frightening. we do not yet understand all the bill\'s implications.\n the bill is hung about with penalties. it is full of activities which are offences and for which one can be fined. the whole bill smacks of penalties which will make doctors err even more on the side of caution and of doing nothing.\n reference has been made to the conscience clause and the need to widen it. i cannot see why it has to be widened. the nursing mirror of 10 may this year reported that the royal college of midwives and the royal college of nursing had said that there was no evidence that nurses were forced to perform abortions against their will. one nurse may take that point of view, and that is her right. however, according to those distinguished bodies, there is no evidence that nurses are being leaned on in any way.\n there has been an attack on the referral agencies and charities. i was asked what the cost would be if national health service hospitals were able to perform the tasks of those agencies and charities. the department should be able to give that figure. if the bill is passed, an enormous gap will be created by the destruction of the charitable sector. by separating the referral agencies and the charities the british pregnancy advisory service and the pregnancy advisory service will be destroyed because it will not be possible for them to own and control both advisory service centres and nursing homes.\n perhaps the supporters of the bill have not seen documents from the bpas and the pas. they run a low cost, efficient and compassionate caring service. they deal with well over 50 per cent. of abortions because the national health service is unable, because of a lack of facilities, to carry out more than 50 per cent. women who now go to bpas and pas will be forced not on the national health service but on to the back streets. the knitting needle is no joke. before the 1967 act was passed i worked in an office where there was a young junior of 15. she came in late one morning. i asked her why she was late. she said " it was my mum. she fell again. we had her jumping up and down off the kitchen table all night. she has one or two instruments and i hope they will do the job."\n i was horrified not just at the fact that the girl\'s mother was undergoing that experience, but at the calm acceptance by the daughter of a working-class family that that was what life was about, that if there was an unwelcome pregnancy—in this case the mother had several other children—that was the action one took. if for no other reason, i am glad because of that that we have the 1967 act that has enabled us to dispose of that kind of attitude.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.99', 44, 'uk.m.10464', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend aware that in new zealand, where similar restrictive legislation to this bill was introduced only two years ago, the number of obortions has not decreased and that the number of illegal abortions has increased following restriction in the legal sector?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.100', 35, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon friend for giving that information. that situation provides a source of extreme anxiety to women in new zealand, from whom some of us have heard direct on this matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.101', 64, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "is it the hon. lady's case that if the cash clinics are separated from the referral agencies under clause 4 those clinics will continue to operate, but the referral agencies will not be able to do so? if that is the case, does she not agree that that is why one cannot have objective counselling from referral agencies which are linked to these clinics?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.102', 41, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my information conies from both the bpas and the pas, and they estimate that if the clause goes through it will be impossible for them to operate. when the hon. member talks in this disparaging way of " cash clinics "—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.103', 3, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'he is prejudiced.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.104', 380, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '—i beg him to go along and see how they work and to talk to the people who run them. he will realise how excellent is the kind of counselling service that they give and that he criticises. he will see that the whole system in the charitable sector is run in a non-profit making and caring way, and not in the dreadful way that he seeks to imply.\n so many bodies and so many people in the country view the bill with alarm and dismay. caring people believe that the bill will endanger the health and welfare of a large number of women and possibly their families as well. i hope that even at this stage i can persuade the hon. member to withdraw his bill, or suppress it in some way, because then he would be doing a good service.\n i have had a few letters from constituents—about a dozen—on this matter, including two or three that were exactly the same, stating that i was denying infertile parents the opportunity to adopt a child. i thought about that most carefully. i would in no way wish to prevent infertile parents from adopting if that is what they want. however, i realise that there are about 75,000 children in care in this country. of those 75,000 some, but not all, are available for adoption. however, they are not all white and they are not all tiny, healthy babies. they tend to be handicapped, older, and often black. that is why people do not want to adopt them, why they are left in care and in children\'s homes. if people say to me that i am denying infertile parents the pleasure and prospect of adoption, i say " go and look at the kind of children who have consistently been rejected for many years and who remain rejected." on the whole, people like to have a baby that is cast in their own image, and that is what they are looking to.\n i turn my attention finally to those of my right hon. and hon. friends who do not share my view. i remind them that it is the policy of the trades union congress to support the 1967 act. likewise, it is the policy of the labour party conference—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.105', 4, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'and the scottish tuc.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.106', 81, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes, the scottish tuc, too. that was certainly the policy also of the labour women's conference which met only two or three weeks ago. i was pleased to see that yesterday the tuc issued a press statement in which it stated that it firmly supported the 1967 act as it now stands and that it was deeply concerned at the introduction of the bill. i echo that concern, and i hope that all other right hon. and hon. members will, too.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.108', 1682, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i know that the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) is most sincere in the views that she holds. i did not sit opposite her in committee for all the hours that the committee sat without learning that. however, i hope that in this issue, which arouses such great controversy and passion, we can start from the point of recognising that, although we differ, we hold our views sincerely. there is no point in trying to impugn the motives of my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) or anyone else when those motives do not exist. some of us hold these views very strongly because we sincerely believe in them. if that can be the starting point for our discussion i think that we will get on better.\n obviously, in view of my experience in this matter, i congratulate my hon. friend upon introducing the bill. it is a successor not only to my bill but to a number of others. i sincerely trust that my hon. friend will have better luck than those who have gone before. it is most difficult to explain to the public why bills that have received overwhelming endorsement on second reading do not reach the statute book. people outside the house find the intricacies of our parliamentary procedure most difficult to understand, and they simply cannot comprehend why the bills get no further.\n i am afraid that even if my hon. friend, with first place in the ballot, is successful in getting a second reading for his bill today, there will be considerable obstacles in its path at other stages.\n looking back calmly and dispassionately over the years since the 1967 act i asked myself whether the previous attempts at reforming the act had been worth while, whether all the correspondence, the demonstrations, the " aggro ", and the rest had been worth, the effort. i answered with a resounding " yes " to that question. i think that that will be echoed by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), by my hon. friends the members for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) and surrey, north-west (mr. grylls) and by my right hon. friend the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas)—now leader of the house—who introduced a bill in the past. the wheels of our parliamentary democracy grind very slowly, but they grind inexorably, particularly with measures such as this. i claim that these previous attempts have made the issue clearer. they have certainly made the political options clearer. i also claim that these bills and the deliberations of the select committee have stimulated the department of health and social security a department, which is not outstanding in the quickness with which it deals with difficult matters, into taking much more action about agencies and clinics in the private sector; to provide better facilities than existed before under the national health service; and have increased research into the after-effects of abortion, which is most important.\n on this last point, we are miles behind other countries in research and in the way in which we treat subsequent pregnancies after abortion. this is of the utmost importance. if only we could rectify that problem, a great many abnormal births and a great deal of misery would be avoided in the future.\n i make the much more controversial claim that the bills that have been introduced following the 1967 act have made those who would not otherwise have thought about the issue consider the ethics of abortion. there have always been two extreme camps. the first camp consists of those who want no abortion. the second consists of those who want no restrictions. they want abortion freely available on demand or request. in between lie the great majority. they are worried and uncertain. they wish the issue would go away. many more of those who lie between the two camps have now grasped the true issues that are involved in the controversy.\n every thinking person now appreciates the absurd values of a society that protests passionately against any infringements of human rights, against capital punishment, imprisonment and torture where it is found and yet quite quietly destroys more than 100,000 of its own kind every year. that is the negative side.\n there is a strong positive side. there has been a far greater positive attempt to help those who are worried or distressed by an impending pregnancy, to show them that there are alternatives to abortion and to help them through pregnancy and subsequent care of their children. that has been one of the most encouraging developments of recent years. we should not lose sight of that.\n my hon. friend is right to include a criteria clause. the select committee suggested that the house should be given the opportunity to make its decision. my hon. friend has made provision for that suggestion. he has done no more and no less. he is again putting into the bill the words that were there originally and were subsequently removed by those in another place. however, i suspect that the changes that he suggests will not make very much difference. the new zealand experience has been quoted with a certain amount of justification. i do not think that any more prosecutions would result.\n my argument for wanting the criteria changed is the same as the argument advanced for the race relations acts and sex discrimination act—namely, that although we cannot change people\'s attitudes and prejudices by law we can make plain the state\'s point of view. that is especially important. i believe strongly that the future of this issue will be decided by education and the attitude of members of the rising generation. they will decide what happens. they will decide whether we have far freer abortion or whether it is restricted. from my experience of discussing the matter in schools and universities, i think that there has been a tremendous change. the matter is now considered much more carefully and reasonably than before. undoubtedly a considerable change has taken place.\n it is right for parliament to give a lead. the house cannot stand aside from such a major issue, any more than it can stand aside from the question of capital punishment. in essence, we must say what value we put on human life. that is the basis of the criteria clause. parliament should be given the opportunity to make its decision.\n there is little that i can add to what has been said on time limits and the conscience clause. both proposals have been tempered in the fire of previous discussion. there has been a great deal of discussion and we have been round and round the course. therefore, the issue is extremely clear.\n the separation clause is causing the greatest amount of concern among the opponents of the bill. i find myself in two minds after my experience with my own bill and the consideration that i have since been able to give to these matters. i accept entirely that it must be wrong for there to be any financial inducement for those counselling a pregnant woman to recommend an abortion at a certain clinic. however, i question whether the clause that appeared in my bill, and the clause that my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire has put into his bill—i thank him for the compliment—would overcome the risk of financial inducement. the clause would be too easy to circumvent even it were passed.\n i favour much more a form of parliamentary control over the licensing process. i should like to see licences laid before parliament at regular intervals—for example, every three years—so that they could be considered and prayed against under the negative procedure, either individually or collectively. that would provide a far greater measure of control than that proposed either in my bill or the bill before us. that form of parliamentary control would make organisations far more open in their operation. the hon. member for barking must accept that.\n i am familiar with the british pregnancy advisory service operation in birmingham. i know how it is run. i know that certain aspects of it are beyond reproach. however, in a sense it is secretive. i appreciate that the essence of the counselling is that it must be sec- retive. nobody knows what goes on in the counselling room except the counsellor and the woman concerned. therefore, it is extremely difficult to introduce controls in any event. if there were parliamentary control, the charities in particular would be far more anxious to prove to members of parliament that they were giving a proper independent counselling service.\n if the bill were a government measure it would contain far more than is it it now. there are a number of features to which hon. members have referred which would be in the bill if it had been introduced by the government. many of the select committee\'s recommendations have been omitted from my hon. friend\'s bill. my hon. friend made that clear. however, i think that he will find that he has attempted too much. the fact that there is exploitation of women in the private sector and the fact that the balance has been tilted too far against the child in our current legislation are the factors that matter. those are the two basic wrongs that need to be rectified. the bill deserves the support of the house because it gives the house an opportunity to do so. for those reasons alone i believe that the bill should be supported.\n in conclusion i make a genuine plea. i am sure that it is the ardent desire of most hon. members to see the issue settled once and for all. having spoken to my colleagues, i am certain of that. i know that the opponents of the bill are sincere in their opposition. it is right that they oppose the bill as strongly as possible. however, i hope that their opposition, especially if the bill goes into committee, will be constructieve and not destructive. if they manage to stop—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.109', 4, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' dr. mcdonald rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.110', 114, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way. i am trying to explain. the hon. lady must do me the courtesy of listening to me first. by " destructive " i mean preventing the house of commons being able to take the final decision. everyone knows what i am talking about. if the hon. member for thurrock (dr. mcdonald) and her hon. friends manage to prevent the bill returning to the house and being properly debated in the house, the bill will be replaced by another measure and another and another. is it not to the advantage of the country, the house and to women to ensure that the matter is settled once and for all?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.111', 22, 'uk.m.10556', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "is the logic of the hon. gentleman's argument that he will pursue his opposition ruthlessly until he gets the present bill changed?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.112', 63, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes. i am sincere in that. there is no point in saying anything else. i am trying to explain to members that the house is essentially the right place in which to hammer out the issue, not the bma, or the bpas, or the societies in favour of women's rights and abortion. if we cannot do that here, everybody will be the losers.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.113', 124, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman has got it the wrong way round. now we have the status quo—the 1967 act. if we are to change that act, it is not so much incumbent upon its supporters to defent it as it is for those who attack it to prove conclusively that it needs change. they are not doing that. they are turning the argument on its head. the public want conclusive evidence, not ideas. the hon. gentleman says that he wants to leave out the doctors and the women's rights movements. that is nonsense. we want conclusive evidence that there is demand that the act should be changed, that it is right for it to be changed and that the bill will help the general public.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.114', 20, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'at the least there is grave disquiet, regardless to the question whether we agree with the polls or our constituents.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.115', 65, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in furthering this section of his argument perhaps my hon. friend would be interested to know that i took a careful survey of my mail on this measure at this stage. i was interested to find that the numbers of genuine letters from constituents asking me to vote in favour of the bill outnumbered the mass noises from the campaign correspondents by six to one.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.116', 73, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'putting it at its least, there is obvious disquiet. when nearly 40 per cent. of the people have grave disquiet about a matter, it is incumbent on us all to see whether we can produce an answer that tries to remove at least some of that disquiet.\n having done this, i know what is involved. i plead for reasoned discussion and a decision to be taken once and for all by the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.118', 1341, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank you, mr. deputy speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this debate. this is my maiden speech. i had intended to speak in earlier debates, when the house returned after the general election. i wanted to speak in the budget debate but i found myself sufficiently at variance with the view being expressed by opposition front bench speakers to have departed from the tradition of the house and been controversial. therefore i did not speak at that time.\n i am aware of the labour men and others who have sat here before me, perhaps even on this bench, since the turn of the century. there was mr. tommy cape, who was elected in 1918. on 24 february 1919 he spoke about the government\'s proposals on the coal industry commission bill. tommy cape, who was elected by the miners, was able to set a clear objective for himself in the time that he was a member of the house. he sought the nationalisation of the mining industry, the six-hour day for the miner, and the improvement of miners\' working conditions throughout this land. indeed, the objectives that tommy cape set for himself in his lifetime were realised when the mines were taken into public ownership in 1947.\n in 1945, the young lieutenant peart, fresh from the battlefields of europe, came to this place. on 20 august he made his maiden speech on the occasion of the gracious speech. he set for himself other objectives, one of which was to see peace develop in this country and in europe. his objective was international peace. certainly, with the elevation of fred peart to the house of lords in january 1976, it could be said that he saw some of his objectives realised. in 1945, referring to the prospective legislation mentioned in the gracious speech, he said: the success of that legislation depends on sound and healthy international relations … in conjunction with … all nations we must plan a new world."—[ official report, 20 august 1945; vol. 413, c. 357, 360.] that was a fine objective. fred peart was subsequently to become the minister or agriculture, fisheries and food in two governments, the leader of the house, and lord president of the council and leader of the house of lords. i am sure that he now feels that he has seen his objectives realised.\n in 1976 a new member of parliament was elected, following a highly important by-election in the workington constituency. i refer to mr. richard page. on 30 november he rose, as a conservative member of parliament, to make his maiden speech in the debate on the economy. he proposed the regeneration of british industry through reductions in taxation and the restoration of a free market. although i was unable to agree with much of what he said in the house, let me take this opportunity of wishing him the best of luck in all his future endeavours.\n that brings me to this debate. i, too, come to the house with clear objectives. i have been able to establish them for myself within the confines of the philosophy that i hold and that i hope is held by members of the opposition in common with me. i refer to the philosophy of socialism.\n in his book " in place of fear ", dealing with democratic socialism, aneurin bevan said: the capacity for emotional concern for individual life is the most significant quality of a civilised human being. the problem is that the civilised human being is permanently and regularly being confronted by challenges of our time that cheapen life—the challenge of advertisement and the world of advertisement that has glamourised materialism at a cost to human life; the challenge of advancing technology that is inclined to discard the value of the human contribution and renders human effort too often superfluous; the challenge presented by the economics of the free market that turns one man against another, one creed against another, and one nation against another.\n those are all challenges. yet it is in a climate of those challenges that we, as socialists—and i in the light of my objectives—must try to raise the threshold of respect for life in this generation. that is the principal reason why i support the bill.\n at the root of the socialism that is held in common by the opposition, we have a belief that incites and inspires us to campaign on the international platforms of human rights. when we stand in our constituencies or move into the lobbies as a result of our commitment to vote against the reintroduction of hanging—i feel sure that all members of the opposition will refuse to support a bill to reintroduce hanging—we shall do so in the light of our understanding of our responsibilities to human, indeed, all, life.\n when we stand on platforms in our constituencies and demand that people feel with us against blood sports and cruel sports, we do so because we understand that these are real issues, they are moral issues, and they are inseparable from the very great and important issue that is being put before us today.\n when i think that earlier this week there were labour members who had considered banding together perhaps even to obstruct the bill as it was put before the house, i am saddened, because i believe that comfort and the convenience of some forms of abortion are being put before the moral issue of the preservation of human life in this society.\n when i think that the mighty labour conference—which a few of us on the labour benches believe must play a more important part in the minds of those who sit in the parliamentary labour party—was responsible for carrying a resolution which, in my view, would have liberalised even more the principle of abortion in this country, i am saddened again. i hope that one day in the labour conference we shall be able to reverse such resolutions.\n before the debate is closed at, perhaps, 4 p.m. today, i think that what happens during an abortion—particularly one that takes place after 20 weeks—should be brought to the attention of this house. instead of going to the lobbies which have a vested interest on each side, over the last 36 hours i have telephoned numbers of people in the medical profession in london in order to ask them what were their personal views on abortion.\n i was surprised to have referred to me stories of children—foetuses—that were born live after 22 weeks and that had lain on the slab after a caesarean section operation. i was told that if the bag were left unopened it would be 10 or 15 minutes before the heartbeat would stop. i was also told that, in the event of the bag being opened, the child—the foetus—could be seen to breathe and heard to cry.\n i would say, mr. deputy speaker, that this cannot be right, and that some of the operations that have been described to me during the last 36 hours cannot be permissible in a reasonable and civilised society. the law has become an ass, and i call upon my colleagues on the labour benches to join with others in the lobby today in asking that the bill be given the second reading that it so preciously requires.\n if there are aspects of the bill that some hon. members feel they are not able to swallow today, let them be willing to participate in the machinery of the committee, which, if we are fortunate, will review it, so that it can come before the house at some time in the future in a form that is acceptable to what i believe to be the great majority of the british people.\n i believe that it is the objective of the generation of people, particularly younger people, who are today taking their place in this house, to set down new markers for the future. those new markers are about creating a new threshold of respect for human life.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.120', 1266, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'if it is convenient to the house, mr. deputy speaker, i should like to intervene in the debate at this stage.\n i should like, first, very sincerely to congratulate the hon. member for workington (mr. campbell-savours) on his maiden speech. i found it a very eloquent and thoughtful maiden speech. it certainly moved me. if the hon. gentleman has any information on the kinds of cases to which he referred, i should be very glad to have it, because there is something there that i should want to look into. the whole house listened with great interest to what he said. he reminded us of his predecessors, the most recent of whom was richard page, who is missed by a great many of us on each side of the house. we shall all look forward with interest and anticipation to any further speeches from the hon. member.\n i should like also to congratulate my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) on having come first in the ballot and for choosing this subject for his bill.\n i have been following the debate with great care and could not fail to note the many deep and sincere feelings of members on each side of the house. it has been a good and ample example of the need for the debate. if i may say so, abortion by any standards is—it must be—a very unpleasant and sometimes deeply unhappy subject.\n this is not an easy debate, and one of the features of it has been the way in which some of the best characteristics of the house have come out as we have discussed matters of such deep emotional significance. there are, indeed, very strong emotional feelings on each side. it is not surprising, for underneath the debate there is a very fundamental issue. in what circumstances is it right to take away the life of an unborn child? that is a point to which i keep returning.\n i am, of course, speaking as a member of the government. a predecessor of mine, in a similar debate, said that he was giving not a government view but a personal one. i do not know what the view of the house will be on this, but i do not see how, in the circumstances, i could possibly speak only on a personal basis, and therefore i hope that what i have to say will be along the line of considering whether the government have any additional information or any views which would assist hon. members to make up their minds.\n let us have no misunderstanding on this. from the government\'s point of view, and from all our points of view, this issue is one for the house of commons to decide. it is a matter on which every member must and will follow his own conscience. anything that i say is not intended to influence that conscience in any particular direction. of course, i also have a personal view. with my background i could hardly avoid it.\n i have had to make recommendations for abortions. i have seen the advantages, but i have also seen the terrible stresses that it can cause both for a mother and for those advising her. i found myself agreeing very strongly with the remarks made by my hon. friend the member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram) when he was talking about the emotional hazards, the later consequences, for some mothers when they have had an abortion.\n i have known mothers who have demanded an abortion. they have had very good grounds. afterwards, they have deeply regretted it, and said so. they have said that it was wrong that the abortion was carried out. but then, of course, i have known the reverse. in a previous debate i mentioned the poignant comment of a gynaecological colleague, a surgeon, who said to me " it is all very well for you to fill in the form, but i actually have to do the job." that is a point of view that we have to bear in mind.\n however, i suggest to the house that we are not discussing today the merits of legal abortion. a number of hon. members have talked as though they were doing so. we in this house and this country decided in favour of legal abortion when we passed the abortion act 1967. that has been the law for some 11 years. with the greatest respect, i suggest that it is important that we should bear in mind that we are not discussing that today. what we are discussing today is a bill which is aimed at reducing the abuses which some people sincerely believe still continue under the present abortion act. i noted the remarks of my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) when he spoke very eloquently on this subject.\n in making up their minds, i am sure that hon. members will give great thought to the clear public concern, even among those who strongly favour abortion, that abuses are still going on today which should and could be cleared up. what we have to ask ourselves is this: will this bill help to resolve some of that public concern? if so, the house will decide that it should go into committee. if it is felt that the bill does not do that, perhaps it would be wrong for the bill to go into committee.\n i also have a duty to pass on to the house what i know or believe to be the views of professional people in this field. i shall turn in a moment to the question of the upper time limit, and i shall show that in this respect i have some sympathy with the principle to which the bill seeks to give effect. many of us in this country were horrified at the recent reports—on which i shall comment further shortly—of foetuses which had already—according to the reports; but i believe that they were incorrect—started an independent life. that horrified many sections of the public.\n the bill goes considerably beyond the limited objective of changing the number of weeks. i should like to refer first to clause 1 (b), inserting the words " grave risk " and " substantial risk " in the principal act. i am sure that hon. members realise that that alters significantly one of the key criteria laid down in the original act.\n as i said a moment ago, the act has been in operation for more than 11 years. its central provisions concerning the circumstances in which abortions should or should not be allowed were a very careful balance. they were finally written into the act after a very prolonged debate, which was so ably steered at the time by the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel).\n in april 1974 the lane committee recommended—again, after a very careful examination of six years\' operation of the act and a good deal of research—that the criteria in the 1967 act should be left unchanged. in the 1975–76 session the select committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. member for sunderland, north (mr. willey) again made no recommendation for change in those criteria, although there were those among its witnesses who had very strongly pressed the case for change.\n i am bound to say to the house that i can report no proposal from the professions involved to change the criteria. indeed, i believe it to be generally the view of the professions that there should be no amendment to them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.121', 118, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the minister agree that the issue that troubled the lane committee was the statistical argument that was, unhappily, being deployed by a minority of doctors, who were using it to justify abortion on demand? the lane committee condemned it but did not recommend legislative action. the select committee also saw a grave problem. the issue that i put to the minister is that if he thinks that this matter can be resolved in any way other than by legislation, he has the duty to tell the house the method by which we can prevent what was never intended by the legislature being done with legal immunity by a small number of doctors using this unhappy statistical argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.122', 560, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'yes, the hon. gentleman is correct in his recollection of the deliberations of the lane committee. this was a serious consideration of that committee, but it came to the conclusion—i must come back to this—that legislation was probably not the right way to deal with the abuses that were taking place.\n the right hon. member for norwich, north (mr. ennals) referred to some of the steps that had been taken to see that abuses, when they occurred, were dealt with adequately. i suggest that that is something which, if the bill goes into committee, we shall want to look into again in great detail, because it is clearly very important.\n i was saying that at this stage i do not know of any proposal or request from the professions involved for a change in these criteria. in fact, there is a good deal of evidence that the professions which have to carry out this task would like to see the criteria left as they are. of course, it is for hon. members to listen carefully to the arguments advanced for this particular change and to reach their own conclusions, but i thought that it was right to draw their attention to these facts.\n it was reported in the press earlier this week that the chairman of one organisation, welcoming the provisions in the bill, estimated that if the bill were passed it would reduce the number of abortions by two-thirds. that is a big statement. it is, of course, speculation. all i can tell the house is that the proportion of all abortions certified for women resident in this country on the basis of the criteria which it is proposed to amend is about 85 per cent., and it would remain to be seen how many women would in future be found to meet the requirements of an amended criterion if that were put through in the bill. the house will readily see that the proposed change affects potentially a large proportion of women who now obtain abortions. what i am saying is that we have to go very carefully before we change the criteria, and we must not delude ourselves that it would be altering the situation for a small number of women, because it could alter the situation for a large number of women.\n that proportion is in sharp distinction to that likely to be affected by a change in the upper time limit. as the house knows, the present upper time limit is 28 weeks. the bill seeks to reduce that to 20 weeks. the right hon. member for norwich, north has given some of the figures for abortion. in the latest year for which figures are available to me, 1976, the number of united kingdom residents for whom abortions were carried out at or after 20 weeks was 975. that represents just under 1 per cent. of all such abortions, so the maximum effect of the proposed change would therefore be contained within that figure of 1 per cent.\n the house will realise that within this area, small though it is, some quite serious doubts have been expressed from many quarters. what crosses my mind is that numbers alone are not the total answer. if even one child is wrongly aborted, that is a fault in the law and something that we shall have to consider.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.123', 52, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i understand that argument perfectly well, but surely it applies the other way. if one woman out of the 975 who ought to have an abortion is prevented from having one and thereby her health or her life is impaired, surely that is a factor that we must also bear in mind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.124', 87, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "i am not attempting in any way to evade that point. that is one of the matters that the house will have to weigh today. where do we put the priorities? can they be done in a general way? should one only look at the child's side, or should one only look at the mother's side? should we judge each case individually as it arises? i am bound to give that sort of answer because that is the judgment that the clinical doctor is trained to make.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.125', 61, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the whole issue. if, at the end we are to say, and i think that we must, that the issue is for decision in each individual case, the only way that that can be exercised responsibly is by the doctor making an assesssment in each individual case. if the bill is passed, he will be prevented from doing that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.126', 21, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i shall be coming to that point in a moment, and i am grateful to the hon. gentleman for raising it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.127', 44, 'uk.m.18052', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i interrupt the minister on another point? he has given some figures that he says are the lastest available, being for 1976. would he be good enough to look into whether the house could be given figures that are more up to date?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.128', 39, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'these are the figures for this group of cases, but i shall certainly look into the matter because it is important and we shall want to have the latest available figures when we come to committee, if we do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.129', 46, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister has already given me the figures for 1977 in a written reply. perhaps he does not recall having done so. i can find the figures for him if he does not have them to hand, but they are very similar to the 1976 figures.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.130', 31, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i think that the hon. lady is confusing the general figures with the more specific figures that i gave. however, that is something that i should be prepared to look into.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.131', 95, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister is very generous in giving way. i wish to make a statistical point, following the point made by my hon. friend the member for york (mr. lyon) that a clinical judgment would be taken by the doctor in each case. could the hon. gentleman confirm that of the 975 cases, 811—around three-quarters, i suppose—were between 20 and 23 weeks, and only 164 were 24 weeks and beyond? i think that the spread of the figures for this relatively small number, less than 1 per cent. above 20 weeks, is also of some importance.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.132', 354, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "to my recollection, that is absolutely correct.\n the house will need to consider the upper time limit from a number of different points of view. for example, is the problem large enough to justify a change in the law? is the problem serious enough to justify a change in the law? what degree of change would be justified? would a change adversely affect women with a claim that would be generally accepted as valid? would a change have any other undesirable consequences? i shall take up one or two of those queries.\n first, the size of the problem. we are dealing here with fewer than 1,000 cases a year, representing less than 1 per cent. of the total. since the act came into effect, the figures show no trend which would suggest that this problem is either decreasing or increasing. looking at the figures for each year, one's conclusion must be that there has been no significant movement at all in the ratio which the numbers under 24 weeks bear to those above.\n the conclusion that i put to the house is that a change can neither be supported nor denied on the grounds of the size of the problem. i am interested to note that no hon. members jumped up to intervene at that point.\n secondly, the seriousness of the problem. the reasoning behind the desire for a change concerns the viability of the foetus. it may be the view of the house that an upper time limit should be set at a point where there is, in all foreseeable circumstances, no prospect of a child being born as a result of a procedure for terminating pregnancy.\n i know of only two authenticated cases in this country of a foetus surviving before 26 weeks. one was at 24 weeks, and the other was at—it was slightly debatable—either 24 or 25 weeks. even at this age a crucial factor is the weight of the child, and no child weighing less than 500 grams-1 lb 1½ oz—has been known to survive. nevertheless, if we are honest with ourselves, the possibility must be said to exist.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.133', 91, 'uk.m.22602', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it not the case, on a pure point of foetal physiology, that the lungs of the foetus are such that they are solid, and that the circulation of the foetus is such that, even if oxygen were possibly given by incubation to a foetus of 24 to 26 weeks, the circulation would be such that the rest of the body would not be oxygenated? in these cases, though the foetuses of 24 to 26 weeks do cry, it does not mean that they are breathing and using their respiratory function.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.134', 55, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'the physiological situation is that before 20 weeks the lungs are solid and it would, on present-day techniques, be impossible to preserve the life of a foetus before 20 weeks. between 20 and 24 weeks the matter becomes a little more problematic. but on present-day facilities it would be most unlikely—probably impossible—to preserve that life.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.135', 28, 'uk.m.22602', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the circulation of a foetus of that age resembles that of an amphibian in which the placenta, not the lungs, is supplying the oxygen, even after 26 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.136', 35, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'we can pursue that matter if the bill goes into committee. i would say that, as things are at the moment, there is no prospect of a separate life for a foetus before 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.137', 163, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the minister is putting forward a view but, as i interpret it, it is totally in conflict with the view expressed in paragraph 30 of the peel report, where all the evidence was being directed to this aspect of the problem. he must realise that what he has said is in direct conflict with the conclusions of sir john peel's committee, which sir john has today or yesterday again reiterated. the peel committee, having taken into account the whole of the material, including that from the international federation of obstetrics and gynaecology, the royal college of nursing and the royal college of midwives, made clear in paragraph 30 that prima facie evidence of viability varied from 18 to 24 weeks.\n it is not for me, or the house, to express a scientific opinion. we have to rely upon evidence given to us by the scientists. in this case it is on record in the peel report in the terms which i have quoted.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.138', 257, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i would like to add a supplementary question to that just raised by the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse). the minister said earlier that there had been public concern about the whole question whether it would be possible for a foetus to survive at, say, 19 weeks. indeed, the incident at the whiston hospital was a clear demonstration of that public concern. at the minister's request, i asked that his reply to my questions on that subject should be reported in the official report, and that was done.\n but i was concerned that the minister was not prepared to publish the whole of the report that was submitted to him by the area health authority. i should have thought that it might have answered many of the concerns and the genuine feelings of resentment and anger that exist in the whiston area, especially among some of the staff who were involved in that incident if they had been able to get sight of the report that was submitted to the minister. it seems to me also that hon. members have been denied the opportunity of judging for themselves the information submitted.\n the people concerned maintain that that foetus was capable of life. they saw it not only moving but making noises as well which resembled those of a newly born child, and because of that they had genuine concern. would the minister reconsider his decision and make available to hon. members copies of the report of the investigations by the area health authority in that instance?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.139', 189, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am glad that the hon. member for liverpool, edge hill (mr. alton) raised that point in the way that he did, because it is of great concern to us all. i have looked into the two cases where these doubts arose, and, as the hon. gentleman knows, the case to which he referred in particular. there is this anxiety about the half-hour delay between the time when the foetus was removed and the time when a check was made on whether the foetus might have had some possibility of a viable existence. so far as i can tell, there is absolutely no doubt that that foetus was not capable of a separate life. i have been into this matter most carefully. i know that hon. members are concerned about this, and only yesterday i asked whether i could go back and look at the papers again to check on these points because i do not want to mislead the house in any way. it is so important. however, so far as i am aware—i say this very definitely—there was no question of a separate existence for that foetus.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.140', 197, 'uk.m.21918', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when the minister says that he is firmly convinced, and accepts, on medical evidence, that there was no potential for the continuation of the life of that foetus, he accepts that there was life for the foetus after it was aborted. he admitted that for half an hour at least—[hon. members: " no."] with respect, i am putting the question and i shall put it in the way i want to.\n i take a different view from most hon. members, and i do not apologise for it. i am very anxious that the full facts should be put at our disposal so that we can come to a reasoned and logical judgment. at present our knowledge is based on hearsay. however, that hearsay causes me great anxiety and concern. first, the half-hour period is in question. some say that it was longer than that. in those circumstances, there is an admission that there was life, and the life was terminated by the very act of the termination of the pregnancy.\n we want more assurance than the medical argument put forward by the minister. what he has said does not remove the anxiety. for me, it increases it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.141', 153, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'it is good to hear the hon. member for liverpool, kirkdale (mr. dunn) putting his intervention in his usual robust way. i totally disagree with what he implied. i do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that this foetus was capable of a separate existence. however, realising the anxieties of hon. members, i shall go through the papers again.\n three cases have been commented on in the press, the reports of two of which i went into in great detail. i have not yet had access to the report of the third case because an inquest is involved and the second hearing of the inquest has been delayed. as soon as the inquest has been cleared up i shall go into the report of that case. i assure the house that if there is any further information on this matter i shall report it to the house in due course.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.142', 192, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman return to the point made by my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), because i do not think that it is something that we should allow to pass? i hold the hon. gentleman in high regard as a physician. he stated earlier that there are only two authenticated cases in this country of the survival of a foetus under 26 weeks—one under 24 weeks and one between 24 and 25 weeks. does he stand by that? what does he think of the statements made which were attributed to sir john peel, because they do not accord with my knowledge of the situation? although i hesitate to put my knowledge against so eminent an authority as sir john peel, i stand by it in the same way that my hon. friend the member for liverpool, kirkdale (mr. dunn) stands by his opinion of the matter. will the minister give the house the benefit of his views, since the house knows that he is an eminent physician? can he also give us an indication of what happened to the two foetuses that survived at 24 or 25 weeks?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.143', 19, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i cannot do that, but should be very glad to look into it because it is an important point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.144', 6, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the minister answer the question?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.145', 393, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "i am just about to do so. the truth is, as the house knows, that views about 20 to 24 weeks vary. the peel committee looked at a particular point. it looked at research into foetal material. my own view is somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks. the lane committee recommended 24 weeks. the bma at one point recommended 20 weeks but later changed its view. the bma's current view is that 20 weeks is too low, and this has been confirmed by the bma in the last few days.\n the house might want to consider a point somewhere around 20 or 24 weeks, which would allow people who do not wish to go to one extreme of a very low age or the other extreme of 28 weeks—which is the present legal position and which i suggest is clearly too late and out of keeping with what happens in most other countries in western europe—to take some middle ground. of course, the key to all this is what sort of exemptions would be allowed, which is something that the committee would want to look into very carefully. i suggest that that is a crucial factor.\n it has been put to me, for example, that if the time limit were 22 weeks, as it is in some countries, or 24 weeks, it would be very difficult indeed for the sort of cases to which the right hon. member for norwich, north referred—that is the girl who leaves it too late and the woman who does not realise that she is pregnant and discovers it very late and has very good reasons for termination—to be dealt with. but most significant of all is the time between 18 and 22 weeks, when the various investigations for foetal damage have to be carried out. sometimes they are delicate tests that do not always give clear results and have to be repeated, all of which takes time.\n if we are to go for a time lower than 20 weeks—there are strong arguments in favour of that—we must look carefully into the exemptions so that there is no bar for someone who, through no fault of her own, has left it until a later time. that is something that i suggest the house should be able to do in committee and in conjunction with the various professional bodies.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.146', 177, 'uk.m.19437', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not propose to trespass on the patience of the house, but i have not intervened before. i am most grateful to my hon. friend. surely, if the bill is passed in its present form, the effect of clause 3, taken in conjunction with the 1929 act, is perfectly clear and mandatory. unless there is a danger to life, anybody who, in those circumstances, performed an abortion would be liable to criminal prosecution. that must be the position under the bill as it is drafted, because there is no provision for effect on health, either physical or mental, as a criterion which the law would allow to be taken into account.\n is not the logic of the position, from the various observations which my hon. friend has made with great authority, that it would be better for the government to consider this matter again in the light of all the circumstances, make the appropriate further inquiries of the medical profession outside and consider whether, as a government, it is appropriate for them to introduce any legislation?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.147', 478, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am grateful to my right hon. and learned friend for those observations. that is, of course, a perfectly tenable point of view and one to which many of us would be sympathetic. however, we are discussing a particular bill today, and i suggest that there are many matters that would benefit from discussion in committee. those are things that we can look into. my right hon. and learned friend has brought me to one of the points that i was about to make, which is that the bill as it stands is unsatisfactorily drafted in many respects. we would not want to see it go onto the statute book in its present form.\n i had intended to make only a very brief intervention. the house will understand if i push on to make my final points, because i know that a great many other hon. members wish to participate in the debate.\n i should like to drawn attention to the article in the guardian referring to some remarks by professor glanville williams of cambridge university, whose view i respect very much. he says that the bill as it stands would be open to a lot of legal doubts. i shall not go into the details here, but the gist is that the courts would have difficulty in interpreting the bill as it stands. that is the sort of thing which a committee would want to look at carefully. in this part of the bill there is a whole series of aspects to which a committee would have to pay the most meticulous attention.\n i move on to the second provision in the bill, with which i express some sympathy. that is the conscience clause. the bill aims to put it beyond doubt that the objection to any involvement in abortion work, except in an emergency should not be restricted simply to religious objection. i shall not go into details, but it seems to me common sense and common justice that if staff who are asked to take on this extremely unpleasant task have strong ethical or moral views on why they should not do so, they should be allowed not so to do without jeopardising their career and appointments. this applies to nurses and to many doctors.\n in this case we are discussing professional people who are trained and who have a special sensitivity—not only a very precious one but a special one—to preserve life. that is their whole ethic and background. that is why many went into these professions. we should tread very carefully indeed before we ask people who have developed a tradition of that kind to do something that they feel is ethically and morally wrong. if we push this too far, we could well see the beginning of a move towards an attitude in the professions that we would not want to encourage.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.148', 108, 'uk.m.22121', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman has been more than generous in giving way, and i am grateful to him. he referred to the possibility of abuses. the act is not something that has been on the statute book for only 11 months. it has been on the statute book for 11 years. therefore, at this time, when the act has been in operation for 11 years, would it not be sensible to take the advice of the professions and for the government to say either that there are abuses that need to be put right or that there are not abuses and that the act is perfectly worth while?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.149', 424, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am grateful for those remarks, which follow the line that i had just touched on.\n the house would want to know that the question of doctors within the nhs who apply for jobs that involve termination of pregnancy is one that we have looked into just recently. in 1975 this was dealt with in a letter issued by the chief medical officer. at that time guidelines and safeguards were set out for the advertising and filling of such posts. the select committee thought that this letter did not provide adequate safeguards, and we have recently been considering this, together with the medical profession, to see whether some change ought to be made.\n i can now announce that the existing guidance is to be changed and that the chief medical officer will shortly be issuing a letter giving effect to these changes. it may be of assistance to know what these changes will be. first, it will be emphasised that it is not expected that any jobs for junior doctors will require responsibilities for abortions. secondly, only where abortion duties are included in the job description would it be acceptable to ask a candidate if he or she would be prepared to undertake terminations. it follows from these two provisions that junior staff should never be questioned about their attitude to termination when they apply for a post. the guidance will also make clear the circumstances and terms in which a job description, but never an advertisement, should include reference to abortion duties. i hope that when hon. members see the contents of that letter they will agree that this is a just and reasonable step to have taken.\n i now turn briefly to the provision in the bill relating to the registration of pregnancy advice bureaux. this relates to clauses 4 and 5. i must confess that these are clauses—like that seeking to amend the criteria—that we had not expected to see in the bill. whatever the merits of this provision, the government would have to look very carefully at any provision that seeks to increase the cost of administration and the complexity of legislation. in considering this i ask the house to bear in mind that we do not want to put on the statute book legislation that is so complex that there is some doubt about how it should be administered. i am advised that the administration of these clauses would require the employment of considerably more civil servants. for that reason alone, the government would be reluctant to endorse them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.150', 5, 'uk.m.10511', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'where is the money resolution?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.151', 268, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i shall join hon. members in listening attentively to the arguments. i must confess that i have not yet heard any arguments that would give me grounds for thinking that a statutory procedure would lead to a stricter control of the private sector than we already have and are exercising by voluntary means.\n my right hon. friend and i have this week seen the chairmen of the two principal charities in this area, and they have undertaken to consider whether they can change the organisation of the trusts within which they work in such a way as to meet the various criticisms that have been expressed.\n it will be evident from what i have said that the government wish to make it clear that hon. members, including my right hon. and hon. friends within the government, should be totally free, as always in such matters, to vote according to their consciences. this is important. no other course would, i am sure, be acceptable to the house. i have tried in my speech, on what is an extremely complicated matter, to bring to the attention of hon. members some of the salient features. at the same time i have indicated my personal sympathy for measures designed to meet public concern; that is, the time limit and the conscience clauses. these seem to be the nub of the bill. if the house, in its wisdom, decides to move the bill into committee, there is a great deal that we shall want to look at and, i hope, modify. it is on that basis that i have made my speech today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.153', 141, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house will be grateful for the content of the minister\'s speech. i trust that we shall see the minister in the no lobby this afternoon, because that is the logical conclusion that one draws from what he said. he went out of his way to point out that this is a very unsatisfactory bill.\n however, i am confused that on the same day as a responsible government minister makes such a statement, we should read in the press that the prime minister will vote in favour of the bill. the minister of state has described it as " very unsatisfactory ". i do not understand this dichotomy. i do not know whether the minister has talked to the prime minister or whether they are walking in different spheres altogether, with one not knowing what the other is saying or doing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.154', 19, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'the hon. member is making rather a meal of this. personally, i shall vote in favour of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.155', 179, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is very strange in the light of what the minister has said.\n i congratulate my hon. friend the member for workington (mr. campbell-savours) on his maiden speech. he was very fortunate that it was a maiden speech, because i did not agree with his opinion at all, although i admit that he spoke very eloquently. we shall look forward to hearing him often in the future—well, perhaps not too often\n i refer to the speech made by the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. come) in opening the debate. i do not exclude him from a certain measure of guilt for not bringing the bill forward before last tuesday morning. had the will been there, it would have been possible to ensure that a certain number of copies of the bill were available well before tuesday. it was very difficult to find out what the hon. member had in mind before tuesday, and having listened to his speech today i am not sure that he knows himself what he is proposing. his speech was extremely confused.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.156', 4, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. corrie rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.157', 606, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i forestall the hon. member, as i suspect he was about to mention the remarks of the bma a year ago. the bma\'s letter, which we received yesterday, brought those views up to date. on the matter of the 20-week limit and the conscience clause, the bma said yesterday that it specifically wanted the status quo maintained. that is quite clear.\n in moving the second reading the hon. member made a number of sweeping statements, which must be challenged. he used the same expression in an edition of the house magazine on 9 july when he said: ever since the 1967 abortion act there has been increasing anxiety at the way it has been implemented and the abuses that have grown up within it. it is abundantly clear that there is very little evidence that that is so. it is true that there are vocal minorities that have always opposed the 1967 act in its entirety. it is also clear that these minorities will continue their efforts by hook or by crook, by exaggeration and distortion, to destroy the legislation completely.\n cardinal gordon gray, the leader of scotland\'s 800,000 roman catholics, said in the glasgow herald on 11 july, in an open letter to the 71 scottish members of the house, that the catholic church would never condone the right to kill an unborn child. i quote his emotive words exactly. he referred to the chilling and inhuman provision embodied in the current abortion act". he went on to refer to the unhappy policies resulting from this squalid era of \' abortion mills \'. the cardinal is talking out of the top of his hat, and it is time that someone said so.\n in the same report in the glasgow herald, professor macnaughton, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at glasgow university—a man with a family of five—said: i think if mr. corrie came and sat in my clinic for a day he might decide not to go ahead with this bill. i prefer that opinion to that of the cardinal.\n the house must consider the views of the professionals who meet these human and medical problems day after day in their surgeries and clinics. these are the people to whom we should listen. also, the minister of state was speaking with that experience when he gave a cold reception to the bill.\n if the sponsor would agree to one provision modifying the time limit to a 20-week period, and nothing else, we might get some kind of agreement about this bill. but it goes much further than that. the sponsor has been pushed by the kind of people whom i have mentioned.\n the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire quoted a recent poll in the house magazine. he said: a recent poll showed that 91 per cent. of all gynaecologists would like to see a top limit of 20 weeks. the hon. member referred to that again in his speech today. but the background of that opinion poll is well known to many of us. it was based on the submission made by the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon), who introduced a similar bill in february. that opinion poll was based on a gallup poll carried out among gynaecologists on behalf of an organisation the name of which has never been revealed. gallup has refused to reveal it. not only is its name not revealed; neither are the terms of the questions. the survey was to ascertain whether gynaecologists supported abortion on demand. of course, if that question were put to gynaecologists they would be bound to say that they were totally against it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.158', 183, 'uk.m.10171', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it may help my hon. friend the member for fife, central (mr. hamilton) if he recalls that the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie), when introducing this bill, referred to the poll and kindly undertook to supply me with a copy of it, which i have since received. he does not seem to be aware of the contents of the document. written on the top is the statement we think this is gallup? the only figure included in the poll, which approaches 90 per cent. is the figure of 78 per cent. the question reads: if the following clauses describing the conditions permitting a legal abortion were specified, would you have difficulty in interpreting them or do you find their meaning clear? a total of 78 per cent. of respondents said that they found the meaning clear and had no difficulty. in this document that the hon. member has supplied, and on which he has based his claim that a large proportion of gynaecologists supported his views, no question is put to them about their views in all these matters.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.159', 20, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the point was whether " grave " could be understood by the gynaecologists. that is what i was talking about.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.160', 118, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is not what the hon. gentleman said earlier. one of the great disadvantages of not having hansard is that we cannot easily or quickly track down exactly what an hon. member says. the hon. gentleman is not quite certain now what he said. my clear recollection is that he was trying to create the impression that the great majority of gynaecologists were in favour of the propositions in the bill. that is simply not true.\n we have had very little time to collect evidence, but it will come forward in due course, and i would bet anything that the great majority of gynaecologists will be against the proposals in the bill, as is the british medical association.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.161', 52, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i support my hon. friend on that. a letter that i have received indicates that one organisation which consists of more than half the professors of obstetrics and gynaecology in the united kingdom, and all of those from the universities in scotland, is not in favour of the provisions of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.162', 336, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. friend the former secretary of state for social services asked the valid question " who is in support of the bill? who wants it? " we all know the pressure groups outside that want it. the bill is merely a tiny step towards their ultimate target of complete repeal of the 1967 act. that is what worries us. that is what worries the women and everyone who is concerned with the problem.\n the minister for health says " let us see the bill in committee." we are terrified that in committee the skinheads who want to repeal the 1967 act will go much further down that road than the sponsor.\n the sponsor referred to the conscience clause, as did the minister and others. the hon. gentleman made the sweeping statement—again i quote from the house magazine, which is the only thing that i can quote from, that: there is clear and substantial evidence that a number of nurses, ancillary workers and medical staff are extremely unhappy at having to take part in abortions day after day. he also expressed concern about the evidence that unless a gynaecologist is willing to carry out abortions, his or her chances of employment and/or promotion are lessened. there is not a scintilla of evidence anywhere to substantiate those claims. when people came down from my constituency they said the same sort of thing: " we know some nurses who have been denied promotion." i said " give me the names, and i shall take those cases up with the hospital board." no such names have ever been forthcoming.\n we have met that kind of thing time and again in the course of the campaign. three cases appeared, very strangely, in the immediate run-up to the general election—the wanstead, whiston and barnsley cases. there is not a scintilla of evidence that they have been used for other than propaganda by those who want to repeal the 1967 act.\n let me deal with a similar attitude towards the charities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.163', 5, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir bernard braine rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.164', 43, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall certainly not give way to the hon. gentleman. i know him too well. i hope that we shall meet in committee, if the bill has a second reading, because i shall have many rude things to say to the hon. gentleman.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.165', 5, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir b. braine rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.166', 212, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman must bide his time.\n this is the fourth attempt to amend the 1967 act. every bill attacking that act has sought to restrict and undermine the work done by the charities. why? i could quote the hon. member for lancaster (mrs. kellett-bowman), but i shall not incite her to rise by doing so. but if the bill reaches committee i shall quote what she said. it is a vile distortion of what the charities are about. as the minister and the house must know, those bodies grew out of a response to a need. they did not seek to create that need. it already existed, because of the shortcomings of the nhs.\n there has been a sustained smear campaign by the opponents of the 1967 act and the sponsors of each bill. one hon. member talked about cash clinics. the inference is clear. the charities have been responsible, more than anything the house has done, for stopping or reducing the financial rackets that have been going on as a result of back-street and private abortion. as far as i know, no salary in those charities approaches £10,000. some salaries are much less. a full-time gynaecologist within the pregnancy advisory service receives, i think, about £12,500 a year in london.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.167', 33, 'uk.m.10464', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend think that if the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) had gone to one of the legal cash clinics he might have produced a better bill?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.168', 34, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that he would. the hon. gentleman must have obtained some facts and figures from the charities before he put the present provisions in the bill, and certainly before making his speech.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.169', 4, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. abse rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.170', 290, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i must get on.\n the house might like to know that the charge for an abortion in the charities' clinics is about £60 or a little more—certainly well under £100. an adverment in the daily telegraph in 1972 for a private abortion gave a cost of well over £350. therefore, the racketeering is not going on in any clinics run by the charities. it is going on in the harley street clinics and the private clinics, but we never hear from conservative hon. members about that kind of thing.\n i am glad that the minister said what he did about the charities. i presume that he wants clause 4 struck out. is that what he is recommending to the house? it would be helpful if he would put on record now that he would like that part of the bill struck out in committee. i see that he is nodding assent.\n if clause 4 were not struck out, it would destroy the charities' work by making it impossible for them to own and control their own pregnancy advisory centres and nursing homes, which supply the facilities for half the abortions that now take place. the latest figure for 1978 shows that more than 56,000 women have had recourse to the private sector, and that of those, 30,000 operations were carried out in the non-profit making charities.\n over the ages women of all classes have sought abortions. this house can pass what legislation it likes, but women will have abortions. once we start from that proposition, it behoves the house to put legislation on the statute book to make the conditions as humane as possible. if that does not happen, we shall drive women into the arms of the backstreet operators.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.171', 1, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.172', 241, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is true. even in the best of circumstances within the nhs or reputable charities, or whatever it may be, the operation is messy, dangerous and unpredictable, and nobody likes it. whatever our views, we must try to humanise and control the abuses so far as humanly possible. i believe that both front benches agree that governments of all political persuasions have done their utmost to see that human conditions prevail.\n it is not without significance that, with a few exceptions, this has been a party matter—[hon. members: " no."] very well, it has been a class matter—[hon. members: " no."] i shall tell the house why. wealthy ladies will not be restricted by the provisions of the bill. it is the shop girl, the shortand typist, the factory girl, the mentally retarded girl, who will be penalised. the lady sponsors of the bill will not be affected. they will be able to get an abortion when they like. but the working-class woman will be affected.\n that is the message that we on the labour benches must constantly bear in mind. the bill is an attack on women who are deprived medically, physically, financially or in any other way. they are desperately worried lest the provisions of the 1967 act are restricted. the bill is one of many designed for that specific purpose. it is like the budget, because it takes care of those at the top of the social tree.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.173', 5, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'and those at the bottom.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.174', 117, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the people at the bottom know very well that these restrictions will adversely affect their chances of getting an abortion when many of them desperately need it, and they will go on needing it.\n i hope that the labour party will come out wholeheartedly in favour of our official party policy in these matters. we must ensure that provision in the health service, which at present is inadequate, is extended and improved to make impossible the kind of racketeering that still takes place in the private sector, particularly in harley street. i hope that the house will accept the minister's advice and throw out the bill, because there is no responsible body of opinion that wants it.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.176', 1084, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i take a different view from that expressed by the hon. member for fife, central (mr. hamilton). we may disagree, but i thought that this was a debate in which we were able to speak from the heart and let our conscience be our guide. i do not impugn the hon. gentleman's sincerity, and i was sorry that he impugned mine.\n the hon. gentleman mentioned the barnsley case. i can inform him that the barnsley baby was aborted on 25 or 26 april and died 36 hours later. the coroner for the district decided to hold an inquest, which began in may. it was suspended owing to the fact that only one doctor had signed the certificate for the woman to have an abortion—which act itself was illegal—and that aspect has had to be referred to the director of public prosecutions. the inquest is to be resumed next week, on 17 july. i hope that the hon. gentleman and the rest of the house will suspend judgment on that matter. i shall be as brief as possible, but if the hon. gentleman wishes me to give other instances of such cases i shall do so readily.\n i must confess that i would have preferred a simpler and shorter bill, one that took account of the realities of the society in which we live and of the fact that there are circumstances in which, unhappily, most of us would agree that an abortion should be lawful, yet one that did not permit abortion on demand, took into account the long-term interests of the woman herself, and did not lightly condemn an unborn child to death simply because it was unwanted.\n let us leave aside for a moment the wanton stupidity of the unwanted child argument. that cannot be sustained for a moment in a land where, as we all know from our constituency experience, countless couples are crying out for children to adopt, to love and to cherish. let us leave aside the question whether abortion too easily obtained can lead, as it does, to marital unhappiness later in life, and to a greater risk of miscarriage, abnormal birth and sterility than in the case of women who have not had abortions.\n we ignore at our peril the findings of research in this field. one leading gynaecologist warned, seven years ago: there is now ample evidence to show that abortion is neither safe nor simple. the longterm complications alone condemn its use as a contraceptive method. that is not an argument against abortion; it is an argument against permissive abortion.\n these alone, i suggest, are good reasons for us to pause and reflect on allowing too permissive a law on abortion. these alone are reasons why we should have been insisting, as the select committee on which the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) and i sat for long months wanted us to insist, on facilities for abortion being accompanied by a highly trained and wholly independent counselling service, with no financial link with those who promote abortions for fees.\n the hon. member for fife, central knows perfectly well that for years i have argued that abortions, if they are to be lawfully undertaken, should be undertaken in the national health service, so that all women who qualify under the criteria in the 1967 act for lawful abortions can have them—the hon. gentleman is right in some of the things he says; it is his deductions from them that are wrong—and so that a woman, often a very frightened young girl, not only would get the best possible advice as early in her pregnancy as possible but, if she decided against an abortion as a result of that advice, would be steered in the direction of the support in society that she needs.\n in considering this grave matter we must understand from the start that abortion is not just another medical procedure, like having one's appendix out. it is a unique operation, involving two lives, one of which, of necessity, must be destroyed. thus, in considering the bill, whatever its imperfections—i can see a number, which i think we can put right in committee—we have first to decide whether the existing law governing this unique medical procedure is really as humane as some hon. members on the opposition benches suggest, and whether it truly encourages that reverence for life which should be the first characteristic of a society that claims to be civilised.\n in my view, the existing law is not humane enough. no one who recalls recent cases—i have mentioned one and i could mention others—in which babies aborted between 20 and 28 weeks have been born alive, have clung to life for hours and might have lived if the resuscitation techniques now available, which were not known in 1929 when the infant life (preservation) act was passed, had been used—can consider that the existing law encourages reverence for life.\n it is not sufficient to say that since 1967 the law has been made more satisfactory than it was before. it has, and no one in his senses would argue otherwise. but that is no reason for saying that the situation is satisfactory and cannot be improved. in some respects it is manifestly unsatisfactory and it can be improved. that is what the debate is about. imperfect as the bill may be, it should go to committee so that these matters can be thrashed out in detail.\n let us keep these matters in perspective. it was certainly the humane intention of the 1967 act to end the chaos and uncertainty in abortion law, and here we can agree with the lane committee that it did much to reduce the toll of suffering, ill health and premature death caused by illegal abortions.\n it is no use running away from the unhappy fact that the act was not accompanied by the development of proper facilities in the national health service spread uniformly throughout the country. i can sympathise with hon. members who come from certain areas where there are particular difficulties caused by lack of facilities.\n so we have the situation that the criteria for a lawful abortion may exist yet some women cannot get that abortion. that is disgraceful. what happened? as the hon. member for pontypool and i predicted in 1967, there grew up a large and lucrative practice in abortions in the private sector and large fortunes have been made by a few unscrupulous operators. i am talking of the commercial, private sector.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.177', 4, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is not true.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.178', 608, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is what the lane committee found as a result of evidence given to it. if the hon. member for fife, central is appointed to the standing committee i hope that he will do his homework better than he has in preparation for this afternoon.\n it was also the intention of the 1967 act to ensure reverence for life. if the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) had been here, i should have paid tribute to him, because that was the motivation behind what he was seeking to do. the authors of that act never intended that abortion should be available on demand. they made that plain at the time.\n the lane committee was set up to examine the working of the act because of nationwide concern that its provisions were being abused, especially in the private sector. paragraph 189 of its report states: it would be contrary to the conditions for abortion laid down in the act that it should be obtainable solely at the wish of the woman". yet the committee felt obliged to continue that the criteria for abortion as laid down was imprecise and could be widely interpreted, and that some doctors were interpreting the wording to mean that abortion was permissible in every case.\n the lane committee also found that the act was being flouted and that some doctors, relying upon a loophole in the criteria, were agreeing to abortions without even seeing the patients. that should not have surprised anyone. it does not surprise me.\n i recall a distinguished gynaecologist saying publicly: abortion on demand does not contravene the abortion act … the act allows abortion when the risk of permitting a pregnancy to continue is greater than the risk of abortion. when an abortion is carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy it is safer than allowing the pregnancy to go to full term. the house should ponder those words and weigh them carefully.\n we are being asked to believe that statistically it is safer for a woman to have an abortion than to have a baby. it is true that statistically there is a small risk to the life of a woman in childbirth which is slightly higher than the risk she faces if she has an induced abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.\n that argument has been used ever since not merely to give abortion on demand in return for fees but to flout the law. it is palpably false. everyone knows that it is false. it is false because deaths due to childbirth and those due to induced abortion in the first 12 weeks are not comparable. deaths in the first category occur in women suffering from disease or some abnormality. those in the second occur in women who would not have died if they had not had the operation. yet that argument has been and continues to be used to justify abortion on demand, contrary to the wishes of parliament in 1967.\n the select committee was worried about this and took a great deal of evidence, but nothing has been done. all this has been known for years, but still nothing has been done. the house has expressed itself in a majority on every occasion in favour of one reform or another, but it was always baulked by the opposition of some, but not all, labour members when the labour government were in office. it is high time for parliament to put a stop to this flouting of the law. we have an opportunity here this afternoon. we can only stop it by agreeing to my hon. friend\'s bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.179', 47, 'uk.m.10556', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "does not the hon. member's logic lead him to the point that although he does not want to revert to the situation as it was before the 1967 act—and what he calls abortion on demand existed then in the back streets—this bill will lead back to that?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.180', 1233, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i do not accept that for one moment, and i hope that as i develop my argument i shall carry the hon. member with me.\n the use of the statistical argument is not the only way in which the law falls short of expectations it aroused in 1967. two other serious defects cry out for remedy. my hon. friend\'s bill would deal with them. the first is the reduction of the 28 weeks\' upper time limit for abortions, a limit that no one in the medical profession defends. the second is the failure of the conscience clause to safeguard those members of the healing professions who have a genuine conscientious objection—not necessarily on religious grounds—to participating in a procedure which is wholly repugnant to them.\n the reduction of the upper time limit is long overdue, and this country lags behind most civilised countries in that respect. that in itself is condemnation of the way in which government principally, but parliament, too, have failed in their duty. the 28 weeks\' limit laid down in the infant life (preservation) act 1929 was based on the presumption at that time that a foetus was capable of being born alive after that date, and so, save in a case where the mother\'s life was at stake, it was unlawful to destroy it.\n since then, medical science and modern methods of resuscitation have reduced the period after which an aborted baby has a good chance of survival. the 20-week limit proposed in the bill would accord much more closely with current medical knowledge than the 28-week limit. i would not myself go to the stake for the 20-week limit. the lane committee suggested 24 weeks, and it is relevant to remind hon. members that the bma, whatever it is saying today, said in its comments on the lane report—and these are the people who have been quoted at us today— even with the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks, however, the position still exists that owing to an error in the calculation of dates a foetus intended for destruction could be born alive and be capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independently of any connection with the mother. it is not for me to explain why doctors who took that view a few years ago should take a different view now. suffice it for me to say that when we here talk about a viable foetus we are talking not merely about a recognisable human being in the womb, one that may be sustained and have an existence independent of its mother outside. it was nine years ago that the international federation of obstetrics and gynaecology recommended that abortion should be restricted to termination before 20 weeks. the scientific group of the world health organisation concluded four years ago that babies delivered from the 22nd week onwards had a survival potential.\n the select committee sat for months considering evidence from every quarter. it thought long and hard on this issue. i refer to paragraph 65 of the committee\'s first report, which states: those giving evidence … generally … agreed that the upper limit should be less than 28 weeks but have not all agreed about what the limit should be. sir john peel, in evidence, repeated the view of his committee that it should be 20 weeks. the british medical association, as they had done to the lane committee, supported the peel recommendation. the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists said that to \' terminate pregnancies at 20 weeks and 24 weeks is on the whole a hazardous performance \'. hon. members may read the report for themselves.\n the select committee took evidence from eminent figures in the medical profession. it came to the conclusion that 20 weeks was about right. it was significant that the department of health and social security said in its evidence that it thought all abortions in the private sector should be restricted to below 20 weeks. it conceded that straight away. there is so much hatred of the private sector that it said straight away—" yes, we agree that all abortions in the private sector should be restricted to 20 weeks." on the basis of that evidence the select committee came down firmly, as one would expect, in favour of 20 weeks.\n it is essential, however, that there is some safeguard. i refer again to the select committee\'s report, in which it is stated that the limit should not apply where the child would be born with a major disability whether physical or mental ". a further safeguard is that the limit should not apply where it is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman ". i was pleased that my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) was as flexible as possible on this and said that in committee he would be prepared to reconsider his position. i support him wholeheartedly in that approach.\n the 1967 act included a conscience clause. there was a struggle to get that clause in the bill, but eventually it was inserted. yet it is a disturbing fact that from the outset the problems of medical and nursing staff with conscientious objections to abortion have continued unabated. the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists stated in its evidence to the lane committee: there was \' a very real need \' for an inquiry into how far junior doctors are under duress when they engage in operations to terminate pregnancy. it commented on the fear of junior doctors that distaste or conscientious objection might prejudice the advancement of their careers ". the royal college stated: their fear is amply justified. the select committee received numerous complaints and allegations of discrimination, especially about fully qualified doctors being debarred from appointments. some of the most distinguished men of their year had to leave britain because they could not obtain appointments—[hon. members: " no ".] yes, we had the evidence. it is on the record. hon. members need not take it from me as it is on the record. permit me to say that it is increasingly clear as we continue the debate that the failing of so many critics of the bill, full of imperfections as it is, is that they have not done their homework and have not read the evidence.\n the nursing profession too has been adversely affected. the lane report made that clear. the evidence that the select committee received from nursing organisations convinced it not that roman catholic nurses were under any particular pressure—the position of such nurses is well understood in most hospitals—but that many non-catholic nurses were being put under pressure, since they could not say with their hands on their hearts that they had religious objections to taking part in abortions. the natural instinct of any girl who goes into nursing is to care for life. what takes her there—to preside over death? it is natural for a young girl entering nursing to have feelings, qualms and doubts about the matter. there are many cases—in my view and, i am sure, in that of many nurses and doctors—where an abortion is justified, but there are others where we should not put people who have entered the noble nursing profession under such pressure. the bill seeks to remedy that defect.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.181', 119, 'uk.m.10054', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman will remember that i, too, was a member of the select committee. before he leaves the point about nursing, i should like to quote evidence given to the select committee by the association of nurse administrators speaking on behalf of nurses. the witness said: in practice it is not a compulsory secondment for a nurse to go to a gynaecological ward, and the situation seems to be worked out before it reaches the bedside. we make it clear they can exercise this option. a nurse is not allocated there if she does not want to go. the same applies to the operating theatre. how does that square with the remarks just made by the hon. gentleman?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.182', 30, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady correctly reflects part of the evidence. she should reflect it all. the evidence that was given to us showed that the practice differed from hospital to hospital.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.183', 85, 'uk.m.10054', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the practice differed from hospital to hospital. the witness went on to say: as regards the local situation, we have not had a sufficient proportion of nurses electing to use the conscience clause to mean we could not staff the units. if the local situation was such that the proportion of nurses was great, then a resources problem would arise, but in all these years it has not created a personal problem for the nursing staff. the situation does not arise even in localised areas.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.184', 104, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is not possible to take evidence across the floor of the house. i do not dispute the passages that the hon. lady read out. but other members of the select committee are present who will agree that we were given evidence that great distress was caused to nurses in many hospitals by this practice.\n members of the labour party are tender about conscientious objection in wartime and people's rights. i find it difficult to understand why they should be so sensitive on this point. the evidence was given. many hon. members have had it given to them personally by nurses in their constituencies.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.185', 41, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in wanstead, one nurse was thrust into a ward to deal with an abortion without being given a choice. she was distressed at the end of the day. i do not give her name in view of the risk of victimisation.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.186', 143, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman put his finger on the point. the second report of the select committee on abortion made the situation crystal clear. it concluded that the situation was not satisfactory: in addition to criticism, we have received, as we have recorded in our first report, complaints and allegations of discrimination. it is all there. it is not my duty to explain to hon. members what they should have already read and studied.\n i am very glad that my hon. friend has given us the opportunity of reconsidering this important matter. that is what is getting under the skin of some of those who want permissive abortion in this country. i am glad that he has indicated that he is ready to accept amendments in committee. i hope that the house will give the bill a second reading by a thumping great majority.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.187', 67, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'at least one thing has been clarified by the speech just made by the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine). we are not discussing an amendment to the abortion act 1967 about the period of gestation. we are discussing abortion—full stop. the hon. gentleman—in probably the most emotional and excitable speech that we have heard all day—made it plain that he is opposed to abortion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.188', 2, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.189', 43, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that there are other hon. members who agree with his point of view. my hon. friend the member for liverpool, kirkdale (mr. dunn) is opposed to abortion, and one understands his reasons for it and his approach to this problem.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.190', 35, 'uk.m.21918', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is putting views on my behalf which i do not particularly embrace. there are circumstances in which i admit that, on medical grounds, abortion is necessary. i go no further than that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.191', 400, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i accept the correction, but my hon. friend must forgive me for getting this sort of impression when i see his involvement and participation in this question.\n in my opinion, the effect of the bill would be to torpedo completely the 1967 act. the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) claims to be concerned with late abortions. he wants abortions to take place earlier. that, he claims, is the purpose of this amending bill. if he is sincere in his intentions i can help him. clearly, it is desirable, if we wish to ensure that abortions can take place at an earlier time, to provide throughout the national health service in britain the resources and the facilities for it. we need gynaecological units in towns up and down the country.\n there is a complete regional imbalance in this regard. in the northern region—basically newcastle—90 per cent. of the abortions take place in nhs hospitals. in the west midlands, however, only 22 per cent. take place in nhs hospitals, and in the mersey region only 31 per cent. if those who are likely to support this amending bill are sincere about assisting women to obtain abortions earlier than they are able to in some circumstances, clearly we should be discussing, if such a bill is necessary—and i do not think that it is—how to persuade or instruct regional health authorities to establish day care abortion on a basis of equality of access to abortion for women throughout our society.\n that seems to be the best way for us to make real progress if we are anxious in human terms and if we are, to use the words of some who have written to me on this subject this week, to approach the matter from a christian point of view. we should be concerned about the humanity involved in trying to protect women, in the circumstances described by my right hon. friend the member for norwich, north (mr. ennals), who have genuine difficulties and who should be able to obtain abortions through the health service.\n as i said at the beginning, what the bill smacks of is an outright objection to the 1967 act and a willingness on the part of those who vote for it today to put the clock back and to put women into a situation in which they are bound to go to back-street abortionists.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.192', 345, 'uk.m.21763', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that any hon. member who has been around his constituency over the last few months will realise, as a stark fact, that large numbers of people find the present legislation on abortion deeply offensive. this is certainly so in the area which i represent, which is very close to the constituency—indeed, it surrounds it—of the hon. member for preston, south (mr. thorne).\n one of the reasons that i identify as being the foundation of that dissatisfaction with the legislation is the upper time limit for an abortion. it is right that the house should look at this matter very carefully. when my hon. friend the minister for health was addressing the house, in a very careful and most helpful speech, he said that the time of 28 weeks was too late and that most other countries would not accept it. i do not think that we ought to accept it either. at 28 weeks, is it not a fact that what is removed, from which life is extinguished, qualifies for something better than the mere technical medical description of a foetus? it is, indeed, at that stage a perfectly formed, though not fully developed, human being. were it not for the abortion, and if it had been, for example, prematurely born, there would be a good chance—perhaps every chance—that it would survive.\n it is for that reason that the lane committee, in its most careful review and examination of the various points that have to be considered, concluded that the upper time limit should be 24 weeks gestation. i personally agree with that. my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie), whom i congratulate on his bill, might well consider that he would draw to himself and his bill greater support if he were to consider lifting the time limit in the bill from 20 weeks to about 24 weeks. i think that most hon. members on both sides of the house should be prepared to look at the upper time limit with a good deal of sympathy.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.193', 102, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when the minister referred to the question of 20, 24 and 28 weeks he was saying that if it were to be a shorter time limit there would have to be a broader definition of exemptions. that being the case, is there any real difference between 20 weeks and a broad definition of exemptions and the present situation in which, as the hon. and learned gentleman knows, fewer than 1 per cent. are aborted after 20 weeks? secondly, will he accept that i know from my constituents that the real worries are among people who fear that this bill will be passed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.194', 224, 'uk.m.21763', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am surprised that the right hon. gentleman should not be able to recognise that there is a difference between what is legal and what is illegal. there is a difference between the guidance given by the present legislation and the guidance which would be given by this improved legislation amended as i have suggested it should be by a reduction of the 28-week period to one of 24 weeks.\n i wish to sit down soon because i know that the debate must soon be wound up by an hon. member on the opposition benches, but i wish finally to take up a point raised by the right hon. member for norwich, north (mr. ennals) when he put to the house what he saw as the various advantages of the present legislation and of abortion generally. he said that among the advantages was the fact that we were not being troubled with unwanted children in cases where the children would not be welcome. i must just detain the house for a moment on this. if one begins to talk about unwanted children, one should ask " who does not want them? " if one talks about unwanted children, one should also begin to consider the people who want children, the childless couples who would be willing to accept the children if they were there.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.195', 8, 'uk.m.10181', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. and learned gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.196', 121, 'uk.m.21763', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i cannot. i have only about two minutes left. there are many childless couples in this country who want children, and for every 20 such couples there is one available child. mr. peter horton of the national association for the childless estimated recently that there were 250,000 couples who would like to adopt children.\n that seems to me to be a pertinent and compelling argument that the house and the country should recognise and act upon. that is the prime reason why i should like to see the bill passed, and i believe that most hon. members—certainly on these conservative benches, and i hope on the opposition benches also—will want to see the bill have its second reading this afternoon.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.197', 41, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the passing of the bill, as i hope it will be, will be no triumph. nor was the abortion act 1967, whose second reading i supported in the vain hope that we could shape it in a different form in committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.198', 75, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. throughout the debate you and the other occupants of the chair have made a point of calling one hon. member for the bill and one hon. member against. however, now that you have called my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), after the hon. and learned member for north fylde (mr. gardner), that makes it two members following each other and speaking for the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.199', 112, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "when in the chair, mr. speaker always tries to be fair. it is not always within mr. speaker's knowledge what point of view an hon. member will take.—[ interruption. ] i have been questioned on a point of order, and i should like a little silence while i reply to it. i was obviously aware of the view that the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) would take, but it is getting close to the end of the debate, and i felt that it would not be wrong to call someone who had been intimately involved in this subject in the past, especially when many opposition members have taken an opposite view.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.200', 1254, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this bill and the last act are not a triumph. any abortion bill, whether it is widely or narrowly drawn, must be an acknowledgement of defeat. every failure to plan our society so that life within its puny, transient span can live out its full potentiality is demonstrably a defeat.\n my hon. friend the member for workington (mr. campbell-savours) who made his maiden speech, expressed the principles upon which all socialists should be active when he quoted nye bevan. as an older member of the party, i was glad to see that so many younger members fully understood that the purpose of the battle to have a social democratic community was to ensure that we had a society in which the full potentiality of every individual, born or unborn, was realised.\n therefore, we accept the fact that it was a defeat, and we speak with some sadness in every abortion debate because we know that an abortion can result from the failure of medical science as yet unable to rescue a malformed, unborn child from its fate. an abortion can be precipitated by a society too indifferent to save women and children from intolerable housing conditions, and it can occur, too, in more subtle ways. it can come from a vengeful society which is now sometimes sophisticating its hostility to lovemaking by the unmarried by proferring abortion rather than providing the financial and social support that they sometimes desperately need.\n it is no use having threnodies or lamentation. realism demands that we accept the fact that within our existing society there are women who are frequently in an appalling predicament. unfortunately, within the blemished society in which we live, it is an inevitable fact that abortion is sometimes the only desperate remedy.\n some of us believe that abortion should be the last and not the first option. that is the division between the two sides of the argument. we believe that when a child is a potential child, no longer can the issue be regarded as one for the woman alone. it is her business with whom she sleeps. it is not the duty of this legislature in any way to presume to be prurient and to interfere in the private lives of men or women. but when another factor comes into existence, when there is a potential child, there are societal obligations and it is only then that we are compelled to focus our attention upon the issues that are involved.\n in a plural society such as we have, there has to be some reconciliation of some kind between, on the one hand, those who believe that in no circumstances should there be an abortion except for the most compelling medical reasons and those who, on the other hand, passionately maintain the view that there should, in no circumstances, be any interference in any form with the decision made by the individual woman.\n it is clear from what has been said today that we shall continue with such a debate until such time as we seek to have an act which has done something to assuage the hurt and outrage of large sections of opinion in this country who believe that the present act, as it has been practised, has some blemishes that require urgent attention.\n i listened to the speech of my right hon. friend the member for norwich, north (mr. enna1s), the former secretary of state for social services. i understood why it was, as i am sure did many other hon. members, that we had not resolved this problem before. if, despite the fact that he was secretary of state, he did not seize the opportunity of the lane committee urging that there should be a 24-week limit; if, while he was secretary of state, he did not seize the opportunity of acting in accordance with the considered and careful report of sir john peel, indicating why the upper limit should be 20 weeks; if, while he had the power and authority to do so, he did not in any way seize the opportunity to bring this matter to a conclusion, it was because in my view he holds, as he is entitled to do, views which show that if he is not a believer in abortion on demand he is almost indistinguishable from those who hold that view. i therefore believe that we have had a delayed debate which should have been ended a long time ago.\n i welcome the speech of the minister for health. it at least showed a keen and sensitive awareness of the type of problems with which we are seeking to grapple in this attempt to have an act that will reconcile the community to the existence of abortion, and even to reconcile the warring factions. the important comment made by the minister was that the criteria should be left untouched. but can they be left untouched as long as there is a minority of doctors who, as is well documented both in the lane report and public statements, practise abortion on demand? can we be satisfied and say " yes, we laid down criteria, but there is a minority that is abusing and manipulating the criteria "? can we leave it at that?\n i agree that the danger relates to the statistical argument. but surely, without affecting the criteria, it should be possible in committee to devise an exclusion which makes it clear that in measuring the balance of risk which the initial act requires, it is not beyond the wit of the draftsmen available to the minister—while leaving the criteria inviolable—to be able to make it crystal clear that in the measurement of the risk the facts that must be taken into consideration are clinical and not statistical ones.\n i notice that the minister nods his agreement with the point that i am making. i hope that he will direct his attention to it, because i believe that we can maintain the criteria but exclude the statistical argument, thus reconciling ourselves with any branch of the medical profession which may otherwise believe that there is a clinical judgment with which we are unnecessarily interfering.\n the minister also said that there were opinions relating to the 20-week or 24-week limit, and suggested that there should be a compromise. i do not believe that that is necessarily the correct approach. when sir john peel\'s committee has given us evidence that it is possible for an unborn child that is able to live outside the womb to be slain, i believe that if we are to err at all we must err in favour of that child.\n if there is overwhelming international opinion which says that it is possible for a child to be viable at 20 weeks, it is important that we should not put the limit up to 24 weeks, but instead make certain that any exemptions that we make adequately cover the issue. the approach in committee must be to maintain the 20-week limit but also to look at the existing infant life (preservation) act 1929 and the fact that it is possible for a doctor to perform an abortion today in good faith at 28 weeks if he believes that he is preserving the life of the mother. we should look at that preservation clause and see whether we need to alter it in order to maintain the 20 weeks. i do not believe that we can avoid the scandals that have erupted again today—scandals concerning aborted children being born alive—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.201', 6, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is no evidence of that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.202', 79, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i say that it is a concern among many people, i am not being dogmatic about it—[ interruption. ] this is not a subject for laughter; we are dealing with human life. it ill becomes those who are so raucous and tumultuous to treat the matter in this way. they are not directing their minds to the issues that trouble ordinary people. they want to maintain the existing legislation because they want to use it for abortion on demand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.203', 4, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. ennals rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.204', 147, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way. those hon. members who oppose the bill are entitled to their opinion that there should be abortion on demand, but they are not entitled to try to abuse the legislation that this house has passed in order to make certain that they get abortion on demand—a policy that is contrary to the wishes of the house and always has been.\n this bill provides an opportunity for the house to try to deal with a problem which otherwise will continue year in and year out. i believe that there are agonies enough about this matter—the agonies of those who are hesitating about their pregnancies and are desperately in need of help.\n i have no time to say anything about tainted counselling. this exists. charities can be legal, but when 98 per cent. of the referrals they make are referrals for abortions, that—\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.205', 16, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. corrie rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.209', 72, 'uk.m.21889', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' (seated and covered) : on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. there is some confusion in the lobbies about what the house is voting upon. i have voted " yes " on the assumption that the question was that a vote should now be taken. however, there is total confusion in the lobbies, and i ask you to take that into account and clarify the matter when the vote is declared.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4.1.210', 80, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the first question was, that the question be now put. on my putting the question for the second time, no member shouted " no ". therefore the ayes had it.\n i have taken counsel, and i understand that there is confusion in the lobbies. that being the case, i think it is only right that i should put the question again. we will take the whole division again. the question is, that the bill be now read a second time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-13.4']]
['Orders of the Day — Abortion (Amendment) Bill']
[['uk.proc.d.1989-03-03.5.1.2', 492, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time.\n i am grateful for the opportunity to have a few minutes in which to introduce the bill. the bill seeks to reintroduce the provisions of the abortion (amendment) bill that was brought before the house last year. our reasons for doing so are simply that last year, despite widespread support for that bill, we were unable to obtain a final vote despite having concluded the debate on report. it is our belief that, in the interests of parliamentary democracy and in the light of the considerable interest in this subject in the country, there should be an opportunity to vote on the bill.\n at the moment this country has a law that allows one child to be kept alive in an incubator, to be loved and cherished and to have all the resources of medical science poured upon it, and a child of identical age, gestation and sentience to be dismembered alive in its mother's womb. that is not a civilised law. it is those excesses and abuses of the abortion act 1967 that many hon. members who would not support me in my absolute stand on abortion nevertheless wish to see eradicated.\n our first duty is to the unborn children who suffer horribly from some of the methods of abortion that are most commonly used in the private clinics where 88 per cent. of late abortions are carried out. we have a duty to them to introduce a law that will afford them exactly the same protection as we afford to children of the same age who are in incubators, that we afford to children when they are born, and the same protection that we afford to children regardless of what tragedies might strike them in later years.\n the unborn have no less right to protection than the born. the unborn who have developed to a stage such that once born we would recognise them as fully human, with full civil rights, should have exactly the same protections. what we would not do to a child in an incubator we should not do to a child in the womb during abortion.\n our law asks for equality of treatment between children. it is a law that would recognise the rights of the mother not to be pressurised or misinformed. it is a law that seeks to protect those least able to look after themselves—that is, not only unborn children who have no voice and who rely entirely on us to protect them, but pregnant women who want to continue with their pregnancies but who sometimes find that the pressures of society, particularly eugenic pressures, combine to force them into operations which they later regret and frorn which they suffer continually.\n one of the good results of the extensive debate on this subject last year is that at last we are beginning to recognise the effects on mothers who suffer—\n ", datetime.datetime(1989, 3, 3, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-03-03.5']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1953-02-27.5.1.3', 211, 'uk.m.18897', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, "that the bill be now read a second time."\n because of certain pronouncements which have been made in the press as well as upon platforms, i must make it clear from the outset that it is not the object of the promoters of this bill to extend the practice of abortion. on the contrary, it is to confine it to cases where, in the view of competent medical practitioners, it is in the interest of the mother\'s health and for the prevention of injury to her body. in such cases unmistakable authority should be given to the medical profession to act in the interests of the patient.\n under the law at present, a great deal of uncertainty prevails, although certain judgments have seemed to provide protection for qualified practitioners performing operations in the interests of the mother. many doctors are inhibited in their duty to their patients on account of the existing statutes on this subject. because there appears to be some uncertainty as to the interpretation of clause i ( a ) of this bill, the promoters are prepared to accept such redrafting or redefinition as will ensure that the term "person" used in the tenth line of the bill refers to a registered medical practitioner—\n ', datetime.datetime(1953, 2, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1953-02-27.5']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3.1.1', 98, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. next friday the abortion (amendment) bill is due to come before the house. i have tried, and i am sure that other hon. members have also tried, to have the bill looked at. i understand from the public bill office that the hon. member has not yet submitted it. it is a contentious bill and many of us would like to get advice from medical practitioners in our constituencies on how to vote. can anything be done to expedite publication of the bill? if so, the whole house would be grateful.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3.1.2', 59, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am obliged to the hon. member for isle of ely (mr. freud). that matter was raised yesterday during business questions, but it is not something on which i have any standing. it is for the hon. member concerned. perhaps the hon. member for isle of ely will raise it with the hon. member in charge of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3.1.3', 36, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. will you indicate what will happen, for example, if the bill is not published between now and next wednesday? that would put the house in an impossible position.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3.1.4', 21, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i realise the difficulties in which the house may be placed, but it is a matter for the hon. member concerned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3.1.5', 46, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', 'further to the point of order, mr. speaker. the hon. member for isle of ely (mr. freud) has raised an important matter. i shall be in communication today with the hon. member concerned to find out why there has been a delay and to expedite matters.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-06.3']]
['Abortions (Monitoring)']
[['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.2', 1968, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house may know of my concern about abortion. i made my maiden speech on abortion during proceedings on the "corrie" bill. i did so because my socialism is built on respect for the dignity and sanctity attached to human life. i was required to leave the chamber by mr. speaker during proceedings on the canada bill when i objected to the new constitutional arrangements which, in my view, had implications for abortion legislation in canada.\n i am not alone in expressing such views. they are the views of many hon. members, including the hon. member for ilford, south (mr. thorne), who is in the chamber today. many people in the labour party feel as strongly as i do about these matters. there are people throughout the world who subscribe to these views.\n the government should take note of the resolution passed at zagreb during the recent conference of the international right to life federation. the resolution stated: this fourth world conference of the international right to life federation held in zagreb, yugoslavia this year condemns the present abortion policy of the united kingdom as one of the most barbaric in the world. delegates representing 15 nations deplore the abortion act 1967 and draw the attention of the british government to the fact that it is the only law in europe accepting social abortion beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, in consequence of which thousands of expectant mothers from overseas are encouraged to go to britain by abortion racketeers for late social abortions, which carry enormously increased risks to women and are in breach of laws in their own countries. the conference calls on the right honourable mrs. thatcher and her government to allow parliament the time to amend the law giving greater protection to unborn children and mothers and ending this dishonourable trade in human misery. the monitoring of the abortion law in the united kingdom has always been of concern to me, if not the statistical basis on which the department disseminates information, certainly the criminal negligence of the government, in turning a blind eye to the operation of the infant life (preservation) act 1929. the act is explicit. it states in section 1 that the killing of a child capable of being horn alive and before it has an existence independent of the mother is an act of child destruction.\n the 28-week limit was born in the belief that such gestational age was prima facie proof of capability of being born alive. nevertheless, science has moved on and we now know that a baby of 18 to 21 weeks is most certainly capable of being born alive, albeit that at this stage in medicine it is too small to survive. we also know that from 18 weeks, as any gynaecologist can confirm, babies if born or aborted by hysterotomy, shows real and discernible signs of life.\n it was primarily this consideration that motivated mr. c in the case of mr. c v. miss s. acting as a third party, mr. c sought to secure protection of a baby capable of being horn alive. miss s\'s pregnancy had reached the 20th week and as far as mr. c was concerned deserved the legal protection provided by law under the infant life (preservation) act. he called in aid article 23 of the world health organisation constitution which was adopted by the world health assembly in 1976 and which defined live birth as expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy which after such separation breathes or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscle, whether or not the umbilical cord had been cut or the placenta is attached. each product of such a birth is considered liveborn. mr. c further called in aid the births and deaths registration act 1953 which in clause 41 defines a stillborn child as a child which did not at any time after being completely expelled from its mother breathe or show any other sign of life. thus, a foetus born showing any signs of life must under the act be registered as a live birth.\n a child may die shortly after birth, as it most certainly would at only 18 or 20 weeks gestation. nevertheless, the law of the land states that a foetus must be registered as a live birth. someone might ask why abortions are carried out in this country up to and beyond 28 weeks. the answer is the presumption written into the 1929 act that evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of 28 weeks or more shall be prima facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.\n as i have mentioned, medicine has moved on. whereas in 1929 it was miraculous for a 28-week foetus to survive, according to dr. p.m. dunn from the department of child health in southmead hospital, bristol, in a paper submitted in 1985 to the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, in 1984, 72 per cent. of all live born infants of 22 to 27 weeks gestation born at the bristol maternity hospital survived. only two years earlier, in 1982, the survival rate for the same group had been 43 per cent., in 1981 29 per cent. in bristol things are really happening.\n the information gleaned from the monitoring of the figures in bristol places a new responsibility upon the minister to review the operations of the infant life (preservation) act. the lane committee recommendations of 1974 seem, on reflection, enlightened and farsighted when we consider them 13 years later. the committee admitted that, despite taking a liberal position on abortion, the taking of a 28-week gestational period as prima facie proof of capability of being born alive was unreasonably late. it recommended that there should be an upper limit on abortion of 24 weeks and that thereafter every effort should be made to preserve the life of the child. if the lane committee were to consider and recommend on these matters today, it would recommend a new limit of 20 weeks.\n how can we secure a more vigilant application of the law in the light of scientific advance? according to monitoring by the department, in 1985, 1,628 babies were aborted at 22 and 23 weeks, seven of which were to save the mother\'s life, and 494 abortions were carried out at 24 weeks plus, only five of which were carried out to save the mother\'s life. in the latest years for which we have figures, 1,531 unborn children of 24 weeks and over have been aborted, and in only 22 cases could the operation be justified under existing law, particularly as the most avid abortionists at the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists admit that all of these children are capable of being born alive and surviving. what action has been taken by the minister to initiate prosecutions in the other 1,509 cases of child destruction?\n in addition, babies of 22 and 23 weeks are aborted, which, quite clearly from the evidence that we have from bristol, were capable not only of being born alive but of surviving. over three years, a total of 4,572 abortions were carried out, of which only 13 were performed to save the mother\'s life. they are the best figures that i have been able to glean. i am sure that the minister will be quick to correct me if i am wrong and, certainly, to comment on them. what action has been taken in the 4,559 cases in which doctors have flagrantly broken the law, and broken it repeatedly?\n in a series of written answers on 10 and 12 december, the minister referred to the fact that the government had circulated to all regional health authorities a copy of a report that they had encouraged the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists to produce on the subject of foetal viability and clinical practice. the report studied the implementation of the infant life (preservation) act and pointed out that many late abortions are blatantly in breach of the law. yet nowhere in the report is it stated that doctors should carry out such late abortions only to save mothers\' lives. nowhere in the report is it declared that criminal proceedings might be brought against doctors who break the law. the report takes a decidedly schizophrenic approach, urging that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered viable should be changed from the present limit of 28 weeks to 24 weeks gestation. the report goes on to state that: in accordance with the who recommendation a record should be kept of all babies born alive or dead at 22 weeks gestational age, or, if born earlier, weighing 500g or more. however, the figures that are quoted in the report to justify 24 weeks are for 1982. science has moved on since then. the figures for bristol in 1984 are quoted nowhere, but they show that the period of 24 weeks is already out of date.\n the government\'s senior medical officer, dr. w j modle, was a participant in the symposium on pre-term labour and its consequences, at which proceedings the bristol paper by professor dunn was originally presented. therefore, he must have known about the evidence of the survival rate of babies in that area. he was also an observer on the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists committee that published the report on foetal viability and clinical practice, the report that the minister so proudly told us had been circulated to all regional health authorities. how does the minister justify the failure of dr. modle to ensure that this report was an accurate and comprehensive document, giving the latest data available to ensure that those in authority were fully and properly informed? can the minister explain why she has failed to send with such a document the instruction that late abortions are completely unlawful?\n no other country in europe allows abortions from 20 weeks, as we do for social reasons. that brings me to a further point. i am told quite categorically by nurses working in national health service hospitals where abortions are performed that a goodly number of the abortions are not nhs abortions, as they are listed in the office of population censuses and surveys monitors. therefore, although they are performed on nhs premises—and listed as such quite correctly by the opcs—many of those abortions are carried out in pay beds. not only do i know of this from nurses who are working in the nhs, but reference has been made to it over the years by doctors working in the private sector as a response to criticism for their charges. what steps has the minister ever taken to check on the number of abortions in the nhs that are carried out in pay beds and those performed as nhs operations? surely that is of particular importance when a law such as the infant life (preservation) act is being broken scores of times each month quite openly.\n i have always felt very strongly about this matter. i have not come here today to make an ashamedly anti-abortion speech. that has not been my objective. i shall save that for another occasion. i have come today to make a plea that the minister should ensure that the infant life (preservation) act is implemented, taking into account the latest scientific advances. we cannot fudge these matters. those who follow the law in detail just wonder why the government insist on turning a blind eye to the implementation of the act. i hope that in her reply the minister will answer that specific question.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.3', 533, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'as is the normal courtesy, i should like to congratulate the hon. member for workington (mr. campbell-savours) on his success in mr. speaker\'s ballot. as he has just demonstrated, abortion is a subject about which people have very strong views that are sincerely held, and often widely differing, but governments traditionally have adopted a neutral stance and free votes have been allowed in this house and elsewhere on these subjects.\n let me put on record some of the latest statistics. in 1985, the total number of abortions performed was 171,873, of which 65,176 were performed in the national health service on residents. in 1986, the equivalent figures were 129,131, and 49,433 in the first three quarters of 1986. the rates per 1,000 resident women in the quarter ended september — the most recent figures that i have — are 2·92, which suggests that the rate of abortion may be dropping in this country, as the previous full year\'s figure was 12·97. i hope that that may indeed be the case.\n the number of terminations in the case of women under 16 has also shown something of a trend. in 1985, there were 4,002 such terminations and the rate per 1,000 among women of 14 and 15 years of age was 5·41. in the first quarter of 1986, there were 1,028 such terminations; in the june quarter there were 980; and in the september quarter there were 900. therefore the most recent figure gives us a rate per 1,000 women aged 14 and 15 of 1·22. again that is a drop on the previous year.\n as the hon. gentleman knows, the gestation period is also one of the statistics that is collected. in 1986—in the first three quarters only—of the 110,000 abortions performed on resident women in this country, nearly 100,000 were performed at the gestation age of 12 weeks or less. therefore, the vast majority are done on pregnancies in the early weeks of the woman\'s time. the total number of terminations in the first three quarters of 1986 on babies of a gestation period of 25 weeks and over was 19. therefore, i caution the hon. gentleman when he talks about 24 weeks or over 24 weeks— [interruption.] i said, "25 weeks and over". the rule that i mentioned says, "over 24 weeks", so i take it in exactly the same way. there is a difference between talking about at 24 weeks and over 24 weeks. there is a distinction. it is also worth pointing out—i am sure that the hon. gentleman will agree—that gestation may be a matter of rather fine judgment, particularly before a termination takes place.\n the hon. gentleman mentioned the bristol study in which a 70 per cent. survival rate was reported for babies born alive at gestations between 22 and 27 weeks. i have no doubt about that, but i suggest that those figures were heavily skewed towards the later age. in fairness, the figures should be disaggregated. there is a danger that the hon. gentleman might give the wrong impression, with statements such as, "70 per cent. of babies born at 22 weeks will survive." the hon. gentleman knows that such a statement is not true.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.4', 14, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady said that the figures were slanted towards the figure of 27—\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.5', 8, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i did not say "slanted". i said "skewed".\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.6', 74, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'do i presume that the hon. lady accepts that 22-week foetuses are surviving and can survive? if the hon. lady accepts that, does she not then accept that she has a duty to look at the statistics to ensure that in every one of the cases where there is a potential for survival, which must run into hundreds each year, every effort is made to see that the foetus survives and is not aborted?\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.7', 99, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'we monitor the figures all the time. the word "skewed" is a statistical term, which i am sure the hon. gentleman will realise. i do not want to imply any bias in that.\n the hon. gentleman should be aware that if figures are to be useful and are to form part of an intelligent discussion, it is probably better if they are disaggregated appropriately. the figures that he quoted in the booklet that he mentioned clearly show that there might be a 70 per cent. survival rate of babies born alive at the later stage in that age range.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.8', 6, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can they survive at 22 weeks?\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.9', 865, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', "perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to continue.\n it is worth putting on record the number of deaths following legal abortion in england and wales. in 1969 there were still 17 women who died following abortion, but in the years since 1973. the number has never been more than a single figure. in 1985 only two women died following legal abortion. clearly, the change in the law has helped some people quite considerably.\n the hon. gentleman asked me to say how the government have been monitoring the abortion act 1967 and ensuring that its provisions are properly applied. i am glad to do so. compliance with the abortion act and the assurances that have been developed in the 20 years since that legislation are monitored in three broad ways—first, inspection; secondly, notification; and thirdly, investigation of complaints and allegations of abuse.\n i refer first to inspection. all private sector nursing homes and clinics approved under the abortion act are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the dept's medical, nursing and investigative officers. a thorough check of business and administrative arrangements is made, and patients' notes and medical records are carefully examined. in the public sector, individual health authorities take the responsibility for the way in which abortion services are provided in their own area, just as they do for other forms of medical care.\n as for notification, operating practitioners are required to notify the chief medical officer, within seven days, of each abortion that they perform. forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not show any contravention of the abortion law.\n the department investigates rigorously any specific complaints or allegations of abuse, as it did on the matter raised by my hon. friend the member for broxhourne (mrs. roe) at question time last tuesday. appropriate action is taken to deal with any irregularities that are discovered. in the extreme, that might well involve a reference to the director of public prosecutions or the withrawal of the secretary of state's approval, or both.\n the hon. gentleman asked: how can we secure a more vigilant application of the law in the light of scientific advance? we feel that we have not just done that, but have gone further. the control of late abortions is a typical example of the way in which the assurances required by the secretary of state can be varied to take account of new situations and medical developments.\n medical developments now make possible, as the hon. member for workington rightly stated, the survival of some infants born before 28 weeks. in 1985 the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, in a report requested by the government on foetal viability and clinical practice, recommended that the age after which a foetus is considered viable should be changed from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. in the private sector the dhss initially agreed a voluntary limit of 24 weeks. subsequently, in february 1986, that was made a condition of approval. on inspection visits all cases over 20 weeks are now carefully monitored and we are satisfied that those arangements are working. the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists has also sent out the document to all its members, who must comply with it.\n the age has effectively been reduced in the light of medical science. it was argued in debates recently in another place that we should see how the voluntary arrangement works before proceeding further.\n with regard to the comments made by the hon. member for workington about the leaflet that referred to breaking the law, the royal college was extremely careful to explain that that is not what the leaflet was about. the college was so concerned that it included the following statement in italics: the committee, recognising the complexity of the present legislation relating to fetal viability, did not address themselves in detail to the legal issue, but concentrated on clinical considerations. the college then stated: for this reason they did not attempt to define viability in terms that would be legally acceptable but have described it as it is used by clinicians, for example, when maturity is a important factor in deciding whether or not to deliver a preterm fetus from an unfavourable intrauterine environment. it is our view that in the clinical sense of the word the fetus is viable when there is good evidence that survival is a reasonable possibility, given the availability of what is currently regarded as the best of neonatal care. we do not share the hon. gentleman's view that the law has been broken in the way that he described. as far as i am aware, there have been no successful prosecutions under the existing legislation—either public or private prosecutions — in recent years. broadly speaking, practice has changed in the light of scientific knowledge.\n the hon. gentleman referred to a large number of late abortions and mentioned the figures for the three latest years. i must stress that the three latest years that he was able to use were 1983, 1984 and 1985. they were all years before the changes i have just described. i have therefore taken into account the points that he made.\n ", datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.10', 9, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way on that brief point?\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.11', 336, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', "i want to respond to one or two of the points that the hon. gentleman has made.\n i urge the hon. gentleman not to attack people like dr. modle. that was a most disgraceful attack. dr. modle is a member of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and is a most distinguished public servant. the hon. gentleman's remarks contradict all the conventions of the house. i am prepared to restate that the responsibility for the action of our officials rests with ministers. i am glad to state our full confidence in dr. modle and his staff and we are very fortunate to have him.\n the hon. gentleman raised the point about notification and pay beds. the notification of an abortion shows the location where it was carried out. if it was carried out in a national health service hospital that is shown in the statistics. i am satisfied that that is a sensible approach. no doubt the hon. gentleman will continue to disagree about that.\n the hon. gentleman knows that the oxford students' case was taken to appeal and the court of appeal held that on the evidence that a foetus of 18 to 21 weeks was incapable even of breathing, it was not a child capable of being born alive within the meaning of the infant life (preservation) act 1929. the court left open the question whether the prospective putative father had locus standi to bring proceedings or whether the child could bring proceedings. the father applied to the house of lords for leave to appeal on the question whether an unborn child of 18 to 21 weeks' gestation was capable of being born alive. that was refused.\n the hon. gentleman may call in evidence the words and arguments of the plaintiff in that case, mr. c., and question the actions of the judges concerned. however, i understand from the transcript that the judges proceeded as they did at the request of counsel for both sides, mainly because of the urgency of the case.\n ", datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.12', 3, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'not both sides.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.13', 22, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'that is my information. the transcript shows that the parties proceeded on that basis with the understanding of counsel on both sides.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.14', 3, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is wrong.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.15', 389, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', "we have no option but to respect the law as it stands and as it is restated in case law. as there was no further action on the locus standi, mrs. justice heilbron's ruling in the high court remains in force. she held that there was not a sufficient basis for the father's claim that the abortion of the foetus amounted to a threatened crime under the infant life (preservation) act 1929.\n we can make progress by avoiding the need for late abortions in the first place. the hon. gentleman will know that health authorities have been encouraged to improve administrative referral systems. ministers have already announced plans for three family planning pregnancy counselling projects for young people, which might help to reduce delay. a submission has been placed before my hon. friend the member for braintree (mr. newton), the minister for health, and we are expecting an announcement soon.\n i am sure that the hon. gentleman shares with me the feeling that we wish to see abortions not being necessary at all. a woman's right to choose exists before conception as well as after it.\n the hon. gentleman has said that there are many in the labour party who feel as he does. i am sure that he will accept that this is not a party-political issue and that feelings run deep in all the main political parties. should he need proof of that, he might do no worse than read the speeches of lord houghton of sowerby in the debates on the bishop of birmingham's bill in another place. it is clear that there were strong feelings against amending the law in the way that the hon. gentleman would wish.\n abortion, fertility and its treatment, the use of embryos and embryonic material and related topics are most difficult issues and have been matters of public debate for some years. they have been aired and explored recently in the various documents including the warnock report. the consultative document following that report, which takes up some of the other issues as well, is available for consultation and is likely to result in legislation. the government have promised that certain alternative clauses will be prepared and that there will be a free vote. we have already declared our support for the bishop of birmingham's bill, and that view still stands.\n ", datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.16', 37, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i take the minister back to the question that i asked her earlier? does she accept that a foetus of 22 weeks can survive? that is all that i want to know. does she accept that?\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.17', 23, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i accept that the vast majority of foetuses at that age of gestation cannot now be born alive at all and cannot survive.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.18', 3, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'but some can.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.19', 4, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i have no doubt—\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.20', 4, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'a minority can survive.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.21', 20, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i have no doubt that, even if it is not possible today, it may be possible in the near future.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.22', 7, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister referred to the "vast majority".\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.23', 5, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i have no strong feelings—\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.24', 2, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'come on!\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6.1.25', 246, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'it would help if the hon. gentleman were willing to listen to what i have to say.\n i have no doubt that if it is not possible now it will shortly be possible. the advances that are possible in medical science are such that the age of viability is likely to continue to fall. that is the age at which a baby may be born alive and viable. that is why the wording of the act is as it is, and that is why we shall continue to monitor the statistics as they come.\n the hon. gentleman may look pleased with himself, but age does not alter or make any easier the arguments, the discussions and the care that has to be taken to ensure the welfare of mother and baby and of all the staff concerned. it is not an argument in which we wish to score points, and i am sure that the hon. gentleman would wish to agree with that.\n much of the hon. gentleman\'s argument has been based on the notion—he used the term—of "abortion on social grounds" or for social reasons. he knows that that is not legal in this country, though i believe that it is used as a form of contraception in one or two countries. we would find that unacceptable here and the law is specific. all abortions are tragedies for all concerned and especially, perhaps, for women. i welcome this opportunity to explore the issues again briefly.\n ', datetime.datetime(1987, 3, 20, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1987-03-20.6']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION']
[['uk.proc.d.1978-04-19.19.1.3', 3023, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad to have the opportunity to raise this subject on the adjournment, because next week sees the tenth anniversary of the passing of the abortion act 1967 which made abortion legal in britain.\n too much is heard in this house and outside of alleged scandals, abuses and harmful effects, and far too little, because on the whole it is not the stuff of headlines, of the enormous sense of well-being and relief that the 1967 act, by its very existence, has brought to many women and their families. so now is a good time to ask whether we have the administration right. of course, it will never be right for those who believe that all abortion is wrong, but most of us know—and i hope that my hon friend the minister of state will bring up to date those who do not—the measures which have been taken to control the working of the act.\n there is only one major scandal and failure of the act, namely, the failure of the national health service to provide the necessary facilities for equitable treatment throughout the country, and it is a failure that needs a remedy. but it is never mentioned by those who shout most loudly about "cleaning up abuse".\n next week, those basically opposed to legal abortions and thus opposed to the concept of freedom of moral choice for individuals within a pluralistic society will be carrying wreaths from town to town, having wreaths delivered to hon. members here, and generally attempting to continue their campaign of spreading lies, distortions and despondency, which have been their stock in trade ever since they realised that the majority of citizens did not accept their view that abortion was the same as murder from the moment of conception.\n this campaign ignores the fact that more than 1¼ million safe abortions have taken place in britain since 1967 and that almost every country in western europe has now followed and in many cases gone further in liberalising and humanising its laws. only last week in roman catholic italy the chamber of deputies passed a bill to allow abortion on request to any woman over 18 and less than 12 weeks pregnant—something done several years earlier by france and austria.\n next week in britain, not only will there be emotive stories spread around, but a new political initiative will be launched called "value your vote", based on what has now been shown to be the completely erroneous assumption that abortion can be a major issue in election campaigns. fortunately, the electors at garscadden have proved the contrary to be true. so this government or any other need no longer have any fear about introducing bold and robust measures to implement the abortion act and make national health service day-care abortions the rule rather than the exception.\n in garscadden we saw the most highly organised, spare-no-expense campaign that the anti-abortionists could organise. we had a campaign where a pressure group acted like a political party. it ran public meetings attended by the candidates, distributed leaflets to every house, had leaflet drops outside churches, plastered the constituency with emotive posters, cruised with loudspeaker vans and even provided cars to take its supporters to the polls.\n it was a campaign in which the leading roman catholic lay organisation recommended the faithful to vote against any pro-abortion candidate and declared that the sanctity of life transcends normal political considerations. it was a campaign in which the candidate\'s views on abortion were canvassed and continually publicised, a campaign in which a church of scotland clergyman felt impelled in his parish magazine to request his flock not to be "party political meddlers"—whatever that means—and to remind them that roman catholic priests in another part of this constituency have advised their folk to vote snp since it is the only party with an anti-abortion policy". it was a campaign in which roman catholic priests knocked on doors of houses of parishioners showing labour party posters and ordered them to take them down; and one in which the journal of the roman catholic archdiocese of glasgow sought the views of all candidates only on abortion.\n but, despite all these massive attempts in an area with a 35 per cent. roman catholic population, the declared antiabortion candidates did not win, and a television programme survey of voters leaving the polling station found only 3 per cent of roman catholics to agree that abortion was the most important issue. it also found that 62 per cent. of them voted for the candidate who as a member of parliament in 1967 had voted for the bill.\n the lesson from this must be clear to all members who have had intimidating threats made to them about future votes going against supporters of a liberal abortion law. we know that it is a hollow threat for, if it had any substance, it would have been fulfilled at garscadden. if it failed at garscadden, it must fail elsewhere.\n as it must be clear that there are no votes to be lost on this issue, i hope that the minister will propose immediate plans for day-care centres run by sympathetic staff in every region, regardless of the personal prejudices of senior members of the local gynaecological establishment.\n these centres would save not only health and happiness by ensuring that pregnancies were terminated early but money and would release overnight hospital beds for those on gynaecological waiting lists. the money saved could be used for family planning—prevention is better than cure—through contraception and sterilisation programmes. this in the long run would reduce the numbers of abortions.\n perhaps my hon. friend could confirm my view that if some of the extra money made available for day-care units in the budget last week were used to increase the provision of early outpatient abortion, there would in a short time be an overall saving of money and further reduction in the already much reduced maternal mortality and morbidity associated more with late than with early abortion.\n we have already seen a welcome move in my part of the country. faced with an intransigent professor and gynaecological establishment who have ensured that only some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of west midlands women have succeeded in getting nhs abortions the regional health authority, under pressure from the community health councils, set up a working party to consider what could be done. that working party has now produced a report with recommendations to improve the situation and to open daycare facilities.\n typically, it has been publicly attacked by professor scarisbrick of the anti-all-abortion "life" organisation. in a letter to the chairman of the rha, released to and widely reported by the local and national press, he accuses the working party of a serious and astonishing error in stating that the nhs has a statutory responsibility to provide an abortion service.\n in fact, it is the professor who is guilty of the "serious error", because his letter suggests that the working party believed this duty on the nhs sprang from the abortion act 1967. but nowhere in the report is this said, and clearly the duty—as detailed by the authoritative lane report—springs from the national health service act 1946, which puts a duty on the secretary of state, among other things, to promote the establishment in england and wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of england and wales … precisely the same aims as those of the abortion act. perhaps my hon. friend can comment on this. the false premises about the 1967 act have been enshrined in the recent series of bills before the house which in turn were based on the report of the select committee of anti-abortionists.\n in fact, in all those areas—except two—where concern was expressed and changes recommended, changes and controls have been introduced. the dhss now has complete control of the private sector, and let us hope it can now devote its energies to improving the public sector. those two areas, where little has been done, are the areas where those with detailed knowledge and objective minds know that there is no real evidence to show that change is necessary. these are reduction of the upper time limit and restrictions on the charitable services. the pressure for reduction of the upper time limit comes from repeatedly making emotive claims about live babies being killed—claims which, when exhaustively investigated, are shown to have no basis in truth.\n from the evidence it appears that there was only ever one case where a child might have lived—the stobhill case in glasgow in 1970. tragic and upsetting though it was, one such case in 1¼ million legal abortions cannot justify restricting the law. that there has been only one such case is shown by the fact that it is still quoted today by the anti-abortionists. if they knew of others, they would certainly not rely on evidence that is eight years out of date.\n this lack of evidence has not stopped those opposed to legal abortion making unsubstantiated and extravagant claims that have understandably worried the public conscience, have been eagerly leapt upon and spread around by a press that is hungry for sensationalism and fuelled by the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas), who started this hare running in may 1970 with the rumour headlined in the daily express as abortion trade in unborn babies from a whole series of unsavoury accusations i come to one of the most recent which on 8th february this year was shown in a reply to me to have no foundation in fact. on that occasion, a mrs. chester of droylsden complained in a letter published in her local newspaper that a tameside hospital had posted a notice instructing staff not to resuscitate live babies born following a certain method of abortion. clearly, if this had been true, nhs staff would have been guilty of inciting others to break the law, so investigations were made. it was noticeable that neither mrs. chester nor the newspaper that printed her letter was able or willing to give the source of the information or the name of the hospital. so both dhss time and that of the tame-side area health authority was wasted on following up this apparently baseless accusation.\n these unfounded and untrue accusations have led to a general belief that live babies are being aborted. they waste much time of the department and ahas in trying to follow them through—time that could have been much better spent in implementing, through the nhs, the abortion act in those parts of the country where abortion is not yet available.\n currently, if the "life" newsletter is to be believed—and perhaps my hon. friend can tell us what he knows of this—the most recent "horror" accusation is with the dpp. this story, featured again in the national press with vast amounts of space and told to it by the "life" organisation, concerned a child delivered by caesarean section at barking hospital when, in the 29th week of pregnancy, the mother\'s life was in dander. according to "life", the foetus was 25 to 26 weeks old and was thrown aside as dead and rescued only by accident while on its way to the incinerator—shades of the stobhill story? but, according to the paediatrician concerned, the baby was in the intensive care unit within seven weeks of delivery and was thriving some weeks later when "life" told its horror story to the press. at the time, "life" said that its sources were absolutely authoritative. now its newsletter admits: we have no eye-witnesses unfortunately. it is a scandal that this sort of unauthorised and unfounded allegation can be picked up by the press so avidly.\n however, the really interesting thing about that story is that the child was born on 17th december and the story was not released in the press until 21st january—in the same week that the authors of the book "babies for burning" were forced to make their humiliating high court retraction and apology to the british pregnancy advisory service.\n which brings us to the only other area of concern of the select committee whose recommendations for restrictive measures have not been implemented separation of the counselling and other functions of the charities.\n it is noticeable that nobody questioned the good faith, the professional integrity or the great need for bodies such as bpas until that disgusting little book was touted around. could it have been that, because the charities were making the abortion act 1967 work as parliament intended and driving the exploiters out of business by providing a competitive, non-profit service, they had to be discredited by the anti-abortionists who saw their supply of sensational stories disappearing and thus their hopes of appealing to the electorate?\n certainly the attacks on the charities intensified from that time, and most of them are as baseless as that book would have been shown to be had the authors not recognised that it was better to apologise quickly than to allow all the evidence of their lying, deception and duplicity to come out into the open during a trial. for not only did the authors lie in the book, they lied before a select committee of the house. that is my main reason for seeking this adjournment debate.\n both mr. litchfield and "mrs. litchfield", otherwise kentish, as she is called on the birth certificate of her and litchfield\'s child, a certificate which during the course of a bbc interview litchfield described as a fraud being investigated by scotland yard but which so far has never been challenged, told the select committee that the transcripts with which the committee was supplied were a full, true and accurate record of the relevant tape recordings. had the select committee listened to those recordings and compared them with the transcripts supplied by the authors, it would have found that they were neither full nor accurate, nor complete.\n it is not surprising that the select committee did not make that comparison, for it took some 300 hours to do just that in preparation for the bpas trial. of 65 relevant conversations found on the tapes, transcripts of only 32 were given to the committee. among those supplied more than half differed materially from the tapes. the bpas schedule of important differences between the tapes—that is, those that materially altered the meaning or the context of the transcripts as supplied by the authors—amounted to no fewer than 71 typed pages.\n for example—this was a thread that ran throughout the deception—mrs. litchfield-kentish told the select committee that she was not asked about her menstrual cycle on any occasion. however, in every interview recorded on the tape recordings there is lengthy and detailed investigation of her menstrual history.\n in one particular interview with a mr. pond, whom they visited before she saw her own doctor to confirm that she was not pregnant, despite the book stating that she was confirmed as not pregnant before their investigation started, the true transcript shows six pages of conversation about her pill-taking habits and menstrual pattern, with mr. pond, exasperated, saying you\'re most unlikely to be pregnant". before the book was published the news of the world featured that visit to mr. pond in its series of articles that later became the book. it not only erroneously stated that first she visited her own doctor but had mr. pond saying "you are 16 weeks", whereas the tape clearly has mr. pond saying you are 16 weeks on from your last period. that is something that kentish herself had told him, and which could have been true as it was quite clear from the long private conversation between the authors, which is still on the tape although they did not realise that the tape was working at the time. that conversation took place while mr. pond was out of the room doing the urine test. at that stage they both thought that she really was pregnant and was genuinely seeking an abortion. they were arguing about the cost while mr. pond was outside the room.\n there distorting their own situation, distorting the truth and destroying with a a tissue of lies the reputations of honest charities, doctors and others are the so-called journalists whom the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) described as "virginal and pristine", and who the broadsheet of the festival of light says it has consistently backed in bringing their book to the attention of the christian public", going on to remark its almost unbelievable stories of the abortion racket show the dearth of moral fibre in britain today. indeed they do, but not quite in the way that the festival of light intended.\n there are 71 pages of lies, omissions and variations. it is to be hoped that soon, despite the apology being given before the evidence was out in court, it will be available for all. the dpp has requested the police to have the full tapes transcribed. i hope that they are, and i hope that my hon. friend the minister of state will be able to enlighten the house on this point, for sessional standing orders tell us that the house will proceed with the utmost severity against any person who hath given false evidence before this house or any committee thereof. that should interest my right hon. friend the leader of the house.\n so far this pair have got off scot-free. they have deluded the public and deluded a select committee into producing a report that has resulted in two bills coming before the house, each of which has attacked and sought to destroy the work that the two major abortion charities undertake to make good the lack of nhs provision.\n i hope that my hon. friend, 10 years after the enlightened legislation that the house enacted with the liars publicly exposed and the electorate\'s views on the anti-abortion lobby made clear at garscadden, will be able to get on with the task and that the house will provide the resources for him to do so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1978, 4, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-04-19.19'], ['uk.proc.d.1978-04-19.19.1.5', 1764, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i shall try to deal with the questions affecting my responsibilities as one of the ministers responsible for the administration of the abortion act. first, however, i must remind the house that the government take no collective view on the moral questions of abortion in the belief that individual members should make their own judgments on these matters.\n my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) invited me to remind the house of the measures taken by my department to control the private sector of abortion and to comment on whether i agreed that these measures are effective. it might help if i indicate to the house the range of undertakings which private nursing home proprietors must give my right hon. friend as a condition of his approval under the abortion act.\n briefly, they provide for the maintenance of detailed records, the inspection of premises and records by the department's officers at any time without notice, the giving of receipts to patients and the retention of copies for inspection, the acceptance of fees only after two doctors have certified that the act's criteria are met in each case, the number of patients per 24 hours not to exceed the number of beds approved, and for the examination of patients by a doctor before discharge.\n the nursing home must also undertake not to advertise abroad, either directly or indirectly, employ touts, or to accept patients who have been diverted from their intended destinations or touted for. the proprietors must have no connection with agencies or persons known to advertise abroad, or to tout for or divert patients.\n proprietors must also, in applying for approval, provide the department with detailed information about the business arrangements of the companies and individuals involved in the application, all of which is carefully inquired into by the department's investigators. medical and nursing arrangements, including staffing, equipment, procedures and accommodation, are checked by the department's medical and nursing teams.\n nursing homes which concentrate on abortions have had to satisfy my right hon. friend that the total costs charged to abortion patients treated on their premises are not unreasonable, and must not increase these costs without prior approval. all financial arrangements between nursing homes and doctors, other than payment of fees, and pregnancy advice bureaux must be reported to the department.\n i think that it will also be worth while on this occasion, having dealt with nursing homes, to focus on the arrangements for registration of approved advice bureaux, as this register was established only early last year.\n the background to the register is that, under the abortion act 1967, only places which carry out termination of pregnancy are required to be approved for that purpose by the secretary of state. this means that nursing homes that carry out abortions, in addition to being registered with the local health authority, also have to satisfy the secretary of state that they should be approved for carrying out abortion, whereas the bureaux which advise and refer women for abortion neither require approval under the 1967 act nor need to be registered with the local health authority.\n in the early years, following the implementation of the act, and in the absence of control of any kind, a large number of small referral agencies mushroomed, mainly in london. it was these agencies that saw some of the most blatant abuses of the abortion act and caused public concern—such practices as touting for patients, employing persons to divert patients from their intended destinations, and canvassing abroad for patients. this led the lane committee to recommend that, whilst the existing control over nursing homes appeared to work very satisfactorily, there ought to be a system of licensing pregnancy advice bureaux.\n even while the committee was sitting, my department had adopted a system of blacklisting undesirable agencies. approved nursing homes were warned that if they accepted referrals from such agencies they would risk losing the secretary of state's approval. as a result of the blacklisting of 23 agencies, these abuses were eliminated and most of the people concerned put out of business. in 1975 the then secretary of state accepted a recommendation by the select committee on the abortion (amendment) bill, based on the conclusions of the lane committee, that this form of control should be extended by requiring approved nursing homes to give an assurance that they would accept only patients referred from pregnancy advice bureaux who were on a register approved by the secretary of state. the first register was published on 10th february 1977 and there are now 35 registered bureaux; nine applications have been refused. registration will be reviewed and, as appropriate, renewed on 1st october this year.\n before registration, each bureau is inspected to ensure that the accommodation and facilities for counselling and medical assessment on the premises are of reasonable standard; counsellors are interviewed and counselling notes inspected to assess, as far as it is possible to do so, the standard of counselling to be provided to clients and the business arrangements inquired into to ensure that undesirable persons are not involved and that all is above board.\n in addition, registered bureaux must subscribe to various requirements governing their conduct. amongst other things, these prohibit advertising abroad and association with touts and require the maintenance of proper records, the giving of receipts, and consultation with my department about the methods of advertising in this country. all registered bureaux have received a copy of my department's counselling circular, and they are expected to provide counselling in accordance with its central requirement that women should make up their minds in the light of all the relevant facts about their situation and about the alternatives to abortion which are open to them. the register appears to be working well.\n as with approved nursing homes, all registered bureaux are subject to unannounced visits by my department's inspecting officers. one of these officers is always a doctor, authorised to inspect counselling notes and medical records and to discuss counselling and medical procedures at the bureaux with the counsellors and doctors concerned. the other member of the team, an administrative officer, checks facilities, staffing and accommodation and general records and receipts. a full report is made on every unannounced visit.\n bureaux may also be visited by the department's special investigators, who are ex-police officers, either at random or as part of wider inquiries, and the opportunity is taken to check records—other than patient records—staffing and procedures at the premises. so far it has not been necessary to remove any bureau from the register for failing to comply with the requirements of registration. my right hon. friend, however, will not hesitate to do this, if necessary; nor will he hesitate to take firm measures against any approved nursing home which he finds has acted contrary to assurances given to him. i am of the opinion that the present system of administrative control, including as it does now the registration of pregnancy advice bureaux, is effective in preventing abuse and flexible enough to react quickly to any change in circumstances.\n the second main issue which has been raised with me concerns the effects of the 1967 act over the first 10 years of its operation and, in particular, the extent to which the nhs has provided facilities for abortion. the statistics published regularly by the office of population censuses and surveys show that the number of abortions performed under the act increased steadily up to 1973 when there were 167,149 abortions performed in england and wales of which 110,563 were performed on women resident in england and wales. the number of abortions notified in 1977 was 132,999 of which 102,237 were notified as being performed on resident women. the rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged is to 45 years also increased up to 1974, but decreased after that, and appears to be significantly lower than the rate in countries with similar legislation.\n it is difficult to establish what the long term pattern will be, but, for those of us who lay emphasis on prevention, there are encouraging signs that the free family planning services are helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. a survey of family planning use between 1970 and 1975 published yesterday demonstrates the growing use of more effective birth control methods particularly amongst those groups which previously seemed least inclined to use the family planning services. the most recent figures on births and abortions show that the rate of extramarital conception, measured approximately by adding figures of illegitimacy, pre-nuptial conception and legal abortion amongst the young, is decreasing. for example, the rate of extramarital conceptions per 1,000 women in the age group 16 to 19 fell from 60·4 per 1,000 women in 1972 to 45·8 per 1,000 women in 1976—a fall of 24 per cent. a similar decline occurred in the 20 to 24 year age group. even in the under-16 age group, where the numbers are small but of considerable concern to us, the figures, which showed a rise up to two per 1,000 in 1973, remained steady thereafter.\n on the question of nhs abortion facilities, i fully accept that provision varies considerably among different parts of england, and overall the nhs performs only just over half of all abortions on women resident in england and wales. but we are determined to improve nhs facilities. the letter of guidance which went out with the £50 million announced by my right hon. friend the chancellor in the budget statement last week in fact states that some of the money could be spent on day-care termination facilities.\n as a result of recent activities, i am happy to say that my department has had discussions with two regions about improving abortion facilities—namely, wessex and the west midlands. i have noted that the west midlands regional health authority has accepted its working party's report on abortion facilities in that region, which proposed the provision of day-care facilities for abortion supported by arrangements for counselling. i am sure that my hon. friend will regard that as a considerable advance.\n on the question of the barking case, i understand that papers relating to the incident at barking hospital were referred to the director of public prosecutions, who considered them and con- cluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence.\n my hon. friend also raised the question of the droylesden case. mrs. chester, the lady who made the accusation, refused to be interviewed or to give any further information about the allegation, other than what she had been told about the notice by a staff nurse. the editor—\n ", datetime.datetime(1978, 4, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1978-04-19.19']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.4', 887, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house will recall that in the previous debate i had just risen after the contribution of the hon. member for grantham (mr. hogg). the hon. gentleman succinctly and vigorously put forward the case for the 22-week amendment.\n i said that the house was weary of the debate. it is a joyless subject. i was about to suggest that there must be a well-founded desire to find a solution that is acceptable within a plural society, where compromise is necessary. the house may be aware that that opinion is echoed in other quarters, including, as i observe this morning, by a number of privy councillors.\n unhappily, if, in an attempt to still the controversy, we move on the basis of a 24-week amendment, it is almost inevitable that we shall fail. unlike the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr.steel), privy councillors want to reach a conclusion, as most of us do. the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles has given bad advice for a long time and contributed largely to the problems in which we find ourselves. if the house listened to the right hon. gentleman it would find itself in the position of having to start all over again. the government would then have to be involved. i do not believe that the house should take such advice.\n the controversy has continued for so long that the lobbies have become almost institutionalised. i wonder what many of them will do if we ever reach a solution.\n i believe it has been suggested by privy councillors that the debate has become unseemly. therefore, why do i reluctantly draw back from the compromise of 24 weeks, which i do not believe will still the controversy?\n the house should face two facts that are undisputed except by the most extravagant partisans on both sides of the house. they have both been put forward unequivocally and clearly by the minister. first, the minister has clearly indicated that there is no authenticated case of survival earlier than 24 weeks.\n the instant response, in a desperate attempt to reach a conclusion, is to ask why we cannot settle on that time limit and be done with the wretched controversy. alas, it is not so simple. there is another fact, replete with moral problems, that has to be faced. if we do not face it, far from being done with the cacophony of warring views and preparing the path for further compromise in later parts of the bill we shall almost certainly guarantee further and even more shrill controversy. the awkward fact was frankly brought forward by the minister in committee. his remarks have been referred to but not specifically emphasised on report.\n after the minister expressed his view, he brought forward a letter that he had received from professor reynolds. professor reynolds is the professor of neonatal paediatrics at university college hospital medical school, which is the main centre in this country for dealing with very young infants. he proceeded to read the letter.\n the statistical conclusions have been catalogued to the house and i do not want to repeat them. however, i must say that nobody can read those statistics of how, increasingly over a short period of time, as a result of the dedicated work of all people in that unit, more and more women who cannot carry their children to term are finding that they can have the blessing of parenthood. i emphasise that because there is a mood in some quarters that seeks to devalue and depreciate motherhood to such an extent that certain people seek to prove that life cannot be lived before a certain point. the hopes of so many thousands of women that are concentrated upon the research work of the unit appear to be devalued by assertion after assertion that before a certain time a child cannot be born alive in any circumstances.\n the awkward fact that the house must face is, as the minister saw, the most important fact within the letter. in committee, when reading the letter, the minister said: this is the most important part of his —that is, the professor\'s— letter. i shall read it if the house will bear with me for one paragraph. it says: we occasionally admit babies born at 23 weeks gestation, and while none has yet survived, it is inevitable that one will, sooner or later. then comes the crucial sentence—the one that everyone must face up to if they stand by the 24-week amendment. the letter says: infants born at 23 weeks are, incidentally, sometimes very much alive at birth—whatever you may hear to the contrary!"—[ official report, standing committee c, 21 november 1979; c. 272.] so that is an awkward fact. the fact is that now—not in some prospective future but now, if we pass the 24-week amendment—we are approving the legality of the destruction of a baby who is brought out of the womb very much alive.\n so far, although no 23-week baby has survived for long, the fact is that any 23-week baby can be born alive. if there are hon. members who are prepared to slay 23-week babies—and in moral terms it matters not whether the baby is inside or outside the womb—surely they must be prepared to put forward the most compelling moral imperatives—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.5', 7, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. alexander w. lyon (york) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.6', 12, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not intend to give way to anybody except the minister.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.7', 4, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. lyon rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.8', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.9', 549, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i do not intend to give way; i intend to develop my argument. last week the hon. member for essex south-east (sir b. braine) was so generous in giving way that opponents outside the house said that he unduly prolonged the debate and accused him of filibustering. that occurred because he gave way so many times. i intend to give way to no one except the minister. there will be plenty of opportunity for every hon. member to develop his or her own point of view.\n to the credit of the hon. member for devizes (mr. morrison), who moved the amendment, and most of those who support the 24-week period, faced with this challenge—the fact that they may be slaying a live 23-week baby—they do not simply catalogue the normal reasons given which entitle doctors to carry out abortions under the 1967act. they recognise that that liberal enactment which enabled an abortion to take place in so many circumstances is obviously not sufficient to justify the killing of a live 23-week baby. they had to deal with other arguments. they advanced them in the belief that they were the most compelling arguments.\n let us examine them. will these arguments solve the consciences of hon. members who are seeking to justify the slaying of 23-week old babies? the first argument is that we do not need to be so scrupulous. the minister will have power, by order, to reduce the age limit when it is shown that a child has survived. that contention quite clearly dodges the issue. babies are being born alive at 23 weeks now. they are being destroyed now. after all, that argument justifies reducing the limit only from 24 weeks to 23 weeks.\n on many occasions i have had the professional duty of defending murderers. so far no murderer, however arrogant, has claimed in his defence that the killing was only a slight anticipation of the inevitability of his victim's death. that is the argument that is being put forward here. it is said that a 23-week old child born alive will die anyhow. so shall we all. that is not a very well-founded argument. hon. members will need to have stronger stomachs and more robust consciences than i have to go into the lobby in support of that. also, i wonder whether those hon. members who are considering supporting the 24-week amendment will really want to go into the lobby with those other hon. members who believe in abortion on demand.\n what other moral imperatives are being claimed to justify an amendment that will give immunity for the slaying of a 23-week baby? the hon. member for devizes put his views fluently last week. he said he was concerned about two small groups among the very small numbers seeking late abortion. the group includes the older, more mature woman who, although they are almost six months pregnant, may make the mistake of believing themselves to be menopausal. does that argument carry enough weight to justify the awesome violation of the principle of the sancity of human life being enshrined in our legislation?\n there is a second argument that is more weighty—that is, the hon. member's understandable concern for very young teenagers. there are very small numbers who, out of ignorance or fear, conceal their pregnancies.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.23', 887, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is no doubt that the issue of the upper time limit is central in the minds of the general public. i have had petitions from more than 100,000 people all over britain who support the view that the upper time limit should not be above 20 weeks. i have taken note of the statement issued by a number of right hon. members, a copy of which reached me this morning, but i am not at this stage prepared to compromise as they suggest.\n my original intention on the upper time limit was to change the infant life (preservation) act 1929, which gives us the present 28-weeks limit, but the dhss pointed out that it would cause grave legal problems, because the act does not cover scotland and because of the different legal system in scotland. i therefore withdrew the original clauses and put the present drafting in their place.\n i am well aware that most medical opinion, including that of the british medical association and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, is against 20 weeks but would support 24 weeks, but the two bodies which produced the fiercest opposition to the 1967 act in the first place were the bma and the rcog. at that time their advice was not listened to. that is why we now have the 1967 act, which some of us want to change.\n the one thing that is certain is that opinion polls have shown that the public want the upper time limit to be reduced. the brass tacks poll in june 1979 showed over 65 per cent. of the population in favour of such a change. the sunday times poll, whatever else it said, said that 70 per cent. of the population wanted the upper time limit to be reduced.\n however, i accept that that is not necessarily the feeling in the house. so let us look at the amendments. i hope that the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) will seek to withdraw amendment no. 3. if not, i hope that the house will vote against it, because i do not think that there is any support for 27 weeks.\n amendment no. 2 says "24 weeks or less". i hope that hon. members will listen to the argument and think very seriously before supporting that wording. my hon. friend the minister for health said on second reading: the reasoning behind the desire for change concerns the viability of the foetus. it may be the view of the house that an upper time limit should be set at a point where there is, in all foreseeable circumstances, no prospect of a child being born as a result of procedure for terminating pregnancy. that is probably the view of the house. my hon. friend added: i know of only two authenticated cases in this country of a foetus surviving before 26 weeks. one was at 24 weeks and one was at either 24 weeks or 25 weeks. even at this age a crucial factor is the weight of the child and no child weighing less than 500 grams has been known to survive. nevertheless, if we are honest with ourselves, the possibility must be said to exist. what hon. members will do if they support amendment no. 2 is knowingly to go into the lobby to set an upper time limit at which the minister has categorically stated a foetus has survived. i thought that the whole aim of having an upper time limit was to set it where that would not happen.\n in a letter dated 14 august 1979, dr. paintin told me: my own view is that abortion is intended to destroy the foetus and that legal abortion has not been performed if the foetus is born alive. i repeat that my hon. friend the minister has told us that he knows of one foetus born at 24 weeks. my hon. friend also said on second reading, when he was talking about the 1 per cent. above 20 weeks: the house will realise that within this area, small though it is, some quite serious doubts have been expressed from many quarters. what crosses my mind is that numbers alone are not the total answer. if even one child is wrongly aborted, that is a fault in the law and something that we shall have to consider."—[ official report, 13 july 1979; vol 970, c. 944–6.] my whole argument is that we should not go for an upper time limit where any mistake can be made. to vote for amendment no. 2 would be to vote for a position in some ways no better than the present one. the evidence shows that 24 weeks is too late.\n amendment no. 48, in the names of my hon. friend the member for grantham (mr. hogg) and others, is to insert "22 weeks or less". i listened to my hon. friend last week, and i listened today to the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse). much as i dislike discarding a limit of less than 20 weeks, i hope that the house will accept amendment no. 48, because it does what is required. it gives patients and doctors time. it also allows for mistakes of up to two weeks. there is at present no chance of a foetus surviving at that age.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.27', 772, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'last friday i set out at some length the arguments in favour of an upper limit of 24 weeks, and i do not intend to go over that ground again today, except to quote what the minister said in standing committee.\n first, there are two points that i want especially to make early in the debate. one concerns whether hon. members and the people whom we represent wish the house to reach a decision on the bill. i think that my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) was suggesting that those whom we represent did not want us to reach a decision. i totally disagree; i believe that a decision must be reached. the issue has been under debate for more than 10 years. we have had select committees, representative or otherwise. we have had attempts by hon. members on one side or the other to amend the law, and now we have this bill before us.\n i believe that the people of this country want to see an end to the debate. it arouses enormous passion and deep feeling in those who take either side. i do not despise those who take a point of view quite different from my own. i am sure that the tens of thousands of people who have signed petitions and come to the house to make their representations to hon. members in favour of the "corrie bill" have done so sincerely. i do not believe in the sincerity of some of the propagandists who have supported them, but that is another matter.\n i equally believe that those who oppose any amendment to the 1967 act do so with genuine sincerity. if my hon. friend suggests that in this great debate one side has care for life and the other none, that one side has morality on its side and the other none, that is totally to misrepresent our views and those of our constituents, whatever view we may take.\n i am convinced that it would be a tragedy if the bill were passed in its present form. equally, it would be a tragedy if, because of the lack of time, the issue remained open and undetermined, waiting for the next session of parliament for another private member to introduce another bill and for us to have another year of debate on it. the people of this country, especially the women, believe that parliament should fulfil its duty and that we should take a decision.\n i support very strongly the views expressed in the letter which has been circulated by five right hon. members of the house. i have been ill for the last two days, but if i had had the opportunity to see the letter in advance it would have been signed by six right hon. members. what is more, there are many more right hon. members who would have done the same if they had had the opportunity.\n some right hon. and hon. members have not seen the letter, and people outside the house are not aware of its contents. for that reason, this short state- ment should be put on the record. i repeat my support for it. it reads: we believe that a wide agreement now exists in the house for a reduction of the time limit to twenty-four weeks. i believe that to be true. it is true of many of those who felt that the 1967 act required amendment to that extent. many right hon. and hon. members who initially supported 20 weeks feel that the minister used all the right arguments, as did the medical profession.\n the letter continues: we know that this will not be totally acceptable to all people"— nothing that this house has ever passed has been totally acceptable to all people— on both sides of the argument. nevertheless bearing in mind that the government constantly keeps the working of the existing abortion law under review, we would ask them to support this"— that is, 24 weeks— as a compromise in the best interests of the country and, indeed, the house itself. we would hope in return that the sponsors would be willing to withdraw the other sections of the bill. we would urge all sides to accept this as a proper and reasonable solution to what could become a protracted, perhaps unseemly, certainly bitter, conflict. we ask that serious consideration be given to this appeal by all sides of the house and on all sides of the argument. unfortunately, i have forgotten the constituencies of most of the right hon. members who signed that letter, and i dare not mention their names.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.28', 7, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. william hamilton (fife, central) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.29', 14, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall gladly give way to my hon. friend if he can assist me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.30', 62, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that i have them right. they are my right hon. friend the member for middlesbrough (mr. bottomley), the right hon. member for taunton (mr. du cann), the right hon. member for orkney and shetland (mr. grimond), my right hon. friend the member for sheffield, park (mr. mulley) and the right hon. and learned member for hertfordshire, east (sir d. walker-smith).\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.31', 727, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am extremely grateful to my hon. friend for his intervention. as i say, i am certain that we could add to those names, with a very large number of other right hon. and hon. members signing the letter if they had had the opportunity to do so. what is more, i suspect that if members of her majesty\'s government were able to sign declarations such as this, many right hon. and hon. members on the treasury bench would wish to be associated with it, as i, as a former secretary of state, associate myself with it.\n several important statements are made in the letter. it points out that the government constantly keep the working of the existing abortion law under review. when the issue was debated two or three years ago, i and my right hon. friend the then minister of state took the opportunity to show how the labour government had sought to keep it under review. the present minister, both in standing committee and in these debates, has shown again that the government are alive to these issues and are keeping them under review.\n on the subject of 24 weeks, i need not quote too many of the minister\'s statements when he dealt with the upper limit on 7 november 1979. in the course of his most outstanding statement, he said that the medical advice which he had received was unanimously in favour of 24 weeks. he said that it had been put to him—and this answers one of the arguments of my hon. friend the member for pontypool— that if 20 weeks were the limit, many doctors would in practice try to work to 17 or 18 weeks. that would, of course, create great problems. whatever my hon. friend the member for pontypool may say, i am sure that that is right. the thought that somehow or other doctors might get away with it if challenged in the courts is not one that most doctors would tolerate. most doctors are determined to live within the law, and they will not take risks. there would be grave risks, and they were pointed out by the minister. he made clear in many of his interventions in committee the consultation that he had had. he said: the medical bodies, particularly the bma, were opposed to any change in the 1967 act on the ground that it was working reasonably well."—[ official report, standing committee c, 7 november 1979; c. 173–4] but they, too, are prepared to accept 24 weeks. i believe that it is a genuine compromise which would be accepted as fulfilling the wishes of right hon. and hon. members on both sides of this argument.\n i was disappointed to hear the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) say that he had just seen the letter and did not think that the suggestion was appropriate. this is a major initiative. if it is not, i hope that around the right hon. members who signed the statement there will be created a major initiative. if we are able to get a major change in what many have felt to be a weakness in the 1967 act—and i would vote for 24 weeks—it will reflect what has occurred since 1967. the bill\'s sponsors will be very unwise if they do not see that they will gain a victory for themselves and the view that they hold if we can get acceptance just on this.\n it has been said by many right hon. and hon. members that if the bill had stuck to just this issue it would have been through by now and we would not this morning have been discussing it. instead, we would have been discussing another private member\'s bill which has been held up by these debates.\n i plead with the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire to consider this initiative, to see it as a victory and, in return, to withdraw other parts of the bill. i assure him that those of us who disagree with the rest of his bill will fight vigorously, genuinely and sincerely not in an attempt to filibuster or to hold up the processes of the house but simply because we think that the proposals are wrong. i hope that the hon. gentleman and his sponsors will give serious thought to accepting this compromise.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.34', 276, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'lucky scotland.\n the solicitor-general for scotland: that has always been the law, and since 1967 there has been no complaint of its operation in scotland. when my hon. friend the member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) said that public opinion polls showed a wish to reduce the time limit during which the carrying out of abortion was legitimate in the country, he may unintentionally have misled the house. in scotland, there cannot be any poll of persons who wish to reduce that limit, since there is not in law, and never has been in law, any time limit.\n the law is clearer. i think that it will appeal to the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse), because the destruction of a living foetus ex utero at any stage, be it four weeks or 40 weeks, is homicide. the destruction of a foetus in utero, at any stage, is not a crime if done for medical reasons. the compromise proposed to the house would introduce into the law of scotland a fundamental control and, in my belief, a fundamental change which, in principle, goes against the law of scotland on this matter as it has always been—oddly enough, without complaint, before the 1967 act and after it. the reason why there has been no complaint since 1967 is probably that nobody knows, or very few people know, that this is the law of scotland. even the sponsor of the bill has apparently been uninformed of the fact that this is the law of scotland.\n i therefore ask the house to consider carefully before putting on a time limit that would make error a criminal offence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.35', 4, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. ennals rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.36', 74, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way in a moment.\n if, de facto, a doctor aborted a foetus in the twenty-fifth week, it would be no defence, as i think the hon. member for pontypool suggested, to say that he had done so in good faith. it might be a mitigating factor in the question of penalty, but it would be no defence to the crime, because the period is absolute and is a matter of fact.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.37', 4, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. abse rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.38', 37, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way in a moment.\n it is a bad principle of law to make, at best, what can only be an informed guess or estimate into the basis for the commission of a criminal offence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.39', 125, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house is grateful to the hon. and learned gentleman for explaining the differences between scottish and english law. i may be forgiven as an english member for not knowing that distinction. i am in a different position, perhaps, from the sponsor of the bill, but the situation need present no problem in the compromise that i have argued. there are later amendments which, if not framed properly, could be so framed as to exclude scotland and leave the law in scotland as it is. it could be a law that applies elsewhere but not in scotland. i presume that the hon. and learned gentleman is not using as an argument that an issue in england should not be settled on the basis already suggested.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.40', 112, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am obliged to the right hon. gentleman, but i am anxious to save scotland from the english and the english from themselves. it is important to understand that the compromise would make a fundamental change and turn a mistake into a crime. it is for that reason that the law of scotland before the 1967 act was the common law. an abortion was a medical operation carried out with the same information and for the same reason and with the same care and skill as any other medical operation. that was the criterion. it gave rise to no difficulty. it contradicted no principle and it aroused no complaint from any quarter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.41', 191, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it has been suggested that an error in the calculation of the weeks would amount to a criminal offence. i do not know the law of scotland, but the law, as it has been presented, would operate if it were 24 weeks or 22 weeks. if the bill were amended to 22 or 24 weeks and if doctors carried out an abortion in good faith, the error committed would not be a criminal offence.\n section 1(1) of the abortion act 1967 says: if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith". the amendment would include that the pregnancy had lasted for 24 or 22 weeks, followed by the exemption.\n i therefore challenge the suggestion that an error could mean a criminal offence. whatever compromise may be reached—24 weeks or 22 weeks—it would not make a criminal offence if doctors acted in error in good faith. i put it to the hon. and learned gentleman that what he puts forward is a view that he does not want any change in scotland, but he should not mislead the house into thinking that a criminal offence is taking place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.42', 103, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has convinced me that it would perhaps be best to restrict the matter to wales. i must, however, urge upon the house that the law of scotland was changed by the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) because he had just been elected for a scottish seat, when it was the law of england whose two statutes had caused the difficulty that required the amendment of the law. our law rested well then, and it is still different now. to introduce a limit would be a fundamental change in the principle of the law of scotland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.43', 73, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. and learned gentleman recognise that under the law of england to kill a viable foetus born alive is an offence, at whatever time the foetus is born? therefore, the suggestion in the disgraceful speech of my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) is wrong, because to kill a foetus at any time when it is born and capable of living would also be an offence in english law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.44', 67, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am obliged to the hon. gentleman. i had presumed that to kill a child ex utero or partly ex utero, at whatever stage of development, was homicide in england. it certainly is in scotland. in scotland it is not an offence to terminate a pregnancy at any stage for good medical reasons. that is a principle of law which i should not like to see breached.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.45', 590, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the whole house—particularly scottish members—is grateful for the intervention of the solicitor-general for scotland. his personal views on these matters are well known. he is to be complimented on the vehemence with which he expressed them when he was not a minister, and he never sought to hide those views even after he achieved ministerial office. i hope that in due course he will address the house again, because there are later amendments which seek to exclude scotland from certain provisions in the bill for precisely the reasons that he enunciated.\n i turn now to the main proposition before the house—the amendments relating to time limits of 20 weeks, 22 weeks, 24 weeks and 27 weeks. selective quotations have been produced by hon. members on either side of the argument to support their cause. i do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) about the view that he holds, but i object to the arrogant presumption that those who do not take his view are inhumane, immoral or even murderers. that word is constantly hurled at people such as myself who take a different view from those who support the "corrie bill" and those who, in effect, have supported successive attempts to repeal the 1967 act. that is what all these bills have been about, ever since the 1967 act was passed.\n my hon. friend the member for pontypool asserted, i think rightly, that the house probably wants to come to a conclusion. that is right on this occasion. but even if we accept the compromise that has been suggested in the all-party letter from the five privy councillors which has been published today, the problem will not go away. anyone who thinks that had better think again.\n the opponents of the 1967 act want to destroy it by salami tactics—slice by slice. if a time limit of 24 weeks is agreed to, they will then turn their attention to the charities, the criteria and every other conceivable thing until they obtain their objective. there is abundant evidence to suggest that that would be contrary to the broad feeling of public opinion. whenever there has been a public opinion poll on these matters, it is undeniable that it has shown that the public as a whole want to see the 1967 act amended in some ways but retained on the statute book, because it has given a large measure of happiness and relief to many families and women.\n the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) has suggested a compromise of 22 weeks. that is not good enough, and i think that the house realises that it is not good enough. as the minister said during our debates in committee, 22 weeks would be the worst of all worlds. i now turn to the evidence in favour of 24 weeks. as i have said before, i am a layman in these matters and i must take evidence from whatever quarter i can get it. i must weigh it up as best i can and then make my decision. i believe that the evidence in support of 24 weeks far outweighs the evidence for either 22 weeks or for any other period. parliament would be highly irresponsible if it did not take account of the weight and quality of the evidence in favour of the 24-week limit, including the royal colleges and the professors of gynaecology in scotland. they are almost unanimously in favour of this kind of compromise.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.47', 7, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir bernard braine (essex, south-east) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.48', 740, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way. i hope that in due course the hon. gentleman will be capable of a very long speech. the lane committee, the royal colleges, the department of health and social security, the scottish office, the british medical association and a host of other important, knowledgeable and authoritative organisations have all come down in favour of 24 weeks.\n the minister himself is on record as saying that the medical advice that he had received was unanimously in favour of 24 weeks".—[ official report, standing committee c, 7 november 1979; c. 174–75.] according to an answer that i received from the scottish office, most of the medical and nursing bodies…were opposed to…an upper time-limit for abortion of 20 weeks…and six bodies expressed support for a time limit of 24 weeks."—[ official report, 30 january 1980; vol. 977, c. 677. ] only one of 13 bodies which have made representations to the scottish office during the last six months expressed support for 20 weeks.\n despite the minister\'s statement that the earliest authenticated case of survival…is at 24 weeks"—[ official report standing committee c, 7 november 1979; c. 173.), several sensational stories appeared in the press where the foetus was alleged to have lived before 24 weeks, and there have been cases of premature birth when similar allegations have been made of survival before 24 weeks. six such allegations were made between july 1978 and november 1979. i want to put them on record in a fairly brief comment. the first was the wanstead case, where the abortion took place in july 1978, although it did not hit the headlines until 25 march 1979. allegations were made in the press that the gestation period was 20 weeks and that the foetus was live. the subsequent investigation of the area health authority showed that it was a 19-week gestation and that there was no possibility of independent life.\n the second was the whiston hospital case, about which i think one of the hon. members from manchester made representations to the minister. there the abortion took place on 4 january 1979, and it hit the headlines about three or four months later, on 20 april 1979. the allegation was that the foetus was of 22 weeks\' gestation and that it struggled for life for two hours. investigation revealed that the weight of the foetus was 300 grammes and that the gestation age was 18–19 weeks. the minister said that there was no basis for the allegation.\n we then had the barnsley case, on 26 april 1979. the allegation there was that the foetus was of 23 weeks\' gestation, that it had lived for 36 to 38 hours and that it had been left unattended for three and a half hours to five hours. subsequent investigation showed that the foetus was not of 23 but of 26 weeks\' gestation and that the cause of death was immaturity. the consultant pathologist at the home office said that permanent survival was not possible.\n the fourth case occurred in glasgow in october 1979, when the abortion was at 24 weeks. the allegation was that the foetus was born live. professor macnaughton, who was in charge of the case and of the subsequent inquiry, proved that the foetus was not viable and that there had been strong support for the operation from the mother and the general practitioner.\n the next case was at chertsey, where the child was born prematurely on 11 october 1979. there was some dispute over the age and weight of the foetus. mr. norris, the consultant gynaecologist, alleged that the gestation age of the foetus was 23 weeks. it was estimated at university college hospital, to which the child had been transferred, that the period was not 23 weeks, but 24 to 26 weeks. this miracle baby, so described by mr. norris, unfortunately died after a five-week struggle.\n the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram) quoted a united states case, reported in the daily mail of 6 november 1979. it concerned a child with a gestation age of 23 weeks on united states calculations. by united kingdom measurements the period was 25 weeks.\n allegations that survival is possible and has occurred before 24 weeks and even at 20 weeks have been repeated.\n i quote a letter sent by the hon. member for lancaster (mrs. kellett-bowman) to her constituents some time ago. i gave her notice that i would raise this today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.49', 6, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. elaine kellett-bowman (lancaster) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.50', 10, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way after i have quoted the letter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.51', 5, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have not received notice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.52', 21, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i sent notice to the hon. lady yesterday and i also saw her in the house after i had sent it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.53', 5, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i did not get it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.54', 175, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the letter was in the post yesterday and the hon. lady was around long after it had been delivered. i saw her. i quote the letter: it is also to prevent the killing of fully-formed children"— the letter is dealing with the bill— who are perfectly capable of sustaining life on their own apart from their mothers. at present it is possible to obtain the legal abortion of a baby of 28 weeks which in fact is capable of living on its own for the past eight weeks and indeed"— this is the relevant part of the letter which the hon. lady sent to her constituents— a large number of aborted foetuses of 20 weeks have been revived and are now alive. the hon. lady is either ignorant or she is something else. i would be using unparliamentary language if i were to describe that "something else". the hon. lady is responsible for what she sends out. there is no case in the world—let alone in this country—where a foetus of 20 weeks has survived.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.55', 155, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'thehon. member for fife, central (mr. hamilton) says that he gave me notice. i did not receive it. he has not given me notice. i have had my post and his letter is certainly not in it, otherwise i would have it with me.\n we should pay considerable attention to the letter of professor reynolds, referred to by the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse), in which he said: we occasionally admit babies born at 23 weeks and although in fact they have not survived yet, one will sooner or later. foetuses born at 23 weeks are sometimes very much alive. we should also pay attention to the evidence given by the minister himself when he said on 7 november that it was extremely important that there should be a sliding clause because medical progress was advancing all the time and babies who cannot now survive will be able to do so as techniques improve.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.56', 6, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. an intervention must be brief.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.57', 5, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with great respect, once having—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.58', 1, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.59', 214, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. member for lancaster has discredited her case. not even professor reynolds talks about a foetus being born live and thriving at 20 weeks. the hon. lady has sent out that letter to innocent constituents, saying that foetuses of 20 weeks have survived and are still thriving. it is a lie, and i leave it at that.\n i was coming to the letter from professor reynolds, which was quoted by the minister in committee. i make no complaint about professor reynolds's qualifications or his integrity. why should i? he is a well-known and eminent expert in this field. the letter has been quoted at length, and if the hon. member for lancaster had been here last week she would have heard it quoted then. there is no need for us to put it on the record three or four times, but professor reynolds said: none has yet survived at 23 weeks though some infants born at 23 weeks are sometimes very much alive at birth. that is one view in one letter. the professor then came down in favour of 22 weeks. why does my hon. fend the member for pontypool assume that because one professor has expressed that view the whole of the medical profession ought to fall into line with him?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.60', 40, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'not only is it impossible for a 23-week foetus to survive, but professor reynolds admits that there are only two survivors at 24 to 26 weeks. one is severely mentally retarded and the other suffers from a loss of hearing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.61', 5, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the kind of selective quoting—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.62', 7, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. renée short (wolverhampton, north-east) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.63', 17, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i cannot give way. i really must get on. i have quite a lot to say.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.64', 62, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "we ought to settle this question of professor reynolds's view. his view was quoted last week and has been used and misused today. i should like to read a brief note which i have received from professor reynolds: i would still gladly settle for 24 weeks provided the rest of the bill was thrown out. that indicates professor reynolds's view very clearly.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.65', 11, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad that i allowed my hon. friend to intervene.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.66', 51, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall try to be helpful. if my hon. friend checks very carefully the letter from professor reynolds that was read to the committee, he will see that it points out that the rate of survival at 24 to 26 weeks of premature babies in his unit is 50 per cent.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.67', 122, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it does not say that.\n i want to refer to the evidence on the other side. i have in my possession a horrific piece of glossy, coloured propaganda which is sent to every hon. member whenever there is an abortion bill. every time an abortion bill is introduced this damned brochure is sent out. it was produced in cincinnati, ohio in 1971 and has never been amended. it is translated into many languages, including chinese. if an abortion bill is introduced in china, chinese members of parliament will receive this propaganda. the brochure is a comedy of errors. it is designed to horrify and disgust rather than to inform. it is counter-productive. when hon. members receive it, they should screw it up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.69', 18, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'to what does my hon. friend object in that publication? does he object to the pictures of children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.70', 364, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the pictures are fake. some of them are blown up four times. none of the pictures are identified. no place or time is mentioned. none relate to the british situation. some of the pictures relate to unnamed american and canadian hospitals. when the doctor in whose book the pictures appear was asked to identify the hospitals, he was unable to do so. the brochure is a tissue of lies. it is issued on behalf of the life organisation each time we debate abortion.\n it is important to put that on the record because there is increasing evidence in the house that such vile, lying propaganda is counter-productive. is it not safer to frame our legislation on more scientific and authoritative evidence than that? dr. pembrey, the senior lecturer at the insttute of child health, who wrote to the minister on 23 november 1979, disputed professor reynolds's views. he said: before 24 weeks there is no evidence to support the view that improvements in neonatal intensive care will make such foetuses independently viable. to clinch the argument, the letter which appeared in the lancet and which was quoted by my right hon. friend the member for norwich, north (mr. ennals) last week was signed by about 70 of the most eminent doctors, surgeons and professors of obstetrics and gynaecology in the world. those who signed that letter included sir george godber, the former chief medical officer at the department of health and social security, sir richard doll, professor of medicine at oxford university, dame josephine barnes, president of the bma, the presidents of the royal college of physicians and the royal college of surgeons, gps, psychiatrists, pathologists and the presidents of the medical and surgical colleges in scotland. what more evidence could the house have to condemn the bill, the 22 weeks and all that goes with it?\n if i have to listen to advice, i am more than slightly inclined to accept guidance from eminent, world-famous doctors, surgeons, and professors than the advice and guidance of a vociferous tribe of celibate priests and nuns and a simple scottish fanner. that is how i must weigh the evidence. i prefer the surgeons and the professors.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.71', 358, 'uk.m.17442', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am a layman, with no ethical or medical qualifications. i was much influenced by last friday's debate, particularly by the speech by the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel). i am attracted by the compromise solution of 24 weeks that has been advocated from all parts of the house. i support amendment no. 2.\n i wish to remind the house briefly of some of the reasons why we may regret moving away from the present 28 weeks limit. my ideal solution is to leave the act exactly as it is. i say that because a reduction in the time limit must increase the chances that the most vulnerable groups will not obtain legal abortions when they need them most. women, young and not so young, will be faced with the invidious choice of having an unwanted child or an illegal and possibly dangerous abortion.\n it is said that only 1 per cent. of women having legal abortions in 1976 were involved. however, the supporters of the bill have made great play that even if one child is murdered—as they put it—that is unacceptable. i make equal play of the existence of a number of women who need the protection of the law.\n a departure from 28 weeks means that there will be an additional bias against some of the women who are likely to need legal abortions most. the tendency of the amendment bills over the years has been to chip away at a fairly sound and widely accepted act. as a layman, i am dubious about the moral arguments that are thrown around. there can be no conclusive moral argument attached to one time limit or another. it cannot be more or less ethical to destroy a foetus at 28 weeks than at 24 or 22 weeks. not even the most cunning theologian could convince me that the soul is present at between 20 and 28 weeks after conception but not at under 20 weeks. the argument about souls and ethics is casuistry. it is worthy of the medieval debates between theologians hundreds of years ago, which we should have left behind.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.72', 56, 'uk.m.18416', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend the member for carshalton (mr. forman) seems to assume that the whole question relies on the mother who is bearing the baby and that that is the end of the story. what about the doctors and nurses who may find that they are party to a murder? is not that a moral issue?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.73', 162, 'uk.m.17442', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that matter will be dealt with when we discuss conscience clauses. i accept that there is a problem for some doctors and nurses. however, i understand that they are allowed to contract out of such work on conscience grounds.\n in my humble opinion as a layman, the only sensible definition of the beginning of human life is at the moment of normal birth at the end of a normal, healthy pregnancy. that is the way that we, as practical people, should look at the issue. there is a strong argument for leaving the act as it is.\n in the present circumstances there is obviously a need for some sort of judicious compromise on 24 weeks. that has commanded the widespread support of many hon. members on both sides of the house and, what is more important, the almost unanimous medical support of those qualified to pronounce on the matter. i urge all right hon. and hon. members to support amendment no. 2.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.74', 467, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am glad to speak after the hon. member for carshalton (mr. forman) because my attitude to the amendments before us, though not identical to his, follows very closely his argument.\n i do not like the clause as it is, and i do not like any of the amendments that have been grouped together for discussion. they impose a limitation on legal abortion. the worry that looms largest in my mind is that the more that legal abortions are limited, the greater will be the increase in illegal abortions. that is the central factor in the argument that has influenced me most in all the time that i have spent studying the subject and right through the long stage of standing committee.\n if there is an imperative—to steal a word from my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse)—that rests upon us, it is to do everything that we can to reduce the incidence of illegal abortion and, if it can be achieved, to eliminate it altogether.\n illegal abortion is a problem more in deprived areas with low average income standards, bad housing and social deprivation than in other parts of the country. i have seen all that horrible back-street abortion business at first hand. i was brought up in the slum area of a naval dockyard port and lived for long periods in east london, including parts of what is now my constituency, though i did not imagine that it would ever be so.\n i lived in bow almost half a century ago. within a stone's throw of my home there were four back-street abortionists of whom i knew. everybody knew of them. i have no doubt that there may have been more of whom i did not know. there was one doctor in the area, a few yards east of mile end station. he was a lovely old chap. he struggled manfully with what must have been one of the most difficult practices anywhere in the country. he told me that between one-fifth and one-quarter of his work was taken up with cleaning up the septic and other after-effects of either pathetic failed attempts at self-abortion—the knitting needle and the gin bottle—or the back-street abortions.\n that was a long time ago. we must consider the up-to-date evidence. there have been many polls on the matter, and the one to which we ought to pay the most attention is that taken recently by the magazine woman's own among women of child-bearing age. after all, they are the subject of the legislation that we are discussing. they will have to make the decisions. it is no good my hon. friend the member for pontypool talking about a moral imperative unless what he is saying is accepted as an imperative by those who will make the decision.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.80', 131, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend said that richer women were not affected and have not been affected. he added that they will not be affected if, unfortunately, the bill is enacted. i draw his attention to a paper published a few years ago by professor lafitte. i took the opportunity of telephoning the professor on tuesday. i asked him whether there had been any change since he published his paper four years ago. the professor stated that middle-class and better educated women, married or single, tend to get earlier attention than women in the semi-skilled and unskilled classes and receive proper treatment. he contended that the delay generated in the service is longer at every stage and affects a larger proportion of patients the lower their social class and the poorer their education.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.81', 977, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the professor is right. i have great regard for his knowledge and experience, but i do not need his evidence. if we live in working-class areas, we know what happens.\n only last wednesday i received a letter from more than 100 gps who practise in the very areas where these issues will become a problem, namely, tower ham- lets and hackney. it is a short letter, and i hope that the house will bear with me if i read an extract from it. the letter states: we are all general practitioners from the health districts of hackney and tower hamlets. from the time that some of us began in practice here in the 1930s up until the abortion act became effective, we have seen the misery, ill-health and life threatening effects of back-street abortion. we all feel that the effect of the 1967 act has been a positive one, and our patients and their families have benefited from this legislation. the changes proposed by mr. corrie could be a retrograde step, and if the tower hamlets day care abortion service were forced to close the women of this community would lose an important medical facility. the women of hackney have the agreement of the area health authority to extend the service to their area, but if this bill is passed their needs may never be met. we urge all mps who voted for mr. corrie\'s bill on second reading to reconsider this in the light of the weight of medical opinion against the bill. those whose constituencies do not share the problems of poverty, unemployment and sickness faced in the east end of london we ask to imagine what the effects of restricting access to abortion would be for the poorest women in this country.\' those are not my words. the letter was not solicited. it came to me as a bolt from the blue. general practitioners are busy chaps. they are not great lobbyists. they do not have much time to be lobbyists. the fact that they wrote such a letter indicates the strength of their feeling.\n i have heard only one argument used against the proposition that more restrictions on legal abortions will mean more back-street abortions. that argument appeared in a letter sent to me from a clergyman in my constituency. it is one of the few letters that i have had from constituents in support of the bill. this worthy and reverend gentleman wrote to me to say, in effect, "i do not understand, mr. mikardo, why you argue that if we restrict legal abortions we shall increase illegal back-street abortions. they have recently toughened up the law on abortion in czechoslovakia, bulgaria and poland, and there has not been any increase in back-street abortions in those countries."\n has the house ever heard anything more naive than that? can any hon. member imagine any piece of biased propaganda being more biased than that? it is suggested that we can stop back- street abortion. it is argued that we should do what they do in czechoslovakia, bulgaria and poland. in effect, it is being said "let us have informers in all women\'s organisations, informers in every place where women work, plenty of secret police, draconian penalties and courts that are not instruments of justice but instruments of the state."\n we are not going to do that, are we? we shall not do that by any means, because none of us wants that. outside the draconian approach that i have described, we shall not arrive at a situation in which restrictions on legal abortions do not mean an expansion of illegal abortions. that is my first reason for being unhappy about the amendments. secondly, i agree with the british medical association about the necessity to leave this difficult decision to the unfettered judgment of doctors. doctors are mortal, fallible human beings like the rest of us. they can make mistakes. that is why we have always insisted that there should be the check of a second doctor. however, the doctor is surely in a position to know the particular case and to take into account, in making his judgment, all the factors in the case, including the gestational age of the foetus.\n the doctor will know the woman. he will know her well. he will know her physical shape and her attitudes. he will know the likely effects on her physically and mentally of a termination and the likely effects on her physically and mentally of carrying through to a normal ending of the pregnancy. thanks to splendid technical advances, doctors know a great deal about the foetus. they know its age within quite narrow limits. they know its weight and they know which way it is lying. they know many things about it. they are able to take into account all those factors and all that knowledge in making their judgment.\n why should we say "we give you liberty to make your judgment, but we shall place one numerical limitation upon your judgment"? we are saying to doctors "you are skilled. you have studied. you know your trade. please exercise your judgment. however, on this piece of arithmetic you are not allowed to exercise it." that is like saying to the hanging committee of the royal academy that selects pictures to be hung at the summer exhibition "you are great artists. you are great connoisseurs of art. you are fully competent to decide which are the best pictures and which pictures should be exhibited. you must exercise your judgment and make your own decision. however, you will not exhibit any picture if it is less than 3ft long and 2 ft wide." that would be silly.\n if we are relying on experts to make a judgment, it is silly to place an arithmetical barrier in the way of the free exercise of their judgment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.82', 7, 'uk.m.16616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. vivien bendall (ilford, north) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.83', 94, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the supporters of the bill quoted cases ad nauseam in committee. it is true that there are a few doctors who are not all that they should be, but there are a few butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, and members of parliament, who are not all that they should be. as i said earlier, doctors are fallible and mortal and they make mistakes. some have made mistakes and instances of those mistakes have been quoted by several hon. members. likewise, architects, accountants and members of parliament make errors of judgment from time to time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.85', 4, 'uk.m.16616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. bendall rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.86', 87, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way to the hon. gentleman in a moment. if we had listened to the supporters of the bill alone, without any other knowledge or considerations, we would have come to the conclusion that our doctors are a pretty bad lot. i agree that there are exceptions everywhere, but i do not share the view that doctors as a whole are not to be trusted to make fair judgments. any judgment that they make must be on the basis of more evidence than anybody else.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.87', 58, 'uk.m.16616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman said that the best judge was the doctor, because he had seen the woman. is the hon. gentleman aware that the green form filled in by doctors to allow an abortion contains the question "have you or have you not seen the patient?" more often than not, the second doctor has never seen the patient.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.88', 7, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'how does the hon. gentleman know that?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.89', 68, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall gladly withdraw what i said if the hon. member for ilford, north (mr. bendall) produces validated statistics indicating the percentage of doctors who have signed without seeing the patient. it amazes me how ready are some adult men to carry on with the childish habit of assuming that what they want to be the case is the case. it is pure wish fulfilment on their part.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.90', 49, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the second doctor had not seen the patient but certified that he had, he would not be certifying in good faith. therefore, that would not be covered by the abortion act and he would be guilty prima facie of an offence under the infant life (preservation) act 1929.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.91', 96, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend. he has put the point clearly—he understands these things better than i do. i reacted hastily to the intervention of the hon. member for ilford, north because he said something as a fact which he cannot conceivably know unless he has taken all the green forms and asked every doctor whether or not he has seen the patient. he said that "most" of them had never seen the patient. his standard of credibility seems to be on a par with that of the hon. member for lancaster (mrs. kellett-bowman).\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.92', 25, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend aware that the green form has been changed? in effect, a doctor has to certify that he has seen the patient.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.93', 526, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was not aware. that seems to be the final nail in the coffin of the hon. member for ilford, north.\n i should like to refer once more to the problem of the teenage girls—unhappily, these days, not too far on in teenage—who become pregnant. i have seen many of these cases at first hand and i know how distressing they are. i speak as one who has brought up two lovely daughters, both of whom are now married with lovely families. i am distressed to hear of these awful cases of young girls who either cohabit with a man or have a continuing sexual relationship. sometimes the relationship is with men of about their own age, but not infrequently it is with men much older than themselves. the minute that a girl becomes pregnant, the man disappears—he skives off. the girls are then left in a terrible state. the man whom they thought of as a prop has suddenly gone when he is most needed.\n with my own eyes, i have seen kids who said "of course, i would not tell my parents—my dad would have beaten the living dayights out of me and chucked me out of the house." one case that i know of involved a girl from northern ireland who was working in the north of england. she came into this difficulty and she told me that her parents would never let her in if she went back home. such girls are scared to tell their parents. when they finally pluck up the courage to tell their parents it is often so late that inevitably, if there is an abortion, it is a late one. research would probably discover that the incidence of late abortions among teenagers is higher than the average.\n i suppose that every hon. member who has or has had children would like to feel—as i felt when my girls were teenagers—that if they got into difficulty the first person they would come to would be their mother, and the second person would be their dad. manifestly, that is not universally true throughout the community. i am terribly worried about these young girls.\n i should prefer to have no limit on abortions, but one thing that has become clear in the debate is that there is no case for a figure below 24 weeks. it has become clear that the minister was right to say that 22 weeks is the worst of all possible worlds. my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) quoted from the letter that she received from professor reynolds. that eminent gentleman should have the last word on the matter. he has been quoted by supporters of the bill in order to establish a case for a limit of less than 24 weeks, yet professor reynolds has said in almost identical words to those used by five hon. members yesterday "i should be happy with 24 weeks." as the five hon. members said, professor reynolds added that he would also be happy to see the rest of the bill being dropped. if anyone doubted the case for something not less than 24 weeks—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.94', 4, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. corrie rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.95', 25, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am right at the end of my speech—i am sorry, i did not appreciate that it was the hon. gentlman. i gladly give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.96', 30, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman accept that we cannot simply have a period of 24 weeks, but that there must be a clause giving exceptions if there is a cut-off point?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.97', 131, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course, whatever figure is arrived at there have to be exceptions. there is no doubt about that. one reason why i should prefer to have no figure at all is that the doctors would be able to deal with exceptions much more easily. they would not have to fight to establish the exceptions, but they could use their judgment more freely. however, the hon. gentleman is quite right in what he says.\n anybody who has argued the case for a period of less than 24 weeks—above all, anybody who has quoted professor reynolds in support of that argument—should be finally convinced by what that eminent gentleman wrote to my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east that there is no conceivable case for a period of less than 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.98', 397, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'we have had a long and constructive debate. i do not propose to go over the information points that i gave to the committee. i simply wish to put some points to the house.\n first, if we are to avoid children being killed at an age when they might be able to lead an independent existence—from the speeches that we have heard, i believe that that is the widespread view in the house—clearly the upper time limit must be 24 weeks or less.\n secondly, in practice doctors work to two weeks below the legal limit. there- fore, 20 weeks become 18 or even 17 weeks, 22 weeks become 20 weeks, 24 weeks become 22 weeks, 26 weeks become 24 weeks, and so on. they do that partly out of professional caution to be on the right side of the law, partly because dates of conception frequently have an error of about two weeks and partly because at these stages in foetal development the exact age of the foetus, even with the most up-to-date and modern ultra sound and other investigation techniques, cannot be estimated within two weeks. there is an error of one week either way on the date.\n thirdly, a great deal happens between 17 and 24 weeks. all the major investigations for foetal abnormality take place during that period and, as several hon. members have pointed out, the tests often have to be repeated and that takes a little extra time.\n there are also the tragic personal difficulties for young girls who have been too frightened or confused to seek advice earlier and older women who believe that they are menopausal rather than pregnant.\n the point is that the medical profession believes that it should have the maximum freedom of discretion over what action to take in the period between 18 and 24 weeks. doctors see that as an important aspect of dealing properly with individual patients on a personal basis.\n fourthly, the professional groups concerned—i went to great pains last year to inquire of all the recognised professional groups—were overwhelmingly in favour of not having a change in the abortion act. incidentally, the bma and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists recently reaffirmed that opinion. the professional groups also overwhelmingly said that, if there were to be a change, their advice was that the upper time limit should be changed to 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.99', 6, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.100', 35, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'no. we have had a long debate and i sense that it is the wish of the house to come to a conclusion on this matter.\n i come now to my fifth and final point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.101', 6, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.102', 10, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. my hon. friend would not give way to me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.103', 72, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i should like to return briefly to the aspect of viability. there has been no authenticated case below 24 weeks. various parents have asked me not to go into further details about their children who died. i assure the house that no case below 24 weeks has survived. therefore, it would be logical to go for 24 weeks, bearing in mind that in practice that will be 23 weeks or 22 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.104', 6, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. dan jones (burnley) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.105', 196, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "but if there are medical advances, so that the situation changes, should not the house provide for that, bearing in mind the letter that professor reynolds sent to me at my request? i thought it right to go to the foremost centre in this country and inquire what its experience was. we should remember that professor reynolds's opinion is based on the experience of a unit, which is practically unique in this country, where there are special facilities. should we provide for a change in medical science? i personally believe that we should. i remind the house that anything below 24 weeks leads into this period of intense investigation and uncertainty.\n three possible solutions have been put forward to meet this situation. the first, as in the bill now, is to go to 20 weeks, at which age it is impossible for a baby to survive because his lungs are solid. the drawback is that, in practice, that will be 17 or 18 weeks, which is far too early for the whole range of decisions to be taken regarding deformities, to which i have already referred. i am advised that there would be so many exemptions\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.108', 6, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.109', 51, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am just about to finish. but there is a third solution—to make the upper time limit 24 weeks but to retain the procedure set out in the bill so that if there is a medical advance the secretary of state can ask the house to lower the upper time limit.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.110', 6, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. alexander w. lyon rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.111', 18, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'that is the advice that i have been given, and that would be achieved by amendment no. 2.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.112', 18, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. w. benyon (buckingham) rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.118', 8, 'uk.m.21680', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order mr. deputy speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.119', 20, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. as a result of the last vote, i must obey the will of the house and put the question.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.120', 5, 'uk.m.21680', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. arthur lewis rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.121', 15, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am bound by the will of the house. i must put the question.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.125', 267, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. during the division on the closure, two problems appeared to arise. first, it seemed that there were insufficient sheets to record the names of hon. members who wished to vote in the aye lobby. secondly, the doors were left unlocked for nine and a half minutes rather than eight minutes.\n you will appreciate, mr. deputy speaker, that because there were insufficient sheets, some confusion could have been caused in the aye lobby, and, more seriously, the fact that the doors were left open for nine and a half minutes could have affected the result of the vote. [interruption.] there is a gooddeal of noise in various parts of the house, but it is surely self-evident that if the doors were left open for nine and a half minutes instead of eight minutes it gave hon. members one and a half minutes more to reach the lobby, and that could have influenced the vote.\n i should like your guidance, mr. deputy speaker, because the matter has a relevance that is wider than merely the bill. [interruption.] i shall make my point of order. it does not matter how much thuggery and shouting takes place on the conseravtive benches;my point of order is relevant and important, and i intend to make it.\n it seems that it is within the discretion of the chair to decide how long hon. members are given to get into the division lobbies. many hon. members were not aware of that fact. some hon. members were in the norman shaw building, and it is well known that—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.126', 35, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am prepared to hear anything that the hon. gentleman has to say that is relevant to the incident that has just taken place, but the hon. gentleman is now going a little wide.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.127', 68, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can you give me guidance, mr. deputy speaker, on the question whether the chair has absolute discretion to vary the time that an hon. member has to get from where he happens to be into the division lobby? can the chair vary it from eight minutes to nine and half minutes, or from eight minutes to seven minutes or six minutes? i should very much appreciate your guidance.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.128', 106, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. gentleman mentioned two incidents. the first was the cause of the second. if the hon. gentleman will be good enough to look at standing order no. 34(3), he will see that the chair is directed only to see that at least six minutes have elapsed. at present we work normally on the basis of eight minutes, but on this occasion i exercise your discretion at the lower end cause of the incident that had been reported to me. if there is any matter that the hon. gentleman wishes to pursue as a result, he knows of the channels through which he can pursue it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.129', 49, 'uk.m.10639', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. may i point out that if you exercise your discretion at the lower end, and give only six minutes, it is extremely difficult for those who are in the norman shaw building to get here in time for a division.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.130', 16, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'arrangements have already been made for that. a period of eight minutes is allowed on each\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.132', 16, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i am confident that the recent exchanges—[interruption.]\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.133', 15, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. it would be helpful if i could hear what the hon. gentleman was saying.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.134', 52, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'oddly enough, mr. deputy speaker, i was about to make precisely the same complaint about the exchange that took place at your end of the chamber. could you please ask any hon. member who wishes to raise exotic points of order to speak up, in order that we, too, can be stimulated?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.135', 12, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it is always helpful if we can hear what is being said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.141', 201, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i seek your guidance on a matter that arises further to your ruling upon standing order no. 34. you gave a very clear ruling indicating the discretion that mr. speaker has to order that the doors be locked at some period, which must be at least six minutes but may be longer, after the direction has been given. the difficulty that occurs to me is that if it is a matter of seconds more than the six minutes it may not matter, but if it is a matter of a minute, a minute and a half, or even more, hon. members will not know in advance that that will be the decision of the chair unless some announcement is made that throughout a debate a specific time will be allowed, and hon. members not having that knowledge in advance are likely to be at some disadvantage because they will assume that the minimum time will be the time allowed. can you advise us how that problem can be cured? can it be cured, for example, by the chair announcing that throughout the debate on a specific matter a particular time will be allowed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.142', 6, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.143', 110, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i shall deal with one point of order at a time.\n the chair is the servant of the house and is bound by standing orders. the standing order simply says that at least six minutes must elapse. if it is the will of the house that it should be more clearly defined, there are the usual methods of dealing with that matter. i should add that when the right hon. and learned gentleman says that it would be convenient to know what is in the mind of the chair before the decision is made, that could apply throughout most days of most sessions. i am not able to help.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.144', 44, 'uk.m.17211', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "can some distinction be made in the time allowed when the house is sitting in the daytime, especially on a friday? many of us have offices in dean's yard or at a distance from the chamber. it is easy to get to the house—\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.145', 22, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that is not a point of order for me. i have indicated ways in which the matter can be dealt with.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.146', 49, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. this is an important point not only for this debate but for debates in the future. there seems to be a distinction that the chair should take into consideration, namely, the happening inside the lobby and the happening outside the lobby.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.147', 29, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i have done my best to give a ruling on that matter. if the standing orders are not satisfactory, it is not for the chair to alter them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.148', 35, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. my point of order does not involve the standing orders; it involves the exercise of the standing orders by the chair. this is a serious point—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.149', 40, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that comes back to the discretion of the chair. it is a matter that i exercise to the best of my ability. i do not think that i can define it more clearly than is done in standing orders.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.150', 121, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. at the beginning of the proceedings this morning, a letter was circulated from a number of privy councillors from both sides of the house asking that the hon. gentleman in charge of the bill should withdraw it and support the 24 weeks amendment. that amendment has been carried by the house. it removes one of the major clauses of the bill. during the morning's discussion, numbers of the hon. gentleman's fellow sponsors and hon. friends were clearly debating what should be done about the privy councillors' letter. i wonder, mr. deputy speaker, whether the sponsor of the bill would now indicate to the house what action he intends to take on the letter.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.151', 30, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the only point for me is that i should now call amendment no. 4, with which it will be convenient to take amendments nos. 6 and 14. mr. peter archer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.152', 215, 'uk.m.21680', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i should like to ask you, on the question of the locking of the doors, whether you will bear in mind—[hon. members: "not again."] yes, again, and again, and again, and again. i am not speaking to hon. members; i am addressing mr. deputy speaker. i appreciate the difficulty with which the chair is confronted. i make no complaint of the fact that the chair, probably rightly, with the knowledge it had, gave an extra one and a half minutes. in that instance, it was because the register in the aye lobby was missing or was not there. that did not interfere with the vote or with persons getting into the lobby.\n it is right that some hon. members have to come from the norman shaw building. if they know that the time has expired, they turn back. immediately following your decision this morning, mr. deputy speaker, five hon. members came from the funeral of the late lord murray. they were coming to vote. they realised the time had expired, so they did not arrive in time. [hon. members: "boring."] had they known that the extra one and a half minutes had been granted, they could have voted. there should surely be some system whereby hon. members—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.153', 21, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the standing orders may not be to the satisfaction of the hon. member, but the chair is bound by them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.154', 98, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i wonder whether you could indicate to the house the precedent for the decision that you have taken, that on this occasion the doors should be open for more than the stipulated six minutes. i accept that the standing order is so drafted that you could indicate that it gave you an area of discretion. but surely that discretion must have occurred to speakers or deputy speakers in the past. i was wondering on what precedent you were acting and whether you would indicate to the house on what basis—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.155', 14, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i had a discretion that i exercised to the best of my ability.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.156', 97, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with respect, mr. deputy speaker, everyone is aware that there is a time factor in relation to the bill, but you foreclosed the debate on the earlier group of amendments at a stage when hon. members were getting to their feet on the basis, no doubt, that you wanted the discussion to move to a close. you then kept the doors open for longer than the normal period. that seems to suggest that there ought to be a precedent to indicate why, on this occasion, the doors were allowed to remain open for more than six minutes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.157', 38, 'uk.m.21889', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the hon. member for berwick and east lothian (mr. home robertson) has claimed that it was a put-up job to take away a sheet and to delay the proceedings.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.158', 13, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the chair has no control over what is happening in a lobby.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.159', 119, 'uk.m.21889', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my understanding, mr. deputy speaker, is that you are to protect the procedures and the rights of hon. members in the house. i am asking this question because i am concerned. a serious allegation has been made that someone has been up to something underhand at the vote. i think there is general agreement that the vote was not influenced one way or the other. but there is a rumour going round—i put it no higher. if there is a rumour going round that someone was up to something, i suggest, mr. deputy speaker, that there is an obligation on you to carry out an inquiry in the future about what actually happened and to report to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.160', 17, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have given my ruling on the facts as known to me. i have nothing to add.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.161', 57, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i am trying to save the time of the house, not waste it. on the last vote, according to the general consensus of opinion, as i understand it, it would be helpful if the principal proposer of the bill could give guidance about the future progress of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.162', 9, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that has nothing to do with the chair.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.163', 17, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a point of order to ask whether the hon. gentleman has asked permission to intervene—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.164', 3, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. mr. cryer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.165', 246, 'uk.m.16389', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the general question has been raised about the length of time for the division. while standing order 34(3) is clear that there shall be a minimum of six minutes, i recall mr. speaker making a statement to the house, on the opening of the norman shaw north building, in which he said specifically that no closure of doors would take place in less than eight minutes, giving an additional two minutes.\n you have indicated that you can exercise your discretion after a minimum of six minutes. as i recall, that would be a contravention of mr. speaker's statement.\n if the standing order gives you that discretion, and if mr. speaker has made a previous statement that there shall be a period of eight minutes, which everyone understands, does mr. speaker's ruling act as a binding one for deputy speakers such as yourself, or will notice be given that mr. speaker will make an alteration? clearly, this can alter a vote. the common understanding among all members is that there are eight minutes, and not six, as the standing order lays down.\n if you were to exercise your discretion on the standing order and ignored mr. speaker's clear statement to the house, that would place us in a severe difficulty. i ask you to consider the statement that eight minutes is the common time that will elapse between the calling of a division and the locking of the doors.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.166', 28, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'nothing that i have said in any way contravenes what the hon. gentleman has mentioned, and i have nothing to add to the ruling that i have given.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.167', 88, 'uk.m.17211', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if hon. members with offices outlying the house, have only six minutes in which to get to the house for a division, when there is heavy traffic and there are no policemen on duty it will be impossible for those hon. members to use their offices. i seek your guidance on whether you can give directions to the police at least to ensure that policemen are on duty to enable hon. members to cross the road to the chamber.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.168', 21, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i have no doubt that the hon. gentleman's comments will have been noted by those who are responsible for this matter.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.169', 15, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i beg to move amendment no. 4, in page 1, line 11 leave out 'serious'.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.170', 8, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'with this we may take the following amendments:\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.173', 1010, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'these amendments reflect the anxieties of lawyers in particular. i appreciate that that alone may not commend them to the house. i begin by making two points in general about the anxieties of lawyers. first, they are not always expressed on their own behalf. they are frequently expressed on behalf of their clients—the general public—and are designed to ensure that no one should suffer an injustice; in this case, particularly an injustice to doctors. secondly, the apparent nit-picking of lawyers about draftsmanship reflects a real problem about the content of what we are drafting. difficulties about how we say it may reflect uncertainties about what we want to say, or even sometimes emphasise the fact that we want to say inconsistent things.\n in 1967 parliament decided that it was right to permit abortions in certain circumstances, without turning the doctor into a criminal. those circumstances were set out in section 1 of the act, and the relevant circumstances for this purpose are that two general practitioners should form an opinion in good faith that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated". the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) and his supporters argue that that is unsatisfactory and that it should be changed. it is not my purpose at this stage to enter at length into that issue, but it is clearly relevant to the amendments, because the problems about which i want to talk do not arise if there is no need to alter the existing criteria. those who seek to establish that the existing criteria need altering must show two things: first, that there are circumstances in which abortions can now lawfully be performed which should not be permitted, and, secondly, that the changes which they propose will ensure that abortions cannot lawfully be performed in those circumstances, without preventing those abortions which parliament believes should be lawful.\n i point that out at the risk of reiterating the obvious, because i confess that i am puzzled by some of the arguments that have been adduced during these debates. it carries the argument no further to show that some abortions are now performed unlawfully, even if that is established. we all wish to prevent infringements of the law, but we do not prevent them by making the law itself more restrictive. i recollect a frustrating conversation that i had some time ago with a lady who wanted to urge upon me that parliament ought to pass a law to prevent immigrants from entering the country illegally.\n great use has been made of the expression "abortion on demand", and there have been many discussions on whether we now have abortion on demand. abortion on demand is an emotive term which implies that there is something discreditable about demanding an abortion. i assume that in this context "demanding" means asking for an abortion or perhaps even consenting to it. clearly, in that sense, if an abortion is not demanded it cannot lawfully be performed at all—at least, if the patient is capable of expressing a view on the subject. therefore, if the expression means anything, it means that abortions that now occur are carried out whether or not the criteria apply.\n to show that we now have abortion on demand in that sense, one needs to show that it is possible to obtain an abortion even if two medical practitioners do not form a view in good faith that there is a risk of injury to life or health. i pause to say that that is simply not true in the constituency which i have the honour to represent, half of which is served by the hospital and consultancy services in sandwell and the other half by the hospital and consultancy services in dudley. the statistics of both areas are well enough known for it not to be necessary for me to repeat them.\n even if it were shown that abortions are sometimes performed where those criteria are not satisfied, it is not clear how it would help if we were to alter the criteria. any abortion either falls within the criteria or it does not. if it does, presumably that is what parliament intended. if it does not, it is unlawful and one does not prevent unlawful abortions by altering the criteria.\n that having been said that, the fact is that what is proposed in the bill as it left the committee is that the criteria should be changed so that it would now be necessary for two registered medical practitioners to form the view.\n that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of serious injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.. substantially greater than if the pregnancy were terminated". i should like to say a few brief words about the three amendments. amendment no. 4 relates to the word "serious" as it is applied to the injury that is in contemplation. amendment no. 6 applies to the word "substantially" as it applies to the balancing of the risk in clause 1, and amendment no. 14 relates to the word "substantially" as it applies to the risk in the special circumstances envisaged in clause 2.\n when a doctor was considering whether he could lawfully terminate a pregnancy, he would need to make up his mind on two things: first, was there a risk of serious injury to the health of the woman or the children, and, secondly, was that risk substantially greater if the pregnancy continued than if it were terminated? the house may be concerned to discuss whether those are proper criteria. ought a doctor to be precluded from terminating a pregnancy where there is a risk of injury to health if the pregnancy continues, but it is only equal to the risk of terminating or only marginally greater?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.174', 63, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "during the course of his interesting speech, will my right hon. and learned friend apply those criteria to any other operation that a surgeon can perform? for example, can he imagine that a doctor would want to be circumscribed by those words in respect of any other operation that could affect a patient's life, such as an appendectomy or a gall bladder operation?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.176', 430, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for the intervention of my hon. friend the member for east kilbride (dr. miller). i assume that any doctor who was contemplating whether it was right to undertake an operation would, if he were responsible, direct his mind to what the risks were and what would be the likelihood one way or another. what he would not want to do, i imagine, is to run the risk of committing a criminal offence if someone disagreed with him.\n the house might wish to consider what guidance should be given to doctors if we can find a way of giving it. should a doctor be precluded from terminating a pregnancy where he believes that there is a risk of an injury to health but that it would be only a painful injury, a long-drawn-out injury, a distressing injury, but perhaps not a serious one? at this stage i do not propose to enter into that argument. there are hon. members better qualified to do that than i.\n my concern is that as the bill stands a doctor would have to form a view on those two matters. i hope that he would form that view by applying his professional judgment and experience and that he would form it honestly. if he did not, the criteria would not matter anyway. what matters is that having formed that view the doctor must proceed to act on it. there is no time to initial legal proceedings in order to test whether the courts would endorse his action. he either terminates the pregnancy or he does not. when it is all over, he may discover that the authorities take a different view and that he is accused of having committed a criminal offence.\n the matter then goes before a jury who are asked to address their minds to the same questions. i assume that they will consider the matter carefully and honestly and i hope that they will give due weight to the fact that the doctor in those circumstances formed that view. but of course the jury cannot be bound by his view, otherwise the process is pointless. it would be pointless to have any criteria.\n if the bill is to have any meaning, it is quite possible that a jury would reach a different conclusion from that of the doctor. it would then follow that the action that he took honestly and in good faith because he believed that it was for the benefit of his patient was a criminal offence and he would face conviction under the pre-1967 statute law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.177', 62, 'uk.m.16836', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. and learned gentleman help the house by saying whether it is his opinion that the word "serious" and the word "substantially" would be considered by a jury to be something that should be judged from the point of view of the doctor subjectively or whether it should be judged objectively by their taking into account all the circumstances?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.178', 136, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i stand subject to correction. the attorney-general—the right hon. and learned member for wimbledon (sir m. havers)—is in the house. he will correct me if i am wrong. my assumption is that the wording of the bill as it left committee would require an objective test. the jury would be asked whether injury was likely to be a serious risk and whether that risk was substantially greater. it would be asked whether the doctor directed his mind to the question whether there was a serious risk. i assume that the jury would be entitled to take into account that a doctor faced with this situation had formed that view. however, i assume that the jury could not be bound by it. there would obviously be the risk, therefore, that the jury would disagree with the doctor.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.179', 34, 'uk.m.21756', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it not also a fact that doctors are not so well versed in the law as to know the difference between subjective and objective tests in particular statutes and might therefore play safe?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.180', 53, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. and learned friend the member for bradford, west (mr. lyons) is quite right. i was coming to that point. however, it seems to me that if this is right it is a monstrous situation in which to place a doctor. i cannot readily think of any precedent in our criminal law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.181', 175, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am trying to understand the argument of my right hon. and learned friend. i am genuinely trying to follow him. at the moment we have a situation in section 1 (1)( a ) of the abortion act where a doctor is deciding on the balance of risks. it is true that now one is substituting a different balance of risks. all the problems so far adumbrated by my right hon. and learned friend about the balance of risks are, and have been, in existence. when we examine the words "substantially" and "serious", we discover two aspects, do we not? "substantially" deals with the risk and "serious" deals with the criteria. i agree with my right hon. and learned friend on the meaning of "serious". however, the word "sub- stantially" deals with the risk and there is already a duty on the doctor to assess the balance of risk. there is no new criterion arising. there is no anomaly, and it is not innovatory in the way that my right hon. and learned friend suggests.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.182', 63, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry to differ from my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse). i am trying to understand what he said. it seems to me that if a doctor has to form a view on the question whether one risk is substantially greater than another, he will have to form a view on the criteria operating in defining the word "substantially".\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.183', 6, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'he has to do that now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.184', 1381, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend says that the doctor must do that now, but the word "substantially" is not there now. that is the difference. in my view, there is no precedent within the criminal law for confronting anyone with that sort of difficulty.\n juries must sometimes decide whether someone has inflicted grievous bodily harm or whether someone has driven without due care and attention. in my view, that is a different matter. if i assault my neighbour, i know that i am committing an offence and that it is unlikely that i will have any commendable motive for doing that. magistrates or a jury might have to decide how serious my offence is, and if they decided that the victim\'s injuries amount to grievous bodily harm my offence would be more serious than if they had taken a different view.\n but i can hardly complain that i am taken by surprise if i assaulted my neighbour in the first place. my offence might be more serious than i originally contemplated, but that is rather a different situation. a doctor may be acting from the best of professional motives, without there being any indication that he is committing a criminal offence. it does not help to say that juries sometimes have to decide whether someone is guilty of grievous bodily harm or some other offence.\n similarly, if the question arises whether i have driven without due care and attention, that is usually after someone\'s attention has been attracted to my driving because it has fallen below the normal standards. that is very different from confronting a doctor with the dilemma of whether to refuse to perform an abortion that he believes is in the best interests of his patient or to face the risk of conviction for a serious offence.\n i wonder what direction i would give to a jury, were i a judge faced with this kind of prosecution, on the question whether the injury in contemplation was serious and whether the risk was substantially greater. in committee my hon. friend the member for bethnal green and bow (mr. mikardo) quoted examples of attempts by judges to help juries towards the definition of those words.\n i ventured to look at the lawyers\' bible on construction, stroud\'s "judicial dictionary". it gives little help on the word "serious". it tells us that what is serious and wilful misconduct of a workman for the purposes of the workmen\'s compensation act 1897 is a question of fact. if that reasoning applied equally in this case, it would mean that if a jury convicted that conviction would be unlikely to be reversed by the court of appeal. on the word "substantially", the most helpful passage was that in the expression "substantially impaired"—in the homicide act 1957: the word \'substantially\' does not mean \'trivial or minimal\' nor does it mean \'total\'". i would have thought that that was a conclusion one could have reached by consulting a dictionary.\n i wanted to understand the arguments of those hon. gentlemen who wished to insert these words, and in particular i read carefully the speech in committee on 7 november, column 178 of hansard, by the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram). i selected that speech simply because it seemed to me the fairest, clearest and probably most concise statement of the case. i am grateful for the clarity of the hon. gentleman\'s argument.\n long experience in this house has convinced me that it is always dangerous to try to paraphrase the arguments of someone else. one is always susceptible to being told that one has not quite understood the argument. i appreciate that i face that danger. as i understood the hon. gentleman\'s case, he argued that the present criteria was defective, because it is possible to have abortion on demand. i hope that i have dealt with the structure of that argument. one cannot prevent people ignoring a criterion by making the criterion more restrictive.\n the hon. member also said that we need clear criteria. i agree with that. that is what the words that commended themselves to the committee failed to achieve. it is that which my amendment is designed to achieve. i am comforted by the view of the lane committee that words such as "serious" do not help. the committee states that in paragraph 202 of its report.\n the hon. member for edinburgh, south said that he wanted to add the adjective "serious" to the noun "injury" to exclude the risk of a doctor giving weight to the risk of minor injuries. i am not sure that i agree with that. the question whether an injury is minor often depends upon whether someone suffers it. any lawyer who has conducted a personal injury case will know that the damages that a judge may award for backache may depend upon whether that judge has ever suffered from backache. i believe that we should seek to protect women from any injury, whether or not it is serious, but in any event i believe that the argument is outweighed by the uncertainty created by the word "serious".\n the argument for the word "substantially" is that it excludes what is known as the statistical approach. it is suggested that some doctors argue that more women suffer injury in childbirth than in having an abortion and, therefore, the risk of injury by permitting a pregnancy to continue is necessarily greater than the risk of injury by terminating that pregnancy. i have never heard a doctor say that he reasoned in that way or used that approach. if he does, he misconstrues the 1967 act. if i am wrong the attorney-general will correct me. the lane committee dealt with this matter in paragraph 201 of its report, and i am comforted that the committee arrived at the same view as i did.\n the act requires a doctor to direct his mind to the condition and circumstances of the individual patient. he must consider whether she is peculiarly susceptible to a particular injury. when assessing the present criteria were defective, because account the statistical probabilities. but resolving the question by reference to statistics is like arguing that most people die in bed and that, therefore, it must be safer to climb everest than to go to bed. if that is the mischief at which the word "substantially" is aimed, the amendment will not meet it. misconstruing an act is not prevented by amending an act.\n i was grateful to the solicitor-general for scotland for the information that he gave in committee. i am comforted, because nothing that he said surprised me. he spoke chiefly about the law in scotland. referring to the word "serious", he said that the criteria of the doctor and the jury may differ. of course, the criteria of the patient may be different again. sometimes doctors may adopt more spartan standards than the rest of us. the solicitor-general for scotland said that in his brief medical experience he had seen more people in discomfort described as "comfortable" than in any other circumstances.\n i move the amendment because i fear that doctors, in good faith and according to their best judgment, might suffer an injustice. but not only the doctor might suffer. a doctor knows that if he terminates a pregnancy, however honestly and with whatever good intentions, he might face a criminal conviction but that if he declines to terminate a pregnancy the risks of ill consequences to himself are less likely. and the danger is that the risks that he will balance are not those that the bill requires him to balance. i am not suggesting that a doctor is less likely to be altruistic than the rest of the population. however, the risks that we are discussing are only some of the risks that we impose upon doctors.\n my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin) has drawn attention to the problem of the doctor who, in good faith, takes steps to terminate a pregnancy when it transpires that the woman is not pregnant and when the symptoms are phantoms. under existing law it is arguable that a doctor has no defence under the 1967 act. there is a risk of terrifying doctors into a reluctance to terminate any pregnancies at all.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.185', 19, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the medical defence organisations are already advising doctors to play safe in that respect. the fears are not groundless.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.186', 85, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for that confirmation. i would not blame a doctor for playing safe. any criteria that make certain that no one will honestly apply them are self-defeating.\n my purpose is not to take up the time of the house unnecessarily. i hope that i have expressed the anxieties. if parliament believes that it should be more difficult to obtain an abortion, it should have the courage to say that and to legislate accordingly. to achieve that result by jurisprudential blackmail would be unforgivable.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.187', 573, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wish to talk about the amendment that removes the word "substantial". the 1967 act was a deliberate balance of the various competing interests—moral, medical and practical—in relation to this difficult problem. in the years since that act was passed i have resented deeply the suggestion that those of us who finally voted for it were in some way less moral than those who were opposed to it. i resent some of the comments that i have heard today that suggest that by standing firm with that balance now we are less compassionate or less concerned than anyone else about the life of the foetus.\n in 1967 i abstained from the second reading vote because i was worried that the wording of the bill was too wide and might go as far as abortion on demand. only when the wording was changed in committee and on report did i finally vote for it on third reading. i standby that. there has never been, apart from some areas of catholic opinion, a wholly condemnatory moral opinion against abortion. that applies to catholic opinion at large.\n it was possible to have an abortion to preserve the life of the mother before the 1967 act. in a recent statement about the bill, the archbishops came round to saying that if the life of the foetus is destroyed in the course of saving the mother\'s life, that is not morally wrong. i ask those who express strong views against those of us who are opposed to the bill to question whether it can ever be said that there is a completely clear moral view for or against abortion. the question is, where is the line to be drawn?\n i draw the line strongly against abortion on demand. the 1967 act did not allow abortion on demand. anybody who reads it can see that it does not allow that. the terms are perfectly clear. an abortion can be carried out only if two doctors certify, in good faith, that the criteria have been met. although many suggestions have been made by the supporters of the bill that doctors do not honestly apply their minds to the criteria and do not certify in good faith, the answer is not to change the criteria but to provide that somebody should bring a prosecution against such doctors as he believes are not applying the act properly.\n it is clear from the figures around the country that there is not abortion on demand. in my constituency in york there are three gynaecologists who are strongly resistant to the 1967 act on what i quite understand to be conscientious grounds. they apply the criteria very strictly indeed. in those circumstances, 28 per cent. only of the abortions that take place for women resident in the york area are carried out under the national health service. the remainder have to go elsewhere.\n in adjacent areas such as northallerton, scarborough or areas in the north-east, the figures can rise to as high as 94 per cent. it follows that of those doctors who are applying the same test, some are applying it more strongly than others. that does not mean that some are applying the test in bad faith and others in good faith. one hon. member asked what would happen if the increasingly severe tests were applied in other operations. i was going to tell the house the story of my operation, but i—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.188', 81, 'uk.m.16836', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that it is important for the house to know whether the words "serious" and "substantially" would be given a subjective or objective meaning in any prosecution? i suspect that if they are to be judged subjectively, from the point of view of the accused, it is probable that they would not result in any severe tightening of the law. if they are to be judged objectively, it would probably result in a tightening of the law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.189', 871, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry that the hon. gentleman has mentioned that again. i heard him the first time. if he will be patient, i shall come to it in a moment. i had reached a point where i was going to tell the house about my favourite subject, namely, my operation. nobody has any greater cause to be sceptical about the opinion of doctors than i have.\n i was taken into hospital two or three years ago for what was said to be a simple gall bladder operation. the operation was to be over in a short time and i was to be back in the house within a month. it took me six months to get back on my feet. that was because the doctor made an error of judgment about whether i ever needed the operation. when they took the gall bladder out, they found that there were no stones. it could have been dealt with without a major operation. because of complications it went wrong.\n i could have sued the doctor for negligence, but i would not have succeeded. in the light of a recent decision in the court of appeal, it is clear that an honest doctor applying his clinical judgment would have come to one view, whereas another doctor might have come to a different view. if that sort of test is applied to the question whether a woman should have an abortion within the criteria laid down in the bill, it is perfectly possible for some honest, conscientious consultant gynaecologist to take one view and for others to take a different view of the same case.\n it does not surprise me in the least that the figures around the country vary considerably. all that one is saying is that one does not trust the doctors when one has to question the bona fides of the critics. it is one thing to say that one does not trust the doctors when one is in favour of the 1967 balance, but, if one has always been against abortion—and finds abortion so morally repugnant that even to discuss it causes the sort of wrath and ire that this discussion has caused—to say that the doctors are not applying the tests with integrity seems to raise some doubt about the validity of the criticism raised by the critic.\n i would rather trust a doctor\'s integrity than a new version of the words that were finally discovered in 1967 and have stood the test of time. that is why i am against the insertion of either "serious" or "substantially".\n i turn to the point raised by the hon. member for wolverhampton, south-west (mr. budgen), which is central to my consideration of the word "substantially". i shall not go into the word "serious" at any length as that he been dealt with already. my hon. friend the member for pontpool (mr. abse) is right in that, unlike the word "serious", the change to "substantially" would accept the same sort of judgment in the mind of the doctor as the 1967 act. he is saying that a doctor has to balance the risk. the 1967 act said that the doctor had to balance the risk and decide whether the risk of danger to life or health was greater in the one case than in the other. we are saying now that it should be substantially greater.\n the courts would be bound to take notice of that change of wording. if parliament, in its consideration, decided to insert the word "substantially" before the word "risk", the courts would be bound to think that parliament meant something by that. a graver burden would be placed upon the doctors. that is the beginning of my answer to the hon. member for wolverhampton, south-west.\n the test, in my judgment—and there are many lawyers in the house with a variety of views—would be objective. given all the evidence, a jury would have to decide whether there was a substantially greater risk. i say that on the basis of the simcox case, which was decided by the court of appeal, where the issue was an interpretation of words in the homicide act 1957 and whether the person was suffering from an impairment of the mind that substantially diminished his responsibility for committing a murder, thereby reducing the charge to manslaughter.\n it is interesting to read the facts of the medical evidence that appear in the judgment. they are especially relevant to the issues that we are discussing. the court stated: all four medical experts were of the opinion that this appellant suffered from an abnormality of mind, and that abnormality of mind arose from inherent causes, the name given to the abnormality being paranoid personality. not one of them, however, would go to the length of saying that as a result of that abnormality the appellant\'s mental responsibility was substantially impaired. they used words to the effect that the impairment was moderate, that it was harder for him to control his actions, that the degree of paranoid personality was, as one doctor said, persistent and strong. those and other expressions were used, but not one of the mental experts felt that he could say that the impairment was substantial". \n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.194', 4, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. abse rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.195', 127, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way to my hon. friend the member for pontypool. i shall not do so for a very long time. my hon. friend would not give way to me on an issue that was of considerable importance, and i shall not give way to him.\n if we insert "serious", we change the whole nature of the debate about the injury. a doctor may certify whether there will be injury to health. all he needs is the faintest scintilla of evidence to show that. however, if he has to insert "serious", "serious" becomes an issue for the jury. that becomes a subjective test for somebody else. it is not his judgment of whether it is serious that will count but the judgment of the jury.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.196', 56, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree very much with my hon. friend about the inherent difficulties of including words such as "serious" and "substantial". i am not sure, however, that i am following my hon. friend on the subjective or objective test. the act provides that there is no offence if the two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.197', 1, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.198', 96, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not need any echo from my hon. friend. i hope that he will allow me to continue without giving me applause. i am not sure that i really want it from his quarter at the moment. if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the conditions are satisfied, surely that makes the question subjective. i agree entirely with my hon. friend that putting in those words makes it much more difficult for the doctors to hold that opinion in good faith. it puts them at much greater risk.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.199', 248, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. and learned friend will recollect that the offence of murder deals with the same issue. the courts have decided that, in forming an intent, that intent is subjective in relation to murder and not objective. therefore, the issue is a matter not of whether a man can be said by a reasonable person properly to have intended something but of whether he honestly did intend something in relation to murder. therefore, with murder it is a subjective intent.\n in relation to the words "substantially impaired" in the homicide act, the test is the one that i read out from the court of appeal. i said that there may be a difference of view but i submit that that imputes a rather more objective test about this criterion. in relation to the same phrase within the abortion (amendment) bill, i accept that the words in the abortion act 1967, which would stand in good faith, are obviously words imputing a subjective intent. however, that is a subjective intent about a matter which has to be decided objectively by a jury. it is a subjective intent about whether there was a risk which was substantially greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. in those circumstances, it is right to say that it would not matter for the doctor to say "i looked at the matter as carefully as i could and i came to the conclusion that the risk was substantially greater if the pregnancy were terminated."\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.200', 61, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend saying that the question for the jury would be "can two doctors, properly advised and being reasonable people, honestly hold that view, on the evidence?" if so, that would be an objective test. however, in the sense that all the jury have to be satisfied that the doctors honestly held that opinion, it is a subjective test.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.201', 118, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not propose to press the matter. the issue is clearly open for argument. it is open for argument between my right hon. and learned friend and myself with our varied experience in these matters before the courts. if it is open to doubt between us, when both of us are against the bill and in favour of the 1967 act, how much more so is it for a doctor who is not a legally qualified person? how much more difficult is it for him when he comes to the point of certifying whether a pregnancy should be terminated? an insufferable position is created, particularly when there is such controversy about the issue within the medical profession.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.202', 43, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am totally without knowledge of the medical and legal professions and i shall be dependent entirely upon my hon. friend's reply. if the limit were reduced to 22 weeks, would that not ease the legal position that my hon. friend has described?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.203', 301, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i cannot give my hon. friend a short answer, although i should like to try to do so. the upper limit, about which we have been arguing all morning, has nothing to do with this argument. the upper limit came in because the infant life (preservation) act 1929 created an offence of child destruction if someone killed a foetus which was capable of being a viable human being. that offence remains whenever there is an abortion. if the foetus is born viable and can live, it is murder if someone kills the foetus at that stage. that is why i tried to intervene in the previous debate. the whole argument this morning was academic.\n the infant life (preservation) act provided a prima facie assumption that a foetus, after 28 weeks, was capable of being a viable human being. "prima facie" meant that it was for the defence to raise the issue—presumably the prosecution would have to disprove it—and it shifted the burden of proof. the defendant had to show that the foetus would not have lived in the circumstances. [ interruption. ] i shall come to the nuances in the tea room, if need be.\n if a foetus is born alive, it has to be kept alive. that is still the position. we have got to 24 weeks. but if a foetus is born at 23, 19 or 17 weeks and it is alive and canlive, anyone who kills it commits murder. therefore, we did not need to argue about 28 weeks or 24 weeks. the suggestion by my hon. friend the member for pontypool that we were sanctioning murder was both disgraceful and wrong in law. no one can sanctionmurder. if a foetus is born and is viable, it must live, and any doctor who kills it is committing murder.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.204', 60, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend note that there is further protection for the viable foetus, about which he and all of us are concerned, in that, if the abortion is late but the birth weight of the baby is such that it can survive and its lungs can be inflated, it can survive only in premises where there is resuscitation apparatus?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.205', 256, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i must press on or i shall be receiving complaints. i accept what my hon. friend said.\n i end on the point that i was making when we had the argument about subjective or objective intent. whatever the legal effect of these words, if we pass them, in reality doctors will be less willing to carry out abortions than they would be otherwise. we can say that is desirable only if we believe that the 1967 act has worked badly up to now. i do not think that it has worked badly.\n when we were debating the 1967 legislation, there were wide estimates, generally accepted, that about 100,000 illegal abortions were carried out every year in this country. since the 1967 act came into effect, there have been very few illegal abortions, but there have been about 100,000 legal abortions each year. the total pattern of abortions has changed very little. the change is that abortions are now carried out in national health service hospitals. therefore, it seems totally inappropriate to say that we should now change that pattern, which has extended over the years and seems to be acceptable to the broad range of women in this country, though perhaps not to all, by making doctors less willing to carry out abortions, with the consequence indicated by my hon. friend the member for bethnal green and bow (mr. mikardo), that others will carry them out illegally. that would not be a satisfactory outcome to our discussions. i hope that the house will accept the amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.206', 73, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. no doubt you will have had a report about what occurred earlier today in the aye lobby, when the doors remained opened for nine and a half minutes. it is a serious matter that affects the business of the house not only today but in the future. i wonder whether you would consider the report and perhaps let us have a statement at some future date?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.207', 64, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i am aware of the incident. the house will be aware that there is no appeal to me against a ruling by the deputy speaker, but i know that that is not implied in the hon. gentleman's point. i have called for a report, because the incident has general repercussions on our proceedings. i shall make a short statement to the house on monday.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.208', 415, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'perhaps we all welcomed that bit of light relief from what was becoming an intense legal discussion between eminent legal hon. gentlemen. i am a lawyer, but i do not have the experience of those who have spoken, and i therefore hesitate before entering the finer areas of law which they were discussing.\n however, i was surprised to hear the discussion at all. i was surprised also to hear my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, south-west (mr. budgen) asking whether in court the definition of the words "serious" and "substantial" would be held to be objective or subjective. they are not new words. they are in the 1967 legislation. they are there and must have been looked at by doctors and lawyers, but there has been no word of complaint that they were difficult to interpret or define in that legislation. the tests which responsible doctors have applied since 1967 to the word "substantial" before the word "risk" in section 1 (b) and the word "seriously" before the word "handicapped" in the same subsection should apply to the words in this bill.\n the right hon. and learned member for warley, west (mr. archer) fairly summarised my argument in committee. i repeat today that it is not a discussion about words and their meanings but concerns an issue which is central to the bill and to the society in which we live. the consideratons are, first, whether there is abortion on demand and, secondly, if so, does the house agree that it should be allowed to continue?\n throughout the debate hon. members who oppose the bill have risen, one after the other, to say that they do not want abortion on demand, and in their very next breath they say that abortion on demand does not exist. that is the statement that i challenge. a smokescreen has slowly been built up since 1967 that there is no abortion on demand. it is now gradually being blown away by the wind of evidence that we have received over the past few months.\n the right hon. and learned gentleman mentioned the lane report. at paragraph 201 that report states: we regard as wholly unethical the practice, which we have been told exists among a few doctors, of signing certificate a without even seeing the patient, in reliance on the statistical argument to justify doing so. the right hon. and learned gentleman said that the lane committee said that it was illegal. the word it used was "unethical".\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.209', 6, 'uk.m.10283', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. douglas hogg (grantham) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.210', 313, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall not give way. i have listened to the various comments and speeches over the past three hours and i do not want to take up too much of the time of the house. therefore, i am certainly not prepared to help others do so.\n the lane report admitted that there was abortion on demand. the right hon. and learned gentleman also said that he had never heard of instances where abortion had been justified on the basis of statistical arguments, where that had been used as a criterion under the act. perhaps he should have read the committee reports more fully, because had he done so he would have seen the name of professor huntingford, who has challenged the law and said that he believes that as long as the statistics show that there is a greater danger of risk in continuing with the pregnancy than in terminating it, he can give abortions as and when they are requested.\n i wish to point out the way in which this operates. i shall not quote from any of the newspapers which the hon. member for fife, central (mr. hamilton) claims are biased in our favour. i shall quote a paper which he may know fairly well—the socialist worker. on 19 january of this year that paper, talking about the corrie bill, referred to a clinic at mile end and said: the most significant thing about the mile end clinic is that it gives abortion on demand. peter huntingford maintains that only the woman herself is entitled to decide whether she should have an abortion. he is not prepared to discuss under what circumstances women should be permitted abortions. he is against all legislation on abortion. professor huntingford has said in the past that he believes that statistically he can justify granting abortions on request without taking the woman's personal circumstances into account.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.211', 5, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. renée short rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.212', 16, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have already said that i shall not give way. i wish to complete my speech.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.213', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. short rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.214', 18, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon gentleman indicated at the beginning that he did not intend to give way at all.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.215', 34, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i made my point clear. the reason why i am not giving way is that i have watched time being wasted by labour members this morning, and i intend to have my say now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.216', 5, 'uk.m.10283', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. douglas hogg rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.217', 75, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way. i intend to complete my speech.\n i have given two instances in which i believe that there are indications of abortion on demand. i shall give a third—the figures that are provided from the referral agencies, the british pregnancy advisory service and the pregnancy advisory service, about the number of people who have abortions after referral. between 90 and 95 per cent. have abortions. these women who go for advice—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.218', 60, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. i put this point of order with great reluctance because i do not like to see hon. members interrupted in the full flow of their arguments, but i submit that the hon. member\'s argument has nothing whatever to do with whether the words "serious" and "substantial" are or are not in the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.219', 20, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'various members have various ways of approaching the same question. i shall listen with great care to the hon. member.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.220', 160, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall try to come to the point. i am surprised at the comments of the hon. member for bethnal green and bow (mr. mikardo). i remember that one day in committee he told me that if i had a little more patience i might begin to understand his argument. i merely ask him to indulge me in the same way.\n i was making the point about the number of girls who go to referral agencies and end up by having an abortion. until they get there and see someone who is presumably medically qualified and can tell them whether they can have an abortion or not, they do not know whether they satisfy the criteria. the fact is that under the present law they do not have to, because the 1967 act is so loosely and ambiguously worded that a woman can get an abortion when she wants one. that is the question that that the house must face.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.221', 13, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'look at the figures—10 per cent. in birmingham, 8 per cent. in wolverhampton.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.222', 1, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.223', 5, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry, mr. speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.224', 12, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that saves my having to say what i was going to say.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.225', 39, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. lady had waited a few seconds i would have said that although it may not be happening universally, if it is happening at all it is contrary to the intentions of parliament in the 1967 act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.226', 6, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. alexander w. lyon : prosecute.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.227', 357, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there are two doors in the 1967 legislation through which prosecution is not available, because those who are operating in the way that i have described are probably within the law.\n the first door is the statistical argument. where it can be shown that the risk is greater in childbirth than in abortion, however marginally, an abortion can take place without any legal implications. the second door is the one to which i referred in committee, namely, the case of trivial injury. the clause is designed to close the two doors that lead to opportunities for abortion on demand.\n we are not changing the comparative test, what is called the yardstick, in the 1967 legislation. we keep that basis of comparison between pregnancy and termination, but by its looseness the present law has allowed the test to move from being personal and individual, which is what parliament intended, to being impersonal and sometimes even based on trivialities.\n the words "serious" and "substantial" have been put forward in order to close the two doors. the word "substantial" exists in the present legislation, and we merely seek to ensure that if there is any danger of a comparison being based on anything but individual circumstances, the difference between the comparisons must at least be great enough to have some weight. our fear is that under the wording of the 1967 act the statistics on mortality and injury in childbirth, however minimally they exceed the statistics relating to termination, are being used to justify abortion, and we wish to stop that.\n i suggested the inclusion of the word "serious" in committee because i wish to exclude the trivial injury. i appreciate that the question whether an injury is trivial is a subjective matter, but when one has a comparative basis between termination and childbirth we must remember that there are natural injuries of childbirth in almost every case, including for example, perineal stitches, haemorrhaging and varicose veins. i am trying to exclude the doctor who seeks to provide abortion on demand and justifies it by saying that a woman is likely to need stitches if she goes on to childbirth.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.231', 4, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. archer rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.232', 465, 'uk.m.10010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have already said that i shall not give way. i am trying to show that the words are used by doctors themselves over and over again with no difficulty. that argument does not hold much water.\n what we are seeking to do is to set the ambits within which the decision can be taken, to ensure that it is taken on the basis not of universal or general circumstances but of the individual needs and circumstances of the woman concerned. she and her needs and circumstances must be central to the debate. a law that allows the decision that she and her doctors must take to be devalued into a social convenience, as i believe it often is, devalues the woman herself.\n during the long months since june when we have been considering the issue and listening to and receiving evidence from many quarters, and from many different standpoints, i have been struck by one thing in particular. the decision whether to have an abortion is traumatic for a woman. it is often a time of great stress and great anxiety, when she looks to others for help and counsel.\n i cannot support a system that fails to provide that help or counsel, a system in which women experience social pressures urging them to have an abortion in some circumstances, a system that can produce the tragic example of women who wrote to me last autumn, who had had an abortion and desperately regretted it afterwards. they said over and over again in their letters "if only we had had the time to think about it properly…if only people had explained all the circumstances that surround having an abortion".\n few can deny that abortion is an operation that wounds the woman—not only in itself, not only in the possible physical and mental after-effects, which are far too often ignored in this debate, but emotionally. the clause seeks genuinely to protect the women about whom i have talked, who have found themselves at the end of a great channel of social pressure urging them to have an abortion which they will afterwards regret.\n let us never forget that though abortion is often the easy way out of a predicament for a man it is never quite as easy for a woman, and for the child it is no way out at all. i hope that we still live in a society in which life is valued and in which, when it is taken, it is not taken lightly.\n i believe, too, that we in this house have a duty to protect those in our society whom society sometimes unwittingly pressurises and exploits. i see that as the purpose of the clause and the argument against the amendments, and i ask the house to reject them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.233', 1185, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is no mystery that the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram) declined to give way to anyone seeking to intervene in his speech. anyone who makes dogmatic statements which are totally at variance with the facts cannot afford the risk that someone might bob up and ask him to produce some evidence to support what he is saying.\n like my right hon. and learned friend the member for warley, west (mr. archer), i do not like to impute motives to people who take a view which is different from my own. however, if my right hon. and learned friend had sat through the committee stage of the bill he would have been left in no doubt that the purpose of the words "serious" and "substantially" was to frighten doctors off doing abortions. there was no doubt from the proceedings of the committee that that was their purpose, and their only purpose.\n the object of including the words had nothing to do with getting rid of abortion on demand. it had nothing to do with the scientific follow-up, the balance of advantage and disadvantage and the balance of the risk at this end and the risk at that end. the words are designed to frighten off doctors and to put them in a position where, having made their own judgment, they say to themselves "that is my judgment, but how do i know that a jury will take the same view? the jury probably will not have a doctor on it. it may decide on the evidence. it may have people on it who are prejudiced one way or the other in respect of abortion. how do i know that in making its judgment of whether what i did was right or wrong the jury will adopt the same sort of criteria as those which i applied?"\n as we know, it is possible for different juries to take different views about the same word in identical cases. it is possible for courts at different levels to take different views. if the racing form of the last few weeks is any guide, the odds are about 5 to 1 on that whatever the court of appeal finds, the house of lords throws out. the odds are about 5 to 1 on that if the court of appeal found that a matter was "substantial", the house of lords would say that it was not, and vice versa.\n i did not understand the argument between my right hon. and learned friends about "objective" and "subjective". of course it is subjective. it is a twelve fold subjective test. it is 12 members of a jury making a guess. if we put in words which are susceptible of different interpretations, the doctor cannot foresee how they will be construed in court. therefore, if he wants to avoid getting it in the snitch, he says to himself "i had better stay out of this altogether."\n there is no way of quantifying either "serious" or "substantially". my right hon. and learned friend quoted from the legal sources to which he says the lawyers always go. i do not know about that. whenever i try to discover some of these things, i go to what i regard as the child\'s guide to the law, which is butter-worth\'s legal dictionary. that is the only book that puts legal considerations in terms which a moderately educated layman can begin to understand.\n i have looked up both terms in butterworth\'s dictionary. about "substantial", it says: \'substantial\' is not a word with a hard meaning in all contexts. it is an unsatisfactory medium for carrrying the idea of some ascertainable proportion of the whole. if it is an unsatisfactory medium for carrying the idea of an ascertainable proportion, the definition is saying that some people might think that 10 per cent. was "substantial", whereas others might not think it was "substantial" unless it was 20 per cent.\n a poor doctor with a case before him has to try to estimate what a jury might think in some months\' time. it may be a year or two before the case goes to court. this is an area in which there are many litigious people who have no difficulty in getting access to a lot of money for costs. there is no doubt that if these words were in the bill they would be tested over and over again in the courts. one court might find one way and another court another way.\n i invite the house to look at the word "serious", and what dear old butterworth says is very revealing. it quotes an authority who, i imagine, would be recognised by all learned members of the house as adequate—lord chief justice reading, who had many distinctions. apart from being lord chief justice, he was viceroy of india, and he also preceded me in representing reading in the house. he decided that the word "serious" was synonymous with the word "grave."\n having decided that "serious" was synonymous with "grave" he looked at "grave" to decide what that word meant. he said: i think we must come to the conclusion that when parliament introduced the word \'grave\' before the word \'misconduct\' it meant that the misconduct must be not only of a character which could properly be described as misconduct, but also that the misconduct must be such as would amount to misconduct of a grave…character. that is a beauty, is it not? what the learned lord chief justice said in 50 words is what a layman would say in three words. the layman would say "grave means grave". that is what the lord chief justice said. he said that he could find no other definition for the word "grave" than that it meant "grave", and, as i said earlier, he said "grave" was "serious".\n the hon. member for edinburgh, south said that doctors know what the word means because they use the term themselves and sometimes have to talk about serious injury. that will not wash. there is no comparison between assessing whether an injury that has taken place is serious and assessing whether an injury that may take place in several months\' time will be serious. one can judge whether grievous bodily harm is serious when one sees that the bloke who has suffered it has a broken jaw, five fractured ribs, concussion, a fractured pelvis and bothlegs broken. one has no difficulty in considering that he has suffered a grievous injury. doctors are often called upon in courts to say that an injury is serious. there is no diffculty in saying that it is serious when the chap\'s injury seen.\n what on earth has that to do with a doctor asking himself what sort of injury a woman might suffer if she does not have an abortion and what injury she might suffer if she goes through with her pregnancy for another four or five months? the doctor has no hard evidence. it must be a matter on which he has to exercise the most refined clinical judgment.\n the hon. gentleman quoted the bma handbook—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.234', 52, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "does my hon. friend accept that a doctor will think that he needs to wait to decide whether the injury will be serious or that there will be substantial damage to the woman's health? what hon. members who support the bill seem to want to avoid is delay. this will cause delay.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.235', 98, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that we all want to avoid delay because, as has been said over and over again—and i do not want to go on repeating truisms—no one likes abortion. we look at abortion as a necessary evil, and everyone understands that if there must be abortion it should be done as early as possible, because the later it takes place the more difficult it is. of course, a doctor will be safer in making his judgment if he lets the pregnancy develop. however, my hon. friend is right. we do not want late abortions to take place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.237', 55, 'uk.m.10283', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that the unamended clause makes the provision for doctors more difficult because, whereas the test of the prospect of injury is wholly objective, the test whether it is serious is almost exclusively subjective? therefore, for that reason, the doctor would be in grave peril if the clause went through unamended.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.238', 16, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is telling doctors that they would be much better off with the amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.239', 4, 'uk.m.10283', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. hogg indicated dissent. \n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.240', 118, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have manifestly done the hon. gentleman the injustice of misunderstanding him. i thought that he had said that doctors would be better off. i apologise for misunderstanding him.\n the point that i was about to make was that the doctors themselves do not want this. the bma does not want it. doctors are terrified of it because they, like other people, do not want to be landed in litigation. the only people who will benefit from the insertion of these words are the lawyers. the doctors will not benefit and the women will not benefit, and they are the people whom the bill should be about. the case against including these indefinable and unquantifiable words is overwhelming.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.241', 1388, 'uk.m.17347', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we are faced with the situation that, unless these amendments are accepted, doctors will be cautious, because if they are too liberal in their interpretation they could face prosecution and they might be convicted in the crown court if they could not convince a jury of the genuineness of their professional judgment. supporters of the amendments have already referred to this. doctors will be afraid to use their own medical judgment in this personal and individualistic matter.\n when faced with a serious decision whether to advise on and allow an abortion, doctors will not only have to bear in mind the state of mind, physical condition and circumstances of the patient but will always have to be conscious of the fact that, with the new, tighter, legislation, their own reputations are at stake. however sympathetic the doctor may be towards the patient\'s problem, he will always recollect that he is bound by the interpretation of words.\n the supporters of the bill, and the hon. member for edinburgh, south (mr. ancram), would have us believe that at present doctors are practising abortion on demand. they base much of their evidence for this on one doctor—professor peter huntingford—who has often stated that he performs an abortion if the woman requests it.\n the fact that one doctor admits to performing abortion on demand is hardly ground for changing the very careful and balanced wording of the 1967 act. abor- tion on demand does not exist in this country for the overwhelming majority of women.\n figures show that the numbers of abortions performed in different areas vary. in newcastle upon tyne 93 per cent. of abortions were performed on women in the national health service. in dudley, in the same year, the figure was only 6 per cent. clearly these women do not have abortion on demand. far from introducing restrictive phrases such as "serious" and "substantially", parliament should be acting to eliminate the gross discrepancies that exist within the national health service.\n a poll carried out for the society for the protection of unborn children by gallup in 1971 showed that fewer than one in 10 of gynaecologists believed that abortion on demand should be available in all circumstances. when the lane committee considered this problem, it decided not to recommend any alteration in the wording. the majority of doctors have not taken decisions on abortions lightly. their decisions must now be further prejudiced because a liberal interpretation of the words may mean prosecution. it would take years of litigation to sort out what is legal and what is illegal.\n already, in other sectors of medical practice, when faced with completely different situations, doctors have to calculate not only which decision is most advantageous to the health of the patient but which decision is least likely to involve him in legal action. in 1978 a mother with a brain-damaged child was awarded damages of £100,000 against the obstetrician who performed a forceps delivery when her baby was born. in december last year that award was quashed by the court of appeal.\n nevertheless, doctors will in future be in a dilemma when deciding between a forceps delivery—which may place them in a position where litigation may follow—or a caesarian section, which may not be in the best interests of the mother but which would entail less risk of legal action.\n there is already a flood of law suits in america in cases alleging medical malpractice. huge damages have been awarded and as a result the professional judgment of doctors is being affected. if defensive medicine is growing in other areas, one can imagine how the new restrictions would effectively reduce the chance of any woman obtaining an abortion legally even although she might have a very good case. she would be forced to seek a dangerous and illegal abortion.\n we must bear in mind that deaths from all forms of abortion have fallen from 34 in 1969—the year after the abortion act came into force—to five in 1978. only one death after an illegal abortion was recorded in 1977 compared with 22 in 1968. the number of hospital discharges after treatment for septic abortion—a common result of botched illegal abortions—fell from 3,000 in 1968 to 610 in 1975. illegal abortion offences known to the police have dropped from 257 in 1969 to seven in 1978. the number of persons found guilty of, or cautioned for, offences of procuring illegal abortion dropped from 72 in 1969 to three in 1977.\n many of the supporters of the bill are assuming that an illegal abortion is something that a woman undertakes lightly. they underestimate the sensitivity, the moral fibre and the humanitarian feelings of the women of this country. they also underestimate a woman\'s strong maternal instincts. it can never be an easy decision for a young girl, or a not so young woman, and it will be even more difficult if, while having to cope with so many mixed emotions, she has also to seek the assistance of an illegal back-street operator. the strain and feeling of guilt may scar her mentally for many years.\n it may not be an easy decision to make, but 80 per cent. of women questioned in a recent gallup poll said that if abortions were made difficult by law they would still go ahead and try to find other ways of terminating a pregnancy. parliament can decide only whether abortions are performed legally or illegally. if the bill becomes law, the number of abortions will not be substantially reduced. women will search for means of procuring an abortion until they find one. it has been thus from time immemorial.\n in the last year, four separate polls showed that there was wide support for the existing law. a poll by mori for the sunday times shows that less than half of the population think that the abortion law should be tightened. a clear majority thinks that the law should be left as it is or liberalised. that poll was conducted only two weeks ago.\n a recent gallup poll commissioned by woman\'s own reveals that two out of three women in the 25 to 35 age group are against changing the law. a total of 81 per cent. of women believe that the question of abortion should be left to the woman in consultation with doctors. those views are held by women of all political persuasions. it is interesting that only 12 per cent. of conservatives questioned by gallup supported the new bill compared with 15 per cent. of labour voters.\n the representative body of the bma, which includes doctors of all disciplines and religions, deplores the attack on the present abortion act. it considers the act to be humane and practical and says that it does not require amendment. that body is supported by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and, most importantly, by the royal college of psychiatrists and almost every other medical organisation in britain.\n an editorial in the british medical journal said that medical experts were unanimous that the law should be left unchanged. a letter signed by 70 of britain\'s most prominent doctors appeared in this month\'s lancet, warning that if the bill is passed septic abortion will once again become a national scourge.\n i hope that my colleagues, if and when going through the lobby to support the bill, will remember that they are ignoring sound advice and professional judgment. i hope that my male colleagues will remember that the proposed changes are not considered to be desirable by most of the women in the country and that women are inadequately represented in the house.\n the roman catholic bishops of england, wales and scotland support the bill. the catholic church\'s position on abortion is well known. many religious leaders of other denominations also support that view. i respect their opinion. we are lucky that our religious leaders are given every opportunity to persuade people to accept their view. however, they must work by persuasion. it is not right that they should expect rigid and restrictive legislation from the house on such an intensely personal matter.\n i support the group of amendments. i shall not vote for the bill, because if it is passed there will be a return to criminal and dangerous abortion, which will cause hardship and suffering to so many women.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.242', 74, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. speaker. earlier today you heard a point of order by the hon. member for swindon (mr. stoddart) about this afternoon's events. may i ask you, with great respect, that when you come to consider hansard and what went on you will take into account the trivial and time-wasting nature of such points of order and the effect that they have on private members' time, which is extremely limited\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.243', 15, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am obliged. i shall bear everything in mind, to the best of my ability.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.244', 40, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i resent being accused of introducing triviality into our proceedings, particularly since you, mr. speaker, took a later point of order and reasonably promised to make a statement about it on monday.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6.2.245', 49, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as someone who held responsibility as minister of state, department of health and social security, i think that it would be apposite if i intervened at this stage to make my contribution to the debate on this group of amendments, which i consider to be the most crucial group—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-15.6']]
['Abortion (Carlisle Baby Case)']
[['uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9.1.2', 2132, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue tonight. i thank you, mr. speaker, for selecting this debate on the topic of the carlisle baby. the case has been raised in questions to various ministers and also as part of the general abortion debate, but it raises so many issues of national importance, affecting all regional and district health authorities and hospitals where abortions are carried out, that it really deserves a debate of its own.\n i have given my hon. friend the minister notice of the principal questions that i intend to raise in the hope that many of those hitherto unanswered questions will be answered, and that certain things that went on in carlisle will finally come out into the light of day.\n in raising the issue, i have confined myself to the material contained in affidavits, sworn properly before a solicitor, information given to the priest, the chaplain of carlisle city general hospital, and certain press coverage that has gone unchallenged.\n nevertheless, i recognise that not all hon. members share my concern about the events in carlisle in july 1987. i offered my hon. friend the member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay), who i know to be entirely honourable and who would therefore have confined his time appropriately, the opportunity, if he wished, to intervene in the debate, but, alack, this place is as empty of himself as the arguments of the pro-abortionists on the subject are of reason and merit.\n in summary, on 21 july 1987, a woman was admitted to carlisle city general hospital, 21 weeks pregnant, for an abortion. no injection was used to ensure that the child would be born dead, and the method used was the prostaglandin method. in the event, the child was born alive. she lived for three hours, during the course of which she was baptised by one of the nurses. she was left gasping on a kidney dish. no ventilation or incubation equipment was available. two nurses were left to cope with the situation alone without proper supervision. when the child died, no death certificate was issued, and no birth certificate has ever been issued.\n the mother did not find out for six months that the child had lived. when eventually the facts came to light, through the good offices of a catholic priest, a police file was prepared on the case that led the coroner in carlisle to recommend that it was in the public interest that an inquest should be held. normally it is routine that an inquest would follow, but on this occasion it did not.\n the case raises a large number of questions, both about the compliance of our hospitals—in the nhs and the private licensed clinics—with the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and about the conduct of late abortions in general.\n the 1929 act states: any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of the mother, shall be guilty of … child destruction". that is any child capable of being born alive—and the carlisle baby was born alive.\n that same act states that at 28 weeks there shall be prima facie proof that the child will be capable of being born alive. it does not say "before 28 weeks there is no proof". it simply gives absolute protection after 28 weeks. if anyone has reason to assume that a child before that time is capable of being born alive, to procure its death is an act of child destruction. that is made very clear under the 1929 act, and it is clear in the abortion act 1967 that nothing in it negates the provisions of the 1929 act.\n we are faced with a very strange situation. a piece of law states that it is child destruction to kill a child before it has an independent existence from its mother if it is capable of being born alive. yet widely practised in the private clinics is the diabolical method of d and e in which the child is dismembered alive, without anaesthetic, in the womb. is my hon. friend the minister really satisfied that our nhs hospitals and the private clinics that he must license are complying with the law? in the nhs hospitals, where that diabolical method is not practised, an injection of urea or saline is given to a child before abortion by the prostaglandin method. how does ensuring that the child is born dead possibly comply with the 1929 act? as we now know that children can survive independently of the mother as early as 24 and possibly 23 weeks, what possible reason can there be for allowing any abortions after those weeks if the 1929 act is to be complied with? that has been generally recognised.\n we have another complaint, because not only is it permissible to kill those children in hospitals, despite the 1929 act, but, just to make a sop in the direction of complying with the act, there is a set of regulations. they were enunciated by the then secretary of state, mrs barbara castle, on 21 october 1975, when she said: in the national health service the select committee\'s recommendation that terminations after the twentieth week of pregnancy"— the carlisle baby was 21 weeks— should be carried out only in hospitals possessing appropriate facilities, including resuscitation equipment, have been accepted, and discussions have been held with regional medical officers who will be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations."— [0fficial report, 21 october 1975; vol. 898, c. 245.] furthermore, in approving private clinics the secretary of state demands that they have ventilation and incubation if they are to carry out terminations after the 20th week; demands that there should be staff instructed in their use and available to use them; demands that arrangements be made for the child to be taken to the nearest special baby care unit. i am sure that we do not expect less from the nhs than we expect from the private sector. i ask my hon. friend the minister whether at any time the east cumbria health authority gave notice to him, or to any of his predecessors, that it could not comply with the conditions set out in 1975 and re-enacted ever since.\n was my hon. friend under the impression that carlisle city general hospital could comply with those regulations? if he was not, what steps has he taken to ensure that other hospitals, in other areas, that have not had the horror of this case and therefore have not come to public notice, can comply with those simple provisions about ventilation, incubation and trained staff?\n why were two nurses left unsupervised? why were no instructions given by the consultant who had authorised and, indeed, started the abortion? why was their only telephone contact with a junior doctor who was on duty that night? what was done by senior medical staff in carlisle city general hospital that night? is all that normal procedure at carlisle? is it normal for nurses to be left unsupervised to cope with very complicated and unexpected cases? if so, is that also done elsewhere? is my hon. friend aware that the junior doctor on duty that night did not wish to participate in abortions? wherefore the workings of the conscience clause?\n i come now to the cruellest point of all. it appears that the diagnosis was possibly wrong. the abortion was carried out under section 1(1) (b) of the 1967 act, which states that abortion is permissible where "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."\n in this case the diagnosis was that the father had a mild form—and it was mild—of ehlers danlos syndrome, which the child in turn had only a 50 per cent. chance of inheriting and which ranges from a very minor disability to being quite serious in some forms. can that be described as a substantial risk? if the minister had to take a bet on such odds, would he think it likely that the odds were in favour of the child coming out handicapped? no proper analysis was made of whether that diagnosis was right or wrong.\n we come to the aftermath of the carlisle case and to what i can only describe as a massive cover-up. there was a police investigation and a recommendation for an inquest. it is not my hon. friend\'s responsibility to approve inquests, but may i ask him to say in how many other instances of death in an nhs hospital where a coroner has recommended an inquest has that recommendation been turned down? how often does that happen?\n is there or is there not a law which says that live births shall be registered? why was the carlisle baby not registered\'? why, when it had lived for three hours—wanted, normal and baptised—was there no death certificate? why was the mother not offered the option of a funeral, which is offered even in the case of stillborn babies, let alone those who have lived\'? why was not the mother told of the true situation for six months? why was it left to a priest to bring the matter into the light of day, and why was the priest\'s contract not renewed? is it true, as the nurses have stated, that their union advised them to keep quiet and not to take any legal action?\n will the minister admit that a thorough overhaul of procedures is needed and that what happened in carlisle that night brings credit to nobody and that the regional health authority must answer properly for its implementation of the ventilation and incubation requirements\'? will he also agree, chillingly, that there was a similar case in 1983, alas not the subject of so much publicity?\n when that little light was extinguished in carlisle, a great darkness fell on the nhs, on its civilisation and on its compliance with basic law. does the minister agree that for a live, wanted, normal, baptised child to live for three hours on a kidney dish—not even in a warm cot and not in its mother\'s arms—not in an incubator but on a kidney dish, is a disgrace? will he join me in regretting that the case was not resolved in the light of day?\n i now make a statement of fact and i do not make it threateningly. i have not tonight named any of the staff involved, the chairman of the regional health authority, the hospital administrator or anybody else, not even under privilege, but if a similar case occurs again in any part of the country a considerable body of parliamentary opinion will insist that that case is solved in the light of day, even if it means coming up with names and personal identities in the house.\n i summarise my questions to the minister and i would like him to answer all of them. i hope that i have left him sufficient time in which to do that. how does killing a child before birth tie in with the infant life (preservation) act 1929? what is the point of insisting that ventilation equipment shall be available if the child is allowed to be killed? will the minister consider outlawing completely the barbaric d and e method? does he expect the nhs to match the standards that he lays down for private hospitals? did east cumbria ever indicate that it could not comply with the regulations and, if not, why was ventilation not available that night? why were two nurses left alone unsupervised? in how many other instances of death on nhs premises has a recommended inquest been refused? why was there no birth certificate? why was there no death certificate?\n does the minister agree that there was a cover-up and, if he does, what disciplinary action was taken, and if none was taken, what steps will be taken to ensure that this never occurs again? why was the mother not told for six months that the child had lived? why was the priest\'s contract not renewed? is the minister satisfied that the abortion complied with section 4 of the 1967 act, and does he agree that that section is widely abused and that this is only one instance of it? what steps has he taken to revise the regulations or to re-emphasise them, in the light of the carlisle case, to all regional health authorities? why was there no option of a funeral?\n i hope that the minister will answer those questions. they all need answering. if they are not answered, this issue will be properly raised again in the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 6, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9.1.3', 253, 'uk.m.17677', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend the member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate. we should be grateful to her for raising this important case and to the minister for being here for the adjournment debate this evening. i believe he has replied to every adjournment debate this week, and i am grateful to him.\n the carlisle baby case is disturbing, as the facts outlined by my hon. friend the member for maidstone have brought home to us. on tuesday, the under-secretary of state for health said: the abortion act has to be read alongside the infant life (preservation) act 1929, whose basic purpose is to protect the life of the unborn child, except where termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother."—[ official report, 6 june 1989; vol. 154, c. 206.] that did not happen in this case. there was no protection for the child under the infant life (preservation) act. it was not only capable of being born alive, but was actually born alive. there is no doubt about that. however, there was no prosecution, and not even an inquest.\n nobody comes out of the case well. the hospital authorities, the home office, and the health authority do not. the church does not because it could have done more to ensure that the chaplain was reinstated. many people have a lot to answer for. we intend to continue to press this case until we have satisfactory answers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 6, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9.1.4', 316, 'uk.m.10009', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i entirely endorse the comments of my hon. friend the member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) and i admire her tenacity on this issue and all her supportive remarks about abortion.\n in december, i and a number of colleagues raised, at home office questions, the carlisle baby case and my hon. friend the under-secretary for the home department was frank in his replies. he said: there has been only one conviction for child destruction in the past ten years. he continued: there is quite clear and compelling evidence that the rebuttable presumption should arise not at 28 weeks but at 24 weeks,"— [official report, 15 december 1988, vol. 143; c. 1074.] i recently asked my hon. friend the minister a number of questions about abortion and i shall not detain the house with his answers today. he was frank and the number of late abortions carried out make one sad, particularly the fact that an abortion was carried out on a 10-year-old.\n in an adjournment debate in 1986, i raised the issue of abortions in private clinics. i am not happy with the procedures carried out. i do not expect my hon. friend to respond tonight, but i hope that in due course he will write to tell me what advice his officials give to private clinics.\n is it a wonder that we face social problems and that life has become cheap when the number of abortions carried out in the united kingdom is so high? i certainly hope, as would the majority of hon. members, that well within the lifetime of this parliament we shall have a clear opportunity to vote on the stage at which abortions can be carried out in this country. i very much hope that we shall vote to reduce the legal limit and that the infant life (preservation) act will no longer be the nonsense which it so clearly is today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 6, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9.1.5', 1723, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', "my hon. friend the member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) was fortunate to secure this adjournment debate tonight. i think that she described the case as distressing and sad, and i agree with her. her contribution to the debate and those of my hon. friends the members for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) and for basildon (mr. amess) were illuminating and important.\n in the 11 minutes left i can answer but a few of the points raised, but i shall study the reports of this debate. my hon. friend raised a number of issues and was kind enough to give me an outline of the points that she intended to raise. i hope that she will bear with me and accept an answer in correspondence to many of the points that she raised. likewise, i shall write to my other hon. friends.\n the debate has centred on the carlisle baby case—a termination of pregnancy on grounds of likely serious physical handicap which took place in carlisle hospital in july 1987. i am anxious to demonstrate to the house that this case has been closely examined by the health authority and by the department of health, and also, as regards the matter of an inquest, by the home office. but in doing this i have to bear in mind two different matters. the first is that of patient confidentiality. termination of pregnancy is for the women concerned inevitably stressful and it is therefore clearly important that the usual standards of confidentiality should be adhered to with particular rigour. the second is the question of possible legal proceedings on behalf of the women. i am advised that this question is still outstanding and i have therefore to bear this closely in mind in what i say briefly tonight.\n when the various concerns about the case became apparent the east cumbria health authority set up an internal committee of inquiry which included an independent gynaecologist, and produced conclusions and recommendations. the committee concluded that the termination of pregnancy was properly performed within the requirements of the abortion act but that there was some disregard of the patient's right to confidentiality and lapses in communication at and after the event. its report, which identifies the staff involved and gives details about the patient's circumstances, is confidential. in the light of the committee's findings and recommendations the authority has tightened its procedures in various ways to ensure that they are in line with best practices. written guidance to both medical and nursing staff has been strengthened and staff have been reminded that all information relating to patients must be kept confidential.\n my hon. friend asked first about resuscitation equipment and the 1975 select committee report. the committee's recommendation that termination after the twentieth week of pregnancy should be carried out only in hospitals possessing appropriate facilities was accepted and in the nhs responsibility for its implementation has been the responsibility of regional medical officers. the committee's recommendation was discussed with rmos in september 1975. they said that there would be no difficulty in implementing the recommendation.\n in march 1983 rmos were reminded that the department wanted to ensure that all nhs gynaecological staff who undertook late abortions were aware of the requirement that resuscitation equipment should be available. the rmos felt that this requirement was sufficiently well known and observed by nhs consultant gynaecologists, and saw no need for the department to issue particular guidance on the subject. in the carlisle baby case the position is that if a decision had been made by the doctor concerned to resuscitate the foetus the necessary equipment was available on site and would have been on the scene within a matter of a very few minutes.\n my hon. friend asked about the infant life (preservation) act 1929 which makes it an offence to destroy the life of a child which is capable of being born alive. in any particular case it is a matter for the clinical judgment of the individual doctor whether a foetus, at any age, is capable of being born alive. doctors are properly mindful of the requirements of the act and do not carry out an abortion, by any method, when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive. as for the method used to perform an abortion, that too is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor involved having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case.\n i am sure that my hon. friend will agree that we should not put ourselves in the position of clinicians, making a judgment about whether a child is capable of being born alive. it is for the courts to make a determination given the circumstances of a particular case and i would not wish to go further than that.\n my hon. friend asked about the supervision by the nursing staff and specifically about the nursing staff present at the termination. they were not alone and they were not unsupervised. two nurses were caring for the woman under the supervision of a sister. the doctor was called on delivery and attended quickly. he decided not to attempt to resuscitate the foetus and informed nursing staff to that effect. that was entirely a matter for his clinical judgment.\n the question of deaths on national health service premises where a recommendation for an inquest is turned down, is a matter for my right hon. friend the home secretary and i will see that my hon. friend's comments are brought to his attention.\n my hon. friend asked me why the baby's birth was not registered. the births and deaths registration act 1953 requires that any child born alive shall be registered and if the child subsequently dies the death also falls to be registered. where more than 12 months have transpired since a birth or a death the registrar general's authority is required for the registration. in considering any such application for registration after 12 months the registrar general needs to be satisfied that a registerable live birth or death has occurred. i understand that no such application has been made in this case.\n my hon. friend asked why the mother was not told for six months that the baby had lived. the doctor made a clinical judgment that this was not a live birth. in the circumstances staff decided to say nothing to the mother after the doctor made his decision.\n my hon. friend asked about policy on burial arrangements. at the time to which these events refer it was the health authority's general policy to offer ordinary burial for stillbirths but not for terminations of pregnancy. this policy has now been extended to cover situations in which the foetus is over 20 weeks' gestation and guidelines have been issued to staff that burial of the foetus should be offered to the mother in these circumstances.\n as regards the incineration of the foetus, this was the health authority's normal practice at the time, but, as i have already said, the procedure has now been changed. in cases over 20 weeks' gestation the foetus is now retained for 48 hours to allow for a request for burial.\n my hon. friend asked about the priest's contract. as she knows, the department of health does not intervene in the decisions of statutorily independent health authorities as they relate to questions of employment of individuals, and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment.\n my hon. friend asks for an assurance that the lessons from the carlisle baby case will be learned. it is clear that this was in many ways an exceptional case. it attracted considerable publicity and has been closely studied in the department, culminating in correspondence between the minister for health and the chairman of the authority, who assured us that the lessons of this very sad episode have been fully learned. the department will also take close account of this case in its future administration of the abortion act 1967.\n my hon. friend implied that the diagnosis of handicap in this case was wrong. this is a misunderstanding of the position under the abortion act 1967. the act requires that in cases such as this doctors should give an opinion, in good faith, that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. this is a matter of clinical judgment and i have no reason to believe that the abortion act is not being properly observed on that point.\n i have gone into some detail, as far as the requirements of confidentiality and possible legal action allow, about the facts of the particular case which has given rise to concern. i hope that hon. members will accept my assurances and those of the minister for health, who has also looked into this matter, and of the home office that this case has in its various aspects been closely studied. on the general question of late abortions, my department will continue to ensure that the law and practice on this extremely difficult subject are administered as closely as possible. this is of course entirely without prejudice to any changes in the law on abortion which parliament may see fit to adopt in the future and which it would not be right for me to discuss in any detail in this adjournment debate. i am, however, grateful to my hon. friend for giving me the opportunity to set out the position.\n on the general question of abortions, let alone late abortions, it has of course been long-standing practice in the house for members to be able to express their own personal views on this issue. as regards that general policy, the government have been consistent and, like my hon. friend, i find this case extremely distressing and sad. whatever my own personal feelings, i see it as my duty tonight and in future correspondence with my hon. friend to answer the facts of the case so as better to inform not only my hon. friend but all hon. members. in answering those questions of fact, one's own personal views or opinions concerning the issues that have been raised are in no way implied.\n i undertake to write at length and to answer as comprehensively as possible the points raised by my hon. friend.\n ", datetime.datetime(1989, 6, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9.1.6', 109, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "with the leave of the house, mr. speaker, may i thank my hon. friend for his very comprehensive reply to a long series of questions? i am grateful to him. throughout his reply ran the theme that a live child does not have rights so long as it is the product of an abortion. to take the burial question, it was a live child; it should have been registered; it should have had a death certificate. merely because it was the product of an abortion does not mean that it had fewer rights than a child born prematurely.\n question put and agreed to. \n adjourned accordingly at half-past ten o'clock. \n ", datetime.datetime(1989, 6, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-06-08.9']]
['ABORTIONS (PRIVATE NURSING HOMES AND CLINICS)']
[['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.2', 65, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'to ask the secretary of state for social services what is the total number of private nursing homes and clinics now licensed as being suitable for carrying out terminations of pregnancy; how many of these licences were issued after the abortion act became law in april, 1968, and have been renewed in april, 1969; and how many licences were not renewed and for what reasons.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.3', 134, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'with permission, mr. speaker, i will now answer written question no. 14.\n fifty-five out of the fifty-nine homes approved for the termination of pregnancy up to 26th april sought reapproval. forty-seven have been given reapproval for a further year. i have given reapproval for a period of two months only to seven homes, and have drawn their attention to apparent deficiencies in their facilities.\n the common feature of these homes—all in the north west metropolitan area—is the high number of terminations performed there. these homes will be re-inspected by professional officers of my department before any further approval is given. in addition, reapproval has been withheld in one case and a final decision will be reached in the light of further inquiries. applications for approval from five homes not previously approved are under consideration.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.4', 85, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my right hon. friend for giving this question an oral answer. what deficiencies did his officers discover in the seven homes which have been given reapproval only for a further two months? can these deficiencies easily be put right? his answer is a matter of anxiety to both doctors and patients. in the case of the home for which reapproval has not been granted, how many terminations of pregnancy were carried out there during the past year? why was the home not reapproved?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.5', 21, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the oral answer of a written question does not mean that an hon. member can ask too long a supplementary.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.6', 29, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'finally, can my right hon. friend tell us how long it will take to examine and possibly approve the five homes for which applications for approval are under consideration?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.7', 66, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'the deficiencies in the homes for which reapproval has been given for a period of two months relate particularly to the operating facilities, which may give rise to the risk of cross-infection, facilities for safe post-operative movement of patients and also arrangements for the provision of blood in emergencies. these relate to the fact that a very large number of abortions take place in these homes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.8', 20, 'uk.m.19405', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the right hon. gentleman think that his powers under the present legislation are adequate to deal with these matters?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.9', 64, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "my powers are adequate to deal with the matters which the minister was instructed to deal with. these, of course, are the physical conditions in the home. the minister's job is not to tell the doctor how to do his job, but to see that the job is done in adequate physical conditions. that is as far as i can go in answer now.\n ", datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.10', 55, 'uk.m.22538', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i welcome what my right hon. friend has said about the inspection of the nursing homes. does not he agree that much of the pressure on private nursing homes is because some consultants at least are failing to make available to patients treatment which was intended to be made available to them by the act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.11', 82, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'that is my view and it has been demonstrated by the statistics, which show that there is now two and a half times the number of therapeutic abortions compared with any previous 12 months before the act. in the south-west metropolitan region 22 per cent. of the women resident in the region were operated on in national health service hospitals, while in the newcastle region the figure was 96 per cent. the difference is very great. i meant, of course, per thousand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.12', 59, 'uk.m.18267', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'to what extent do the figures quoted by the right hon. gentleman about approvals and the withholding of approval apply to the london area? to what extent does he estimate that the very high demand in the london area is due to residents coming to london from other areas of this country and also to people coming from abroad?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.13', 43, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'the patients from abroad are a very small proportion. evidence seems to show that patients are going to these seven homes from other parts of the country, and no doubt one of the factors is the difficulty in those regions of obtaining abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.14', 44, 'uk.m.18724', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can my right hon. friend look at whether, in the private nursing sector, it would be possible to allow the patient to have a longer period of rest after termination of pregnancy and thus avoid what is at present a rather factory-like production line?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.15', 100, 'uk.m.22107', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend for calling attention to this very undesirable factor. in the case of abortions taking place under the national health service, the number of women who do not stay in hospital for a single night is virtually insignificant whereas the number of women who leave private nursing homes without spending a single night there is very high.\n i am thinking of making it a condition that a private home should have sufficient beds to be able to give to any woman who desires or needs to stay accommodation for the night after the operation.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.16', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10.1.17', 5, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we must get on.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 4, 28, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-04-28.10']]
['Oral Answers to Questions — 12-YEAR-OLD GIRL (ABORTION)']
[['uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7.1.1', 32, 'uk.m.18128', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'asked the attorney-general what has been the result of the investigation he asked the director of public prosecutions to make into the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy and abortion of a 12-year-old girl.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 7, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7.1.2', 36, 'uk.m.18869', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Attorney-General', 'government', 'the director of public prosecutions has considered the police report of their investigations. in his opinion, with which i agree, there is no evidence that any criminal offence was committed in the circumstances of this case.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 7, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7.1.3', 50, 'uk.m.18128', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the right hon. and learned gentleman for that reply, which will satisfy the overwhelming majority of sensible people who have, so far as they have been able, studied the circumstances of this unfortunate case. in fact, there never was any case for criminal prosecution in the existing circumstances.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 7, 19, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-07-19.7']]
['Orders of the Day — Abortion (Amendment) Bill']
[['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.3', 12, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the clause be read a second time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.4', 96, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: no. 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out 'on a consultant gynaecologist's recommendation' and insert 'on the advice of a registered medical practitioner who has been admitted to membership of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists'. no. 41, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out 'by a consultant gynaecologist and one other registered medical practitioner' and insert 'formed in good faith, by two registered medical practitioners'. no. 42, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.5', 490, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i apologise for my bedraggled state and hoarse voice as i have rushed here this morning from aberdeen where the labour party last night won a magnificient victory. it is opportune that i start by mentioning the city that i am proud to represent, because aberdeen is a city where the laws on abortion have been well tested, not just since 1967, but since the 1930s.\n i am disappointed that you, mr. speaker, did not choose the amendment relating to the exclusion of scotland from the operation of the bill, because scots law is very different from english law. it is a much more flexible system. there is no stated time limit. the effective time limit in scotland is 24 weeks because the law says that abortion would be a criminal offence in the case of a viable foetus. it is now medically accepted that a foetus is viable at the age of 24 weeks. i find it distressing that we are talking about time limits when the system in scotland is quite different and the concept of rigid time limits is quite alien. we have flexibility and that adds to the system.\n new clause 3 would amend the abortion act 1967 and attempts to do what the bill does not do. if the bill is implemented, it will impose a strict time limit with certain minor exceptions. i regard those exceptions as minor, although i know that the hon. members who propose them do not regard them as such. however, they were presented less in a spirit of improving the legislation than in a spirit of recognising that the bill had no prospect in the house without a compromise.\n there is already a major difficulty in the operation of the 1967 act. it is well known that the response from the medical profession to the act is, to say the least, patchy. there are some parts of the country where the act is operating in the spirit in which it is passed and in accordance with the law. my own city of aberdeen has long experience of the operation of abortions as a public service to women in need, but there are other parts of the country where the law is operated less satisfactorily.\n for example, in glasgow, the law is operated perfectly satisfactorily in one part of the city, hut, if a woman is unfortunate to live in the other part, she has grave difficulty in obtaining an abortion, even if she satisfies the requirements of the 1967 act. the net result is that over 900 women a year have to leave glasgow to go south to england where, for the purpose of statistics, they are treated as foreign women. that subject has caused great excitement among those who support the bill. nine hundred women leave glasgow every year and go south for abortions because they cannot obtain them in their native city, regardless of the fact that——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.6', 78, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend refers to that part of glasgow where the entitlements under the existing law are not extended to all women. will he include a reference to birmingham where the situation is exactly the same? as a result of the conscience clause, which we all respect, women in birmingham do not obtain their entitlement under the law unless they can afford to go into the private sector. does my hon. friend agree that that is deeply wrong?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.7', 31, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is entirely right. i was about to turn to the situation in birmingham which suffers from the same problem as that part of glasgow to which i referred.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.8', 14, 'uk.m.10417', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend specify the parts of glasgow to which he is referring?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.9', 267, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i understand that that is the practice in the southern part of glasgow, but i do not have details of the hospitals involved. however, i shall find out and tell my hon. friend later. as i said, 900 women a year leave glasgow to have abortions, so the record speaks for itself. my hon. friend the member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short) said that that is also the position in birmingham.\n i have already expressed my regret that my amendment that would have excluded scotland from the scope of the bill was not selected. equally, i regret that new clauses 1, 2 and 4 were not selected, because they would have put new clause 3 into context. all those new clauses attempted to deal with the difficulties that would arise if the bill were ever enacted. it lacks flexibility and pays no heed to the existing difficulties that we all wish to avoid.\n in committee i frequently said that i am not in favour of abortion, and i do not think that any of us are. it is something that we all find difficult to accept. however, it exists and, indeed, has existed for as long as there has been birth, which is as long as mankind has existed. there will always be abortion, so it must be within a legal framework. women are entitled to have an abortion in clean and safe surroundings with medical attention. that did not happen before the 1967 act, other than in a few areas such as aberdeen, and that will be the case again if the bill is passed unamended.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.10', 140, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i speak as a biologist. it is often said that we all dislike the concept of abortion, but in fact abortion can be a natural as well as an artificial process. about one third of all abortions occur naturally, without medical help. medical progress has, to some extent, subverted natural abortion, bringing to full term many babies who would have been aborted naturally but for medical science.\n abortion is not an unnatural process; it is part of nature. in previous times, natural abortion eliminated many of the current problems of foetal abnormality in the later stages of pregnancy. that is especially true of genetic foetal abnormalities, which often conflict with the genetics of the mother through the placenta and produce a natural abortion. we must not think that abortion is altogether unnatural and unpleasant—it is a normal weeding out process——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.11', 44, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. interventions must be brief. i have allowed the hon. member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran) to make a fairly extensive preamble to the new clause and the amendments, which are comparatively narrow. i am sure that he will now address himself to them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.12', 376, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was tempted to intervene on the hon. member for billericay (mrs. gorman), but i resisted. i accept her point because her professional background gives her great experience in these matters. of course, mr. deputy speaker, i also accept your strictures.\n the new clause would allow a woman who had been refused an abortion to appeal, although within the context of the 1967 act it is difficult to determine how such an appeal should be provided. the act makes it clear that certain acts should not be regarded as criminal in certain circumstances. new clause 4 would have changed the emphasis and the onus so that abortion could be provided in certain circumstances following an application by the woman. without the benefit of new clause 4, new clause 3 may appear to be lacking something. obviously, it will need to be amended—presumably in another place—if it is accepted.\n i would choose the vehicle of an appeals tribunal, which is a well tried and tested remedy. the major difficulty is the strict time limits. the period of gestation is well known. the time limit in scotland is, in effect, 24 weeks because of the viability of the foetus, while in england it is 28 weeks because of the infant life (preservation) act 1929. it is important that members of the medical profession address themselves to time limits— not only those set by law but those that they choose to apply when considering particular cases.\n i envisage new clause 3 being a spur to the medical profession to reconsider its practices. i commend to them those followed by the grampian health authority, which recognises that time limits are crucial. if a woman tells her general practitioner that she wishes to be considered for an abortion, that general practitioner follows a procedure established by that health authority. while the woman is still in his surgery, he must immediately contact the obstetrics dept of the local hospital, which must make an appointment over the telephone. the doctor does not have time to follow his usual procedure of writing to the hospital for an appointment, waiting for that to be processed and an appointment sent and then notifying the woman. my health authority has successfully managed to expedite the whole process.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.13', 44, 'uk.m.22641', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have just had handed to me letters from 41 doctors in tower hamlets, which is in my constituency, dealing with the issues that my hon. friend is raising. they state: as general practitioners in tower hamlets, whatever our personal views on induced abortion"— \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.14', 24, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that is more of a speech than an intervention, and i find it difficult to relate it to the new clause under discussion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.15', 7, 'uk.m.22641', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it deals with the points being raised—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.16', 13, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. lady must be brief if she is making an intervention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.17', 519, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i entirely accept the point that i think that my hon. friend tried to make, and i intend to refer later to similar documentation.\n the inadequacies in the national health service must be remedied, and that is the purpose of the new clause. a survey of general practitioners in the haringey area attempted to highlight those inadequacies. my knowledge of other areas, especially glasgow and birmingham, is that the survey's findings could equally well apply there. some 41 per cent. of general practitioners said that facilities for abortion within the nhs were inadequate and that there were huge delays in obtaining appointments. although 53 per cent. of those surveyed referred all women to the nhs, a significant number did not. the two most common reasons for that were women's preference—34 per cent.—and the probable delay in obtaining an appointment—a high figure of 20 per cent. the survey suggested that there was a large overlap between the 34 per cent. for women's preference and the 20 per cent. for fear of delays in hospitals providing early appointments.\n nearly half the general practitioners surveyed—47 per cent. of them—felt that there should be early abortion units, and i shall return to that point. a substantial proportion of them—67 per cent.—were concerned about pregnancy testing and similar issues. those are real and serious difficulties in the health service. as i said earlier, one of the major motivations behind the new clause is to encourage the health service to re-examine its practices.\n 10.30 am\n i am well aware that the 1967 act embodies a conscience clause which permits certain health service employees to opt out. these days, there is a fondness for that expression on the government benches. in any event, i am concerned at the way in which that conscience clause can be used to militate against women who want or need an abortion. in certain areas there seems to be a preponderance of health service employees exercising their option to use the conscience clause. that fact is not advertised or publicly known, and a woman may be a long way into the system before she realises that it militates against the abortion she may need—not because she fails to comply with the terms of the 1967 act, but because there is an in-built prejudice or conscience against abortion in the first place. i suppose that i am really saying that the law is not being observed and recognised.\n new clause 3 will encourage general practitioners to look again at the conscience clause. if i had been given the time and the freedom to draft the amendments i wanted, i would have proposed a register of medical practitioners, which women could consult to identify those operating the conscience clause who held strong, and perfectly reasonable, beliefs against providing abortions. in that way, a woman would not be seeking the assistance of a practitioner whose beliefs entailed an in-built delay she could know nothing about. we must find a way of overcoming that problem, perhaps with the register i have mentioned. new clause 3 would provide a way out and a right of appeal.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.18', 62, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend mentioned that if he had been given the time he would have drafted an amendment providing for a conscience register. a brief examination of amendment no. 45, which has not been selected, suggests that it would have covered that proposal. if we return to this subject on a future occasion, perhaps we may bear such a register in mind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.19', 11, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that must be done on another occasion and not now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.20', 8, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is what i said, mr. deputy speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.21', 180, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have no intention of attempting to move such an amendment now, mr. deputy speaker, but obviously my hon. friend and i are in agreement.\n as a professional person, i know how difficult it is to entertain an appeal against one of my decisions. solicitors do not tend to make decisions—they give advice. i know how nervous i am if any of my clients wishes to seek a second opinion. i suspect that members of the medical profession may feel intimidated by the suggestion of an appeal, because their decisions would be subject to examination by what i hope would be an independent appeals tribunal.\n it is essential to look back over the 20 or more years of the act's operation and consider the geographical disparities that the statistics reveal. why is the number of abortions so much higher in one part of the country than in another? why are there so many late abortions, with women having to turn to the private sector? why cannot women obtain abortions that have been deemed necessary and that are within the law?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.22', 26, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran) have any evidence of health authority officials deliberately causing delays and acting without any sense of urgency?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.23', 104, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'even if i had such evidence, i would not attempt to present it here—i would look for another way. the hon. member for bolton, north-east (mr. thurnham) was, like myself, present when certain members of the committee tabled a hit list—and i certainly would not be prepared to go down that road. i am prepared to rest my argument on the statistics, which are very clear. it is more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion in certain parts of the country than it is in others, and some are compelled to move out of the health service and into the private sector.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.24', 57, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend agree that he is not making any specific recommendations about the practical operation of the tribunal? we have all experienced hostile health authorities and their hostility towards tribunals. such hostility might negate the good that a tribunal could do. it is an important issue for those of us who have suffered such experiences.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.25', 61, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i appreciate my hon. friend's point. i deliberately did not go into detail because it would be far more than the house could cope with, given that we are dealing with an emotional topic. i am dealing now with the principle, and i leave to the secretary of state the responsibility of drawing up the terms on which tribunals would operate.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.26', 51, 'uk.m.10129', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am concerned about my hon. friend's response to the intervention of the hon. member for bolton, north-east (mr. thurnham), when my hon. friend referred to the existence in committee of a hit list. would he care to explain more about that hit list and what it was intended to achieve?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.27', 304, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall be happy to explain but the matter is recorded in the committee proceedings. it was suggested that there was a large number of practitioners in the private sector who were abusing the system—i believe that they were called moral criminals by one member of the committee. it was suggested that action should be taken against the 11 consultant gynaecologists whose names were given to the committee. that matter caused the committee and its chairman great concern. indeed, the chairman, rightly, made his views well known. the hon. member who made those remarks in committee is in the chamber and he may wish to comment later.\n it is important to stress that new clause 3 deals with a matter of principle. if it is successful, it would be for the secretary of state to draft the detail of how the appeals tribunals would operate. one such tribunal would be set up for each area health authority, and it is essential that appeals be heard speedily. i can think of a number of examples of the way in which tribunals might operate, but the one that most comes to mind is the children's hearing system in scotland, embodying the concept of what is known as the first lawful day hearing. when a child is, for example, taken into custody for committing a serious offence, or has been the subject of abuse or parental neglect and is taken into care, there is a hearing within seven days—but preferably on the first lawful day, which is usually the day after the child is taken into custody or care. speed is essential.\n there would also need to be a medical element in the membership of the tribunal, in order properly to assess the evidence put before it. funding would be the responsibility of the local health board.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.28', 41, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "can my hon. friend say whether the tribunal's operation would allow for the bill's current time limit of 18 weeks? if a tribunal agreed to a delay, would that he deemed an exceptional circumstance, allowing for termination after the 18th week?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.29', 295, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i trust that the rules for the tribunal would provide that where application has been made to a doctor, that would be the starting point, on the understanding that the woman qualified under all the other terms of the act, but that does not detract from the necessity for speed. the whole house wishes to see a reduction in the number of late abortions, which are traumatic for the woman, for the staff and for everyone else involved, and it is disappointing that the bill makes no attempt to deal with the problems that i have described in the health service. in committee, many of the bill's sponsors made lengthy attacks on the private sectors, which they would not have made in other contexts. many of the issues raised by opponents of the bill were dismissed out of hand, with a few grudging amendments which, if anything, make the bill worse.\n we witnessed in committee from the sponsors of the bill, and no doubt we will see again today, not a commitment to the system envisaged in the bill but merely the first stage in a campaign to remove from the statute book the right to abortion. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) made that clear in committee. to paraphrase his position, he said that it had taken 40 years to abolish slavery and that it might take 20 years to abolish abortionists, but that that was the intention. that clear and emphatic statement shows that there is no real commitment to the bill. it is merely the first stage and its supporters will be back again and again until the right to abortion is removed altogether. anyone considering voting for the bill in its present form should bear that in mind.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.30', 32, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the abolition of abortion or the repeal of the 1967 act could occur only with the will of the house, so why is the hon. gentleman getting his knickers in a twist?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.31', 107, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was not aware that they were in a twist. i was trying to make a serious point. the bill purports to reduce the time limit while accepting the concept of abortion, but the sponsors do not believe in that concept. they are philosophically and ideologically opposed to it. that has been made clear in every statement that they have made and in every tactic that they have used against those of us who oppose the bill. the house should be clear that those who support the bill do not want an improvement in the system. they are not prepared to consider improvements in the health service——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.32', 19, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman is straying into a second reading debate. he must address himself to the new clause.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.33', 135, 'uk.m.10544', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. it is difficult for my hon. friend to remain within the bounds of order that you have described while developing his reply to the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith). this is a debating chamber and you have to sit there and listen. if a valid debating point is made, my hon. friend or, indeed, any other hon. member must be able to respond to it. some hon. members may not be clear about what is meant by getting one's knickers in a twist, so it is necessary for my hon. friend to deal with that. i hope he will expand on the point. i should like to know what the hon. member for rochdale meant. perhaps my hon. friend knows. perhaps you know, mr. deputy speaker.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.34', 17, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. i am grateful for the hon. gentleman's help, but perhaps he will leave this to me.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.35', 53, 'uk.m.10174', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as ever, i am grateful to my hon. friend the member for bolsover (mr. skinner). i shall try not to stray out of order, mr. deputy speaker.\n the new clause is a sensible measure designed to deal with defects in the bill and to provide some flexibility. i commend it to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.36', 66, 'uk.m.10627', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. you and the house will know that i am not one to raise frivolous points of order or to waste the time of the house. when you came into the chamber i was in the middle of making a point of order to mr. speaker about the deep unfairness of the way in which precedents have been changed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.37', 30, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman has already raised that point with mr. speaker. in my hearing, a clear ruling was given. there is nothing that i can add to it now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.38', 101, 'uk.m.10627', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i do not wish to waste time. i was not able to finish my point of order to mr. speaker. that is why i am raising it with you. if we had known mr. speaker's ruling about precedence, we should have put down a 24-week limit at the outset. voting would then have taken place in strict order, downwards from 28 weeks, and we should have reached the division on that issue before we ever reached 22 or 20 weeks. it is vital that people within and outside the house understand that.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.39', 18, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "the hon. gentleman has made his point. there is nothing that i can add to mr. speaker's ruling.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.40', 67, 'uk.m.10544', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. you have heard the frustrated cry from the other side. the hon. gentleman tried to make that point earlier, and no doubt you heard part of what was said. the list of amendments is known as mr. speaker\'s "provisional" selection, which means that there is an opportunity to change it, an opportunity that is taken on some occasions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.41', 31, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "the hon. gentleman is correct, but mr. speaker said distinctly that he did not intend to change his selection of amendments. that is the conclusive answer to the hon. gentleman's point.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.42', 623, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it may be for the convenience of the house if i do not dwell on new clause 3, introduced by the hon. member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran), but concentrate on amendments nos. 40, 41 and 42 in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. members from almost every political party in the house.\n in my view, new clause 3 is confused. i hope that i am not being uncharacteristically offensive when i say that it looked as though it has been written out on the back of a cigarette packet on the shuttle to london from aberdeen. i shall urge my hon. friends to vote against the new clause because it muddies the water and will be of no benefit to anyone concerned with this important issue.\n my three amendments were tabled for one specific purpose. my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir. b. braine) successfully introduced a series of amendments in committee which in my view, and that of those who put their names to my amendments, were deeply unsatisfactory. i hope that my right hon. friend, for whom i and the whole house have great respect, will not consider it unduly insulting if i suggest that his amendments were wrecking amendments. my right hon. friend is a seasoned and successful campaigner on many issues. the stand that he has always taken on abortion is well known. he opposes it in principle, and i respect his view. i submit that my right hon. friend and those hon. members who supported him in committee passed that series of the amendments with only one purpose—further to wreck the original abortion act that was passed about 20 years ago.\n the committee made it clear that certification for an abortion could be signed only by medical practitioners or gynaecologists who work in the national health service. that is a gross insult to the many professional men and women who are members of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and who practise in the private sector. the committee is saying that it does not trust those professional people and that they are charlatans.\n one member of the committee, my hon. friend the member for hexham (mr. amos), went further. he said that he had a hit list; he had the names of clinics and qualified gynaecologists and obstetricians who were breaking the law. if that is correct, this is the right place and time for my hon. friend to give us the names. i want the director of public prosecutions to prosecute those people. they are giving a bad name to the medical profession. they are committing an offence. if i had such evidence, i would immediately give those names to the house today and pass them to the director of public prosecutions. but if i did not have evidence, i would not have been so foolish or irresponsible as to raise those red herrings in committee, and then be unable to give the names of the clinics and the people involved.\n i do not believe that my hon. friend the member for hexham is irresponsible or would in any way wish to deceive the house. this is therefore an ideal opportunity, while he is in his place, with substantial files in front of him—which no doubt will include that hit list—for him to stand up with the privilege of the house and give the names of the clinics and the doctors involved. if my hon. friend would do so, i guarantee to write tomorrow to the director of public prosecutions informing him of the remarks made in the house and of the list of names, and asking him to investigate the matter with a view to prosecution.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.43', 44, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend agree that it would be an abuse of the privileges of this house to make accusations against individuals inside this house which, if he did not believe them, the hon. member would not be prepared to make outside the house?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.44', 111, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with my hon. friend. we have seen many examples—mainly from the opposition—of the irresponsible naming of people without evidence. i conclude from the fact that my hon. friend the member for hexham has not sought to intervene that he is not sure of his facts. he is not prepared to name those clinics and people because he does not think that the allegation will stand up when submitted to the director of public prosecutions. we can only conclude from the silence that it was an irresponsible remark made by my hon. friend in committee. it would be best for the house and the committee if he withdrew that remark.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.45', 54, 'uk.m.10129', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. member consider an extension of the point made by his hon. friend the member for bolton, north-east (m r. thurnham)? is it not an even greater abuse of the privileges of the house to refer to the existence of a number of people and not be prepared to substantiate the allegation?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.46', 25, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i would, but i think that we have dwelt long enough on this matter. i want to move now to other parts of my amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.47', 27, 'uk.m.10602', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'many conservative members are surprised that the hon. member for hexham (mr. amos) has not availed himself of this opportunity, because it is of such crucial importance.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.48', 38, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i cannot speak for my hon. friend the member for hexham. all that i have done—out of common decency—is to give him the opportunity to present his case, which is his right. that he has declined to do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.49', 111, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is aware that i was a member of the committee. my hon. friend the member for hexham (mr. amos) also produced in committee what he alleged to be a tape recording of a conversation between one of those gynaecologists and a young woman. the gynaecologist deliberately persuaded the young woman, against her better judgment, to part with £450 to have an abortion which she did not want. the young woman had previously been counselled by life or another such organisation. my hon. friend refused to produce that tape, or a transcript of it. will my hon. friend the member for hexham confirm who is mentioned in that tape?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.50', 279, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not responsible for my hon. friend the member for hexham. if he wishes to pass that tape to anybody, no doubt he will do so. the house has noted that, in committee, he said that he had not only a list of names, but a tape recording.\n i refer now to the amendments introduced in committee by my right hon. friend the member for castle point. of all people, conservative members should support the private sector of medicine. we believe in the national health service, but we believe also in the right of men and women to avail themselves of private medicine if they want it. if the amendments passed in committee are sustained by the house today, many millions of women who use the private sector rather than the national health service for medical needs will have to seek advice from general practitioners and gynaecologists in the national health service. imagine the pressure that that will put upon national health service hospitals. imagine the pressure that it will put on gynaecological units. all hon. members are worried about waiting lists in our hospitals. this will extend the waiting list. ministers on the treasury bench, who are listening carefully to this debate, will be filled with horror at the idea that they will have to cope with a large number of people in nhs hospitals who would normally use the private sector. i hope that we shall reject this part of the bill and that conservative members will support the private sector of medicine and the right of patients to decide whether they want to be treated in the private sector or in the national health service.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.51', 91, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman will be aware that many opposition members would be reluctant to defend the private sector and nervous of accusations of profit-making. does the hon. gentleman accept that it is more significant when an hon. member like me says that there is no evidence of excessive fee-charging in the abortion sector? that is contrary to the slanders which are sometimes made about fees in the private sector. i have a duty to defend doctors who, although they practise in the private sector, are not charging unwarranted fees for abortions——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.52', 2, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'absolute rubbish.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.53', 29, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am trying to be brief. does the hon. gentleman accept that it is more convincing for me to defend doctors in that sense than it is for him?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.54', 77, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i concede that point. the hon. member for preston (mrs. wise) is not noted for being a friend of capitalism. the hon. lady and i disagree on almost every fundamental issue that comes before the house. i would have expected the amendment of my right hon. friend the member for castle point to have been moved by left-wing socialists who are doctrinarily opposed to the private sector of medicine, not by a robust supporter such as him.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.55', 99, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend will be interested to know that the eminent gynaecologist, dr. wendy savage. who is observing our proceedings today, and who is not normally a friend of the policies embraced by conservative members on private enterprise, has informed me that not only is the private sector doing a useful job but that the skill of the private sector is greater than that in the nhs. the death rate is less than that in the national health service by a factor of 10. that information is published in the british medical journal by dr. peter diggory fr cog——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.56', 7, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that is enough for an intervention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.57', 399, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it would be unwise of me and unfair to the house to pursue that point, which i suspect is not quite relevant to the issue we are discussing.\n i have established beyond reasonable doubt that great pressure would be put on nhs hospitals and gynaecological units if the bill were passed as amended in committee.\n 11 am\n there is another even more sinister aspect of the amendment passed in committee. let us imagine a woman living in a remote part of the country where there are few nhs gynaecologists and the distance to the nearest nhs hospital is considerable. if the nearest gynaecologist is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion, she is stymied. the doctor will not sign the certificate. so there will be one rule for my constituents in thames valley, where there are plenty of hospitals and enlightened gynaecologists, and another for people living in remote parts of the united kingdom, who might have the misfortune to find that the only nhs gynaecologist in the region would never sign a certificate. that is why the private sector must be included.\n there is another sinister feature. let us take the case of a woman in a private sector hospital who is taken seriously ill while pregnant and needs to have an abortion. as the bill is now drafted, that can only take place in a public hospital or approved place—a clinic that has been licensed in the private sector by the dhss. the woman does not want an abortion; she is in a private sector hospital because she is a member of bupa. the specialist dealing with her case says that she will lose her life if she does not have an abortion, but, as the law stands, he cannot perform that abortion in the hospital or clinic because it is not within the nhs and is not registered to perform abortions. therefore, the woman will have to be driven in an ambulance some considerable distance to another hospital or clinic where two doctors or gynaecologists will have to certify that it is right that she should have an abortion. only then will it be performed there. [interruption.] the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith) loves intervening from a sedentary position. we rarely see horn in the house. it is a pity that he cannot intervene more properly in the debate. we look forward to hearing him later.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.58', 57, 'uk.m.22641', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that in the circumstances he has described, and especially during a holiday period when it might be difficult to obtain a certificate from a consultant gynaecologist, a doctor in a private clinic might find himself faced with a choice between breaking the law and becoming a criminal or letting a patient die?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.59', 144, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i agree entirely with that telling intervention. we can think of other examples—foul weather, a snow storm, roads closed, and still a doctor would be breaking the law and committing a criminal offence if he carried out an abortion to save a woman's life, because he could not transfer her by ambulance to another hospital.\n if the bill proceeds today unamended, innocent women in this country will lose their lives because of the amendment passed in committee. i have conclusively argued that any gynaecologist, wherever he happens to practise, should be able to certify. the amendment was nothing but a wrecking amendment to make abortion harder to obtain. it will do great damage to the nhs and make our constituents wait longer for gynaecological services—and it could lead to loss of life. i urge the house to support amendments nos. 40, 41 and 42.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.60', 338, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have heard the arguments of the hon. member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay) and i know that the house wants to make progress on this group of amendments, although the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) made an eloquent case in committee. in ideal circumstances i would happily have supported the amendment moved there. i spoke last night to my right hon. and hon. friends who are fellow sponsors of the bill and we believe that the amendments would go some way to meeting some of the criticisms put by the hon. member for berkshire, east and other hon. members in committee. so i recommend that the house accept them.\n the hon. member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran) moved a new clause whose wording was defective in a number of respects. for instance, one would have to assume that the area health board that he referred to—it is a scottish institution—would have its powers derogated to regional and area health authorities in england and wales. some of the other wording was also defective. there was, for example, no definition of "delay". i spoke to officers at the dhss last night and have many misgivings about this. the issue could properly be re-examined in another place if there was a case to be made, but i do not think that it was made adequately this morning. the new clause could add to bureaucracy and cause as many problems as it attempts to solve. the hon. member for aberdeen, south had the chances to raise the point in committee but was unable to do so, but there will be a chance for these issues to be considered further in another place.\n the subject of private clinics is regularly raised. i must remind the house that profit is involved. although it may be dressed up as a surplus, we must remember that only 11 doctors and the clinics in which they work performed about 60 per cent. of all late abortions. for that they took £2 million.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.61', 6, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.62', 50, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i may be able to pre-empt the hon. lady if she is about to say that this is because of the nhs. i remind the house that more than half of late abortions are not carried out on people from our country, so nhs delays can hardly be the reason.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.63', 97, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "many medical staff in birmingham share my ethnic background—they are irish catholic immigrants—and the abortion law on the statute book is consequently not available to women there, which is gravely wrong. that means that only women who can raise the money go into the charitable private sector.\n what is the government's view? is it that the birmingham practice should change and there should be planning within the nhs to extend to all women the right that they have in theory under the law, or does he just want to stop people having abortions? is that his game?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.64', 128, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is wrong to suggest that any games are being played. in committee, the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight) put an alternative view. she said that facilities were available throughout the city of birmingham. we live in a country that allows 600 abortions every working day and 172,000 every year, and the door that my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) said 20 years ago would never be left wide open has led to abortion on demand.\n if hon. members disagree with that, perhaps they will accept the view of consultant gynaecologists, 700 of whom answered a gallup survey; 60 per cent. of them said that, in their view, abortion on demand was available in this country.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.65', 16, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend confirm that he accepts the principle of equal provision within the law?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.66', 13, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course i confirm that, and i am grateful for that helpful intervention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.67', 6, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.68', 59, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way in a moment. i am grateful for the interest that hon. members are taking in the bill, but i hope that they will allow me to make a little more progress. we should challenge the assumption that in itself abortion is a desirable operation. we should seek radical alternatives to the defeatism that abortion represents.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.69', 89, 'uk.m.10519', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the hon. gentleman accept from those of us who have looked at the statistics about birmingham that if there were equal provision in the law, which he has said that he would accept, it would mean an increase in abortions in the birmingham area? is he suggesting that people are carrying out abortions that do not meet the strict criteria laid down in the 1967 act? that is what he suggests when he says that there is abortion on demand. the law does not permit abortion on demand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.70', 263, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady knows as well as i do that the 35 people who run the private counselling clinics and agencies also run abortion clinics. that financial link should be broken. it is a scandal that people can make money out of advising people to have an abortion. i have had many thousands of letters from people who say that if they had known about the psychological and physical consequences of abortion they would have done otherwise.\n abortion carries consequences for everybody involved—for the doctors and nurses and for the women and children. a 30-bed clinic was at the heart of a department of health and social security investigation in 1985 after one of its clients, a 21-year-old spanish student, bled to death when her abortion went wrong. that clinic charges up to £385 a time, and the later the abortion the more people pay. a report called "the charter of tears" in the sunday mirror said: one 18-year-old girl described the clinic as \'a production line\'. she said: \'everybody was in a terrible rush.\' another girl said: \'i had my operation at 11 am and i was out by 2 pm. to try to pretend that this is love, care or support for the woman or for the child is a travesty of the truth. all that abortion involves is violence and death. on that note i urge the house to accept the amendments in the spirit in which they were moved by the hon. member for berkshire, east and to reject the new clause of the hon. member for aberdeen, south.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.71', 283, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'in view of what the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has said, it might be helful it i were now to intervene briefly to assist the house as far as i can. i shall be brief because i know that other hon. members wish to speak and that the house wishes to make progress. as far as is possible in speaking about this matter i shall be factual. as i said on second reading, i see my task as the minister for health to assist the house in making up its mind and not to express a view on behalf of the government.\n the hon. member for mossley hill has said that he is minded to accept the amendments moved by my hon. friend the member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay). there is relatively little by way of factual information or further comment that i can give to assist the house about those amendments. the advice given to me is that if the amendments are accepted abortion in the private sector in and after the 18th week would need to be advised by a member of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists and to be certified by two registered medical practitioners, as at present. in practice, one of those would almost always be a member of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists who had advised in terms of the first half of the proposition. that is very little different from the existing position, since one of the two doctors currently certifying abortions over 18 weeks has almost always been admitted as a member of the royal college. i see no particular difficulties about the acceptance of those amendments.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.72', 97, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'private clinics and uneven provision around the country cause many late abortions, as i am sure the minister knows. those of us who are concerned about late abortions—unlike the promoter of the bill—think that it is crucial for the national health service to be required to plan its abortion provision within the law throughout the country. if that were done enormous numbers of late abortions would be avoided. will the minister look seriously at that and at the prospect of making that change so that we can prevent the distress of late abortion? he could achieve that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.73', 231, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'the hon. lady is bringing us to the underlying purpose, as i understand it, of new clause 3 which was moved by the hon. member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran) and to which i was about to turn. i start by acknowledging the feelings expressed that there may well be some variation in the attitudes of those concerned with these matters in different parts of the country. as i said on second. reading, it is easier to note that problem than to see what can readily be done about it unless we go down the path of making appointments to gynaecological posts throughout the country dependent upon an interrogation of the potential appointee in order to ascertain his views about abortion. that would be to set up some kind of quota system for those who were "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion" to be appointed in particular localities. the house will see that that proposition is fraught with very great difficulty.\n while acknowledging the problem, i am not able to respond in quite the way that the hon. lady would like \'by giving an easy answer along the lines that she has suggested. i am sure that the house would not wish me to take a great deal of time. for that reason i intend to restrict the number of interventions that i accept. however, i shall again give way to the hon. lady.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.74', 108, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my point is extremely important and has nothing to do with time wasting. i am second to none in defending the right of people to stand on conscience, but that right cannot prevent the proper implementation of the law throughout the country. we can stand firmly by the right of all medical staff to obey their conscience on abortion, but also impose on the national health service a duty i o plan proper abortion facilities within the law in all areas. surely that is possible. i appeal to the minister to plan for it because it would prevent late abortions and io far more than this dishonest bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.75', 50, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "once again i appreciate the hon. lady's sincerity, but i do not think that there is a great deal that i can add to what i have said about what i perceive to be the difficulties of going down the track that appears to be implied by the hon. lady.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.76', 100, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the minister looks at the record he will find that at one stage his department gave exactly that kind of advice: that each area should make sure that it appointed a sufficient number of people who were not subject to conscientious bar so that facilities could be available throughout the country. if he looks back he will find that that was done. i suggest that it is quite proper and in no sense a hostile interrogation. it is simply to ensure that bars will not be placed in the way of an adequate national health service in every area.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.77', 585, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'my understanding is different from that of the hon. lady. however, i shall check it in the light of what she has said. i do not resile from my view that it would be wrong if people seeking gynaecological and obstetric appointments in hospitals all over britain had to depend for appointment on the declaration of a specific view. that would be an extremely uneasy situation for health authorities, for ministers and for the house.\n new clause 3 would introduce a formal appeal mechanism into the abortion act 1967 as a whole. it would not, of course, simply apply to applications for abortions over 18 weeks which are, generally, the abortions dealt with in the bill.\n every scrap of advice that i have, which i will not set out at length, says that the new clause is technically defective—for example, in its terminology, which refers to area health boards, which are bodies not currently known to the law. it is technically defective in a number of other respects on which i could elaborate. the hon. member for mossley hill has already touched on a particular difficulty, which is the reference to "any delay", with no definition of "delay". a delay could mean, in theory, a delay of a matter of minutes and, without some definition—a definition that would be extremely difficult to achieve in a workable form—the clause would be inoperable.\n therefore, i have to tell the house as clearly as i can that were it to take the view that the new clause represented a principle to which it wished to agree, substantial further work would be required in the other place to put the clause into a form in which there would be any chance of its working. i have some other serious reservations, which i should set out for the house.\n in moving his new clause, the hon. member for aberdeen, south said that he acknowledged that there should be medical representation on these tribunals, but that there should also be a lay element. it occurs to me, and will no doubt have occurred to the house, that quite a number of the decisions that would in theory be appealed against under this proposal would be clinical decisions, at least in the mind of the doctor who made them, and in terms of the law. it is open to question what the response of the profession would be, as its members would see many difficulties where clinical decisions or decisions taken on a clinical basis were subject to review by a group that was not made up of clinicians. that would raise the question whether the decisions by such a body could or would be implemented by a clinician who would have carry out the abortion.\n it is clear that nothing that a termination appeals tribunal could decide could compel the clinician to carry out an abortion against his wishes or judgment. i see the hon. member for caernarfon (mr. wigley) shaking his head. i am making these points only to illustrate some of the difficulties that would be entailed in developing this new clause into something that would be sustainable. i am not saying that i am convinced that those difficulties are not surmountable. i am saying that there has been little time for us, quite apart from the house, to consider them, but they appear to me to be formidable, and would undoubtedly introduce a new element of difficulty and complexity into the changes of law that are being proposed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.78', 88, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman has said that there might be a possibility of the tribunal coming out in favour of the applicant, but the applicant then having difficulty in finding a clinician to carry out the recommendation of the tribunal. that suggests that the clinicians have a veto on the rights of the individual that have been upheld by the tribunal. surely, whether the wording is correct or not, we should be finding a way to sustain the rights of the individual rather than providing mechanisms for vetos.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.79', 168, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i have already recognised the importance of that point, and i hope that my remarks will not be considered by the hon. gentleman or others who may support the new clause as being made in a negative spirit. they are designed simply to reveal the difficulties of going down the track that has been suggested and the undoubted need for further substantial thought, not only in drafting but about many of the concepts involved. i am perhaps saying no more to the house than this: in a matter that is already fraught with difficulty and complexity, the house will need to consider whether it wishes to introduce this additional and substantially fresh element to the subject matter of the bill. in the end, that judgment is for the house, not me to make, but it is important that i should make clear to the house the technical difficulties that i envisage and the difficulties that there would be in developing a clause in line with new clause 3.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.80', 7, 'uk.m.10215', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.81', 33, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'no, i wish to conclude. beyond that, the issue of principle involved is one for the house to decide on and not one for me to tell the house what it should decide.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.82', 258, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i must refute some of the allegations made by the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), particularly those he has made in his many attacks, both in committee and in the house, on the private sector. i do not normally defend the private sector, as my hon. friends know, but as a former trustee of the british pregnancy advisory service, which is involved in 30,000 abortions a year, i must refute the allegation that the directors of charitable private organisations such as bpas who do a great service for women in carrying out abortions that are not available under the nhs, are paid for their work. we volunteer for that work because we think that it is essential.\n from the time of the reform of the abortion law in 1967, the nhs has been unable to organise itself to cope with the need for legal and safe abortion. as a result, waiting lists have developed and, as a former member of a regional hospital board, i know full well that in my area, because of the attitude of the consultant gynaecologist and obstetrician at the university hospital of wales, we were unable, although we were responsible for the running of the nhs in that part of wales, to implement a day care clinic. therefore, women in that area were unable to have swift and safe abortions and were forced to travel long distances outside the area to obtain abortions. that consultant gynaecologist prevailed on other gynaecologists and obstetricians in his department to take a similar attitude.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.83', 75, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on the point about safety, and in support of charities such as the bpas, may i ask whether the hon. lady is aware that charities have the safest of all records in assisting people with abortions, and that in the 20 years since the abortion act 1967 was passed there has been only one death out of the 600,000 cases with which they have dealt? that must be one of the most outstanding safety records.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.84', 302, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my hon. friend for making that important point. it shows how responsible and careful these charities are. she has also reminded me that one general practitioner and one consultant gynaeologist authorise abortions, and the rule in the bpas is that the consultant gynaecologist never authorises the termination because we want to prevent the gynaecologist who is performing the abortion from profiting from his decisions. to require an nhs consultant to certify for late abortions would affect women who go to those charitable organisations.\n if terminations were freely available on the nhs, there would be a different argument again, but there is no mechanism—as i am sure hon. members on both sides of the house will agree—within the nhs to ensure that an adequate service is provided for all women who need it. despite the recommendations of the royal commission on the nhs in 1979, of which i was a member, and in which i participated closely, particularly on these discussions, it was recommended that in all hospital regions 75 per cent. of terminations should be carried out within the nhs and that facilities should be made available. my hon. friends will know that today less than half of terminations carried out in britain are carried out under the nhs.\n in its report on late abortions in england and wales, the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists stated that one fifth of women who have abortions in the nhs between 20 and 23 weeks were medically referred by 12 weeks. the college concluded: the abortion services contribute to avoidable delays. thus many women decide to go into the private sector, where abortions do not have to take their place among a host of other operations. they are carried out without the dangerous and distressing delays that take place in the nhs.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.85', 128, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'a few moments ago my hon. friend said that she wished to correct the wrong impression given by the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton). i am sure that it was only accidentally that he gave the house a false impression this morning. he said that the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight) contested in committee my claim that a proper abortion service on the nhs was not available in birmingham. in central birmingham, 6 per cent. of abortions take place in the nhs. without the charitable sector, women in birmingham are not entitled to that which the law provides. i am sure that the hon. member for mossley hill would not like the false impression that he gave to remain on the record.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.86', 43, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my hon. friend for making that important intervention. the percentage to which she referred is abysmally low and illustrates the patchy provision that is made for women throughout britain. the nhs service depends greatly on the area in which one lives.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.87', 35, 'uk.m.22612', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'as a former chairman of the central birmingham health authority, i think that i am right in saying that, wherever the abortions were performed a large proportion of them were paid for by the nhs.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.88', 485, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the minister for making that point. it shows the fail h that the nhs has in the provision that is made by the charitable sector. it is prepared to pay for terminations that it cannot carry out itself. it is a tribute to the work that is done by the private sector.\n there are some positive reasons for preferring the non-nhs sector, including greater privacy and availability of intensive counselling. it is insulting to suggest that the private sector not concerned about counselling both before and after a termination. that was an important part of the work of the british pregnancy advisory service. i say to the hon. member for mossley hill that it is insulting to the private sector to suggest that it does not take great account of counselling both before and after termination.\n it is a tribute to the quality of service that is provided by the charitable sector that several health authorities use its clinics on an agency basis. in 1986, the last year for which we have figures, about 7,000 abortions were provided in that way. the private and charitable sector is tightly controlled by the dhss in all aspects of its work, including prices. the pregnancy advisory services carry out abortions for between £280 and £300. high staff-patient ratios and extensive resuscitation and other equipment demanded by the dhss mean that the actual cost of late abortions is much higher than the sum which is charged for them. late abortions that are carried out by abortion charities are subsidised by other operations. the cost of an early abortion is about £150 to £200. that is also the average cost in the nhs.\n i resent the remarks of the hon. member for mossley hill that gave a distorted impression of current british abortion legislation. in fact, it is one of the least liberal pieces of legislation to be found in europe. eight to 10 western european countries allow abortion on request during the first 12 weeks or more. most of these countries permit abortion on specific grounds after that limit, usually for medical conditions, foetal handicap or social and psychological reasons. such abortions are available up to 24 weeks.\n we believe that the best way to reduce late abortions is by improving the availability and acceptability of the nhs abortion services, increasing contraceptive provision for young people, offering realistic sex and family life education in schools and developing more sensitive techniques for the diagnosis of foetal abnormality. however, there will always be a need for abortion late in pregnancy for a minority of women. i stress that it is only a minority. it is vital that choice is retained. that is why we oppose the bill in its entirety. i oppose new clause 3. the bill was not changed fundamentally in committee and it still restricts the availability of legal abortions to the first 17 weeks of pregnancy.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.89', 89, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i listened carefully to what the hon. lady said about the charities that perform abortions. does she agree that we must not confuse the charities with the private clinics, which carry out a large proportion of the very late abortions that are carried out on foreign women? perhaps we should take to heart what she has said about the nhs system, but could we not convince other countries that they should put their houses in order? if that were done, britain would not be the foetal dustbin of europe.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.90', 65, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the hon. lady for making that point. it was discussed in some detail in committee. there was an element of xenophobia in the arguments advanced by certain hon. members in committee when they talked about "foreign women", as though they were a group to be denigrated. the term "foreign women" includes women from northern ireland—perhaps the hon. lady was not aware of that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.91', 3, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, i was.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.92', 75, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the needs of women in the united kingdom includes those of women in northern ireland. i am sure that the hon. lady would not wish to deny those women the opportunity of obtaining an abortion in britain, bearing in mind the particular difficulties within their own country. it is important to keep "foreign women" in perspective and not to use the term in the xenophobic way that some conservative members adopted so frequently in committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.93', 63, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree completely with the factors to which my hon. friend referred that would reduce the number of late abortions and abortions in general. does she agree that she should add to the list social factors such as homelessness and poverty, which cause desperation among women? improving social factors would be an excellent and constructive way of reducing desperation which leads to abortion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.94', 128, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my hon. friend for making that important observation.\n those who are most concerned about reducing late abortions seem not to share the same concern for the conditions in which many of the women who seek late abortions have to live. as they are responsible for much of the legislation that will make it even more difficult for women who already live in poverty, bad housing, poor social conditions and in families where unemployment is high, they should realise that there is an element of hypocrisy in some of their arguments. if they were as vociferous on the need for improving social conditions as they are on reducing late abortions, i am sure that we would all approve and support them in their attempts to improve conditions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.95', 89, 'uk.m.10602', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has raised a crucial issue. the bill came out of committee largely unchanged. on second reading the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) said that it was not his intention to be intransigent— [interruption.] he was intransigent in committee. on second reading however, he said: if i do not keep my word … hon. members will have the chance to vote against the bill on report"—[ official report, 22 january 1988; vol. 125, c. 1240.] would the hon. lady care to comment on that?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.96', 44, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the bill has not been fundamentally changed. if the bill had been amended in committee in a helpful way, we would be having a different debate today. indeed, the amendments that were accepted in committee will make the bill even more difficult to implement.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.97', 47, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the statistics of foreign women having abortions also includes women from scotland and, of course, from eire—they are technically foreign, but they are allowed to vote in this country. there are a large number of such women. incidentally, none of our amendments against the bill was accepted.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.98', 317, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has raised an important point. the two limited exceptions that were made in the bill relate to abortions on the ground of specified foetal handicap or rape or incest committed against girls under 18. in committee we said that those exceptions were hedged with bureaucracy. they cater for a small proportion of abortions that are carried out after 17 weeks.\n evidence given to the house of lords select committee on infant life preservation shows that women who have abortions at this late stage of pregnancy usually do so for very pressing reasons. under the terms of the bill as it now stands, and because our amendments were not accepted, legal abortions will no longer be available for such women.\n although the hon. member for mossley hill and his supporters would argue that they have made major concessions, we consider them to be minor. indeed, the hon. member said that he even found some of the concessions repugnant. he said that he felt compelled to put them forward only for the reasons of political expediency . we appreciate that the hon. gentleman is anxious to get the bill through the house, but even the minor concessions were made for the most cynical of reasons. i stress the fact that in the final hours of the committee the hon. gentleman stated: although we shall not win all the arguments on the matter this time. … i shall want to return to them in years to come. we shall continue to challenge this aspect and i want to put down a marker about that now."—[ official report, standing committee c, 30 march 1988; c. 271.] he made his intentions quite clear. after the first debate on this issue, perhaps some of us were under the illusion that he was prepared to be much more lenient in his approach to the bill. that notion was disabused in committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.99', 71, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "with regard to foreign women, may i say that it caused great offence to many people who contacted me that it was possible to speak in such a dehumanising way about women who were simply women in need. if the bill is passed, our women will become someone else's foreign women. i believe that that description was one of the more offensive tactics that was used by those supporting the bill.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.100', 433, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am grateful to my hon. friend for that information.\n when i was a member of the european parliament and attended a meeting of the socialist group in dublin, i caused considerable offence to some of my fellow socialists because i looked at the election manifesto of the irish socialist party and discovered that there was no provision for dealing with women who required terminations. i am conscious of the pressing need of those women who are denied terminations within their own country. our system is not the most liberal within western europe—it is the least liberal in comparison to eight other countries—but we should be pleased about the help that we offer to women in need; we should not denigrate that.\n 11.45 am\n i oppose new clause 3. i am sorry that i have to oppose my hon. friend the member for aberdeen, south (mr. doran). i believe that the problems that have been caused as a result of the amendments accepted in committee are pertinent to the provisions of that clause and we need a number of answers.\n the clause creates an appeals tribunal procedure for women who are either refused an abortion under the terms of the abortion act 1967 or when there has been a delay in reaching a decision on whether a woman has grounds for an abortion. it appears that the new clause seeks to tackle the problem of delays for women seeking termination by creating a new right of appeal. the proposed provisions, however, are inadequate and ineffective.\n one of the amendments accepted in committee allows girls who are under 18 a termination after 17 weeks if they have been victims of rape or incest, but not for girls who are a day over 18. that was the effect of the amendment tabled by the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine). how would new clause 3 affect that? this matter could have been debated if our amendments nos. 12 and 13 had been selected. the fact that they have not been selected has caused many of us great distress.\n the bill's provisions will create enormous difficulties for doctors. we hotly debated this issue in committee. is the hon. member for mossley hill suggesting that rape or incest becomes less traumatic once a woman has had her 18th birthday? if something is not desirable at the age of 18 or under, why should 18 and one day, 19, 20 or 21 be acceptable? surely women who are victims of rape and incest have an equal right to terminate the pregnancy if they so wish.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.101', 26, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady confirm that, as recorded by the dhss, no abortion was performed on the grounds of rape or incest on an over-aged woman?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.102', 133, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister made the position clear in committee. the dhss does not require the recording of such facts. the hon. member for mossley hill is well aware of that because the minister explained it to him in committee.\n we were not able to hear the arguments from the hon. member for mossley hill in committee on abortions for women aged over 18. it is ridiculous for the proponents of the bill to argue that victims of rape and incest aged 18 or under should be able to have a late abortion while those over 18 should not. that is completely ludicrous. unfortunately, the hon. member for mossley hill was not prepared to answer that in committee.\n there are legal and medical difficulties for a doctor in assessing whether a woman has been raped.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.103', 151, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "before the hon. lady leaves the point about rape, will she explain or interpret the amendment that was moved by my hon. friend the member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) and accepted in committee about how rape can be proved? does the hon. lady believe that entirely by mistake my hon. friend the member for maidstone has given us a terrific let-out clause almost for abortion on demand? it would appear that any woman can claim that she has been raped and have an abortion if she is under 18. that is surely not what my hon. friend the member for maidstone intended. i can tell by the look on my hon. friend's face that that is not what she intended. perhaps she will intervene shortly. knowing how lucid the hon. member for cynon valley (mrs. clwyd) is, i suspect that she will be able to answer that question amicably for me.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.104', 520, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "exactly. my hon. friend has made an important point. who will judge the case when a woman claims that she has been raped or has been the victim of incest? will the termination appeals procedure judge that case, as suggested in new clause 3? we are worried about that.\n will there be false allegations of rape from a young woman desperate for an abortion? will doctors become suspicious of anyone claiming to have been raped who does not request a termination until late in pregnancy? should those be matters for appeal through the procedures spelt out in new clause 3? it is important that we receive answers to those questions.\n in 1967, the original medical termination of pregnancy bill included rape as one of the grounds for abortion. however, that was subsequently removed because it was argued that it placed doctors in an invidious position. the amendment tabled by the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) would place doctors in a similar position. doctors would be able to make a decision only on a woman's mental or physical state. it was considered appropriate to deal with such difficult cases under the mental health provisions. i suggest that the mental health act 1983 has worked well in that respect because it has given doctors sufficient flexibility to deal with difficult circumstances.\n i remind the house that the select committee reporting on the infant life (preservation) bill stated: the committee would not wish to see any impediment placed in the way of the victim of rape and incest who is desirous of terminating her pregancy. that highlights the problems with the abortion (amendment) bill as it stands, as it removes the flexibility of the law to deal with those distressing cases. that is one reason why i must oppose new clause 3.\n it is the intention of new clause 3 to ensure that a woman who is unreasonably delayed by administrative or other factors can receive an abortion after the time limit at the beginning of the 18th week. if that is the intention, it is not made sufficiently clear, and new clause 3 fails to achieve that objective. as the new clause is drafted, it does not permit an abortion to be performed after the beginning of the 18th week, even if the appeals tribunal finds in the woman's favour and agrees that she has been delayed unnecessarily. a victim of rape or incest may find herself in that position.\n new clause 3 is an enabling provision which grants the secretary of state for social services the power to set up the tribunal. however, it gives no specification of the tribunal's nature or powers. that means that the detail of how the tribunal would operate would not be open to debate in the house. the new clause contains no provision for any regulations drawn up by the secretary of state to be brought before the house as a statutory instrument which would be subject to annulment by resolution of either house, and important points of principle would therefore be determined by the secretary of state without the opportunity to challenge them.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.105', 54, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we all agree that the drafting of the clause is unsatisfactory and needs improvement. what we need to discuss is the principle of the right of appeal. if that is supported in the house, as i hope that it will be, we will ask the other place to tidy it up and improve it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.106', 633, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank my hon. friend for making that point, which i agree is very important. these issues are of considerable significance, and cannot be left to secondary legislation which parliament may not have an opportunity to discuss.\n the new clause does not specify the powers that the tribunal would have. could it require the abortion to be carried out if it upheld the woman\'s appeal? if so, what sanction would it have if a medical practitioner refused to carry out the operation? what powers would it have if it found in a woman\'s favour after the beginning of the 18th week? would it have powers to compensate a woman who had been delayed beyond the statutory time limit and had to continue her pregnancy, although she had grounds for an abortion under the 1967 act?\n the new clause does not specify a period within which the appeal must be heard. is it seven days, seven weeks or seven months? unless there is a clear requirement for a tribunal to meet and hear the appeal quickly, the right to appeal in itself will be totally meaningless.\n would additional resources—i look to the ministers here—be available to the health authorities to ensure that the appeals procedure was speedy and efficient? given the difficulty of getting any additional resources out of conservative members, there may be some reason to doubt that such resources would be forthcoming.\n the concept of a tribunal procedure would create yet more bureaucracy for women seeking abortions. it would be an additional ordeal for such women to have to face a tribunal. would there be provision for them to be represented, and in what way? would they have to be medically examined by members of the tribunal? who would the members of the tribunal be, and how would they be selected? what would be the position of the doctors who had refused the abortion, or any others who were responsible for delay? would lack of resources be a defence if the woman had not had the termination carried out because of a shortage of beds or medical personnel?\n while i am sure that the intention of my hon. friend the member for aberdeen, south is to try to help women by minimising unnecessary delays for those seeking an abortion, i suggest that the new clause is inadequate as drafted, and would create a new and unwieldy procedure which would work against women\'s interests.\n there is a minor drafting point. the new clause refers in subsection (1) to an area health board and in subsection (2) to an area health authority, although both appear to refer to the same body. in fact, there are now district health authorities in england and wales—i am sorry to say that there is no longer any regional hospital board—and health boards in scotland, so we have a less democratic health service in wales than in the rest of the country. both should be included in both subsections if the power is to extend to england, wales and scotland.\n again, i ask hon. members on both sides of the house to consider their position very carefully before they go through the lobbies today. after hearing the arguments spelt out in committee by the hon. member for mossley hill and his colleagues, it is our belief that their real intention is not to improve on the 1967 act. their true intention is to repeal the 1967 act in its entirety. it would have been honourable for them to have said today, "that is our real intention. we do not want to improve on the act. we want it to be scrapped altogether." we would respect their position if it were thus stated. to suggest that this is a way of reducing late abortions is a myth and a delusion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.108', 14, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.111', 30, 'uk.m.10397', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' (seated and covered): on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. it seems to be taking a long time to clear the lobbies. would it be possible to investigate that?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.112', 31, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am keeping a careful eye on the time. it is clear that many hon. members wish to take part in the vote. so far, the division has not been overlong.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.119', 409, 'uk.m.10171', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. earlier, when mr. speaker was in the chair, there were a considerable number of points of order expressing great concern about what we understand to be the order in which the amendments on timing will be debated. as the morning has progressed, there seems to have been growing concern about the possible consequences, because, instead of having a straightforward descending series of timings, we are faced with a form of legislative roulette in which it is possible that what seems likely to be the general view of the house—that a 24-week period is best—will probably be the last to be voted upon. so, almost by accident, that period may not be reached in spite of its being most probably the general view of the house.\n i know that a considerable number of hon. members who are in favour of the bill have said all along— [interruption.] i should be grateful if they would keep quiet because i do not think that they will dispute what i say. they have said that they want the house to have an opportunity to declare its view once and for all and in the firmest possible way on the maximum number of weeks. it seems to many of us that the best way to do that is to ensure that the decision on the 24-week period is not taken at the end of the series of votes. to leave it where mr. speaker has left it in his provisional selection is likely to lead to considerable disorder, dissatisfaction and the very great possibility that the basic view of the house will not be achieved.\n mr. speaker said that he was bound by contradictory precedents. they were the prcedents set by the corrie bill and by the general custom that amendments are taken in the order in which they are submitted. those are conflicting precedents and it is quite reasonable for you, mr. deputy speaker, or for mr. speaker to set a new precedent by saying that an orderly, seemly and rational consideration of these time limits is the best way for the house to go about its business because that will do good to its reputation. many of us fear that if we do not do it that way the reputation of the house will be harmed and that there is a strong possibility that the general view of the house will not go through.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.120', 30, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i understand the hon. gentleman's point. many hon. members were in the house at the beginning of the debate when we had fairly extensive points of order which mr. speaker——\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.121', 5, 'uk.m.10171', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.122', 98, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am dealing with a point of order. mr. speaker made it clear at the time that before he made his selection he had considered extremely carefully the precedents and the arguments. he made quite clear the reasons for his decision and it is certainly not for me to go back on that decision. i suggest to the house that it would be advisable to get on with the debate. it may well be that the difficulties that the hon. gentleman has very fairly outlined can be dealt with if we get on quickly with the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.123', 111, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. at the beginning of the day i raised with mr. speaker the question of having a division on amendments nos. 40 and 41 and he said that he would allow a division on amendment no. 40 or no. 41. in view of what has been said in the debate and the words of the promoter of the bill, who said that he was prepared to accept amendments nos. 40 and 41, will you ensure that if we get to that point, the house will have a chance to amend the bill to include amendments nos. 40 and 41 and consequential amendment no. 42?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.124', 40, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have taken note of what was said about that. of course i cannot anticipate whether time will allow the house to come to such decisions. the amendments do not come up for decision until after the next main debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.125', 85, 'uk.m.10123', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i should like to speak about back benchers' rights in this matter. we are dealing with amendments to do with time limits, the number of weeks, and mr. speaker has chosen amendments that allow us to discuss 20, 24 and 26 weeks. if those are scrapped the period of 18 weeks which is contained in the bill will stand. i put my name to an amendment that was signed by many other hon. members for 27 weeks.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.126', 17, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. we cannot debate mr. speaker's selection of amendments. that is what the hon. gentleman is doing.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.127', 8, 'uk.m.10123', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.3.128', 7, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. we cannot debate mr. speaker's selection.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.1', 20, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i beg to move amendment no. 2, page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '26th'.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.2', 64, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: no. 4, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '20th completed'.\n no. 5, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert '22nd completed'.\n no. 7, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'beginning of the 18th' and insert 'end of the 24th'.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.3', 15, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in committee we probed every aspect of the bill as amended by its sponsors— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.4', 20, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i cannot hear my hon. friend the member for barking (ms. richardson).\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.5', 20, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. will hon. members who do not wish to take part in the debate leave the chamber quietly and quickly?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.6', 425, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i apologise if hon. members could not hear what i was saying. i was simply referring to the fact that in committee, those opposing the bill probed every conceivable aspect of the bill, as amended by its sponsors. we maintained consistently on second reading and in committee that there was no substantiated evidence that the abortion act 1967 is being abused or misused by women or doctors. most importantly, we emphasised that all the evidence shows that the upper time limit of 28 weeks is treated with the greatest of respect by women and by doctors in england and wales, and by women and doctors in scotland, where there is effectively no upper time limit and fewer late abortions are performed than in england and wales. i have moved amendment no. 2, to allow abortions up to 26 weeks. i have an amendment down for 27 weeks, as i did on the corrie bill, as that is the number of weeks that is nearest to 28. one has to remember that as doctors take off two or four weeks, effectively, the period is less than 26 weeks anyway.\n we probed every aspect of the bill, as amended, while we maintained our position that no change in the upper limit was required and that the time limit from the beginning of the 18 weeks was unacceptable. it became clear during the course of our discussions that the sponsors of the bill take an absolutist and fundamentalist line on abortion. on innumerable occasions, each one of them has reiterated that he or she is opposed to all abortions and is willing to barter with women's bodies and gamble with children's lives to try to maximise support for the bill and inflict a substantial blow on the 1967 act, which has given women and doctors 20 years of safe and legal operations.\n in choosing the arbitrary time limit from the beginning of 18 weeks, the sponsors of the bill have sought to set the terms of the debate so that other equally unacceptable time limits have been opposed as compromises, and that their own restrictive amendments to the bill—on foetal abnormalities, under-18 rape and incest—can be posed as concessions. i recall the way that the under-18 rape amendment, which is now in the bill, was moved. i am sure that my hon. friends who were on the committee will recall that it was moved as a concession. i think that it was appalling to divide young women in that way by introducing an arbitrary period of 18 weeks.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.7', 84, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend has said that all members of the committee were convinced that neither doctors nor women were abusing the 1967 legislation. i put it to her that some doctors are guilty of abuse. i understand that 20 per cent. of women who have abortions after 28 weeks come forward before 12 weeks. delay is a major cause of late abortion. it is an abuse of the existing legislation and it should be rectified, but the bill does not seek to do that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.8', 333, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "my hon. friend is right but she is referring to a different form of abuse from the one that i was addressing. it was argued by conservative members that doctors were abusing the act wholesale by performing abortions when they should not. we continue to deny that. as my hon. friend has said, there are doctors who, for various reasons, deny a woman an abortion when she is entitled to have one. some refuse even to pass her on to a doctor who will give her proper advice.\n in speaking to the 26-week amendment i want to dispel the belief that some hon. members may have that it represents a compromise or a concession. any legal time limit is, in practice, taken by doctors to be a minimum of two weeks less due to difficulties in estimating gestational age and fears of prosecution that might result from an incorrect estimate. my hon. friend will recall that there was a short debate in committee on the difficulties in estimating gestational age. our arguments were rejected. i recall what was said by the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) in rejecting the amendment. she claimed that it would bring the time limit to 20 weeks rather than to leave it at 18, which is what she wanted. that was further confirmation that she wants very early abortions at the end of 17 weeks.\n doctors' fear of prosecution can only have been grossly increased by the way in which the campaign has been waged both inside and outside the house. we are discussing time limits of 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. this is how time limits of 17 weeks, 20 weeks, 24 weeks and 26 weeks are being put into practice. if we remove two weeks from all the numbers of weeks, the result is that we are discussing 15 weeks, 18 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks and 24 weeks. we must keep that in the forefront of our minds.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.9', 88, 'uk.m.10515', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has referred to fears of prosecution. does she agree that the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), the promoter of the bill, has made it clear that in his view his campaign has already led to a substantial reduction in the number of women presenting themselves for abortion? surely this is the appropriate way in which to proceed. by voluntary activity, persuasion and example, rather than an extension of the criminal law, we shall deal more satisfactorily with a sensitive and intimate subject.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.10', 451, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes. the hon. gentleman makes an interesting point. we feel that there are many other ways of reducing the rate of abortions at a high week level than the way that the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has chosen.\n i do not wish to digress, but two of my hon. friends and i tabled an amendment to introduce self-referral for woman up to the 12th week of pregnancy—that is what happens on the continent. [an hon. member: "abortion on demand?"] it is not abortion on demand. a doctor must be present when an abortion is carried out. i hope that the hon. gentleman is riot suggesting that women should do it themselves. in effect, if the doctor agrees, it is abortion on request. in most european countries that is what happens. a woman may have an abortion up to the 12th week. that has resulted in reducing the rate of abortion because women find it easier to obtain one, and the health service provision there makes this possible.\n whatever the amendments may say, effectively we are talking about time limits that are two weeks below those listed. that point has been made strongly by the british pregnancy advisory service, which has written to all members of the house and is acknowledged—even by the hon. member for mossley hill—to be an organisation of integrity. the bpas states that it will ban abortions under the provisions of the 1967 act at 15 weeks if the time limits remains at the beginning of the 18th week of pregnancy, as suggested in the bill.\n it goes on to say that to ensure that they do not break the law they will work to 20 weeks for a 22-week limit and 22 weeks for a 24-week limit. this would mean that 17,000 women, using 1986 figures, will be denied an abortion and will be forced to continue with a pregnancy which could previously have been carried out legally and safely. that is what the bpas has been forced to do. it is important at this stage to dispel the myth that has been created that late back-street abortions were not and therefore will not now be a problem.\n we must remember that it took some years before women, general practitioners and consultants learnt fully about the abortion rights that came into force in 1968. at that time no funds were allocated to the nhs to set up an abortion service.\n if we consider the years from 1968 we find that deaths continued not only from illegal abortions, but from illegal-late abortions. from 1970 to 1972, 38 women died from illegal abortions: three at 20 weeks; two at 26 weeks; one at 27 weeks——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.11', 20, 'uk.m.10538', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady explain how many of those women were foreign women coming to this country for late abortions?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.12', 284, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i apologise to the hon. gentleman, but i cannot tell him because i am not sure that the dhss figures that we have go back that far. the figures that i am quoting can be substantiated by the dhss and i shall give him the evidence in writing with great pleasure if he wishes to see it. i am not lying.\n between 1973 and 1975, of the 10 women who died three were 16 weeks pregnant and one was 22 weeks pregnant. between 1976 and 1978—as late as that—four women died. one died from a self-induced abortion at 18 weeks and one at 20 weeks. between 1979 and 1981 only one woman died of an illegal abortion and two of unspecified abortions. the illegal abortion had been carried out at 27 weeks.\n those tragic deaths included young women, single women, women with other children and women with no children. we really cannot turn our backs on that evidence. despite the amendment that was carried in committee by the bill's sponsors, the exemption on the detection of foetal disability is a serious point and will remain so with time limits higher than the 17th week.\n all hon. members will have received a letter from the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists. although the royal colleges claim that they would settle for 24 weeks as an upper time limit, they point to the deficiencies in the bill, apart from the time limits. even with the amendment that was agreed in committee tabled by the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine), which is alleged to cover exceptions for foetal abnormality, the royal colleges did not believe that the bill would cover all the cases.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.13', 75, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. lady referring to a letter that i received on 26 april from professor beard, the chairman of the joint committee on foetal viability and clinical practice at the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, in which he said: we consider that the present abortion act of 1967 functions well, and that if the proposed abortion (amendment) bill became law it would not be in the best interests of women in this country."? \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.14', 487, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thank the hon. gentleman for his comments. the royal colleges and other organisations have made it clear that, whatever upper time limit is agreed by parliament, it will not make the bill acceptable. all hon. members who are minded otherwise should reflect on that.\n as i have said, a 24-week limit would, in effect, be 22 weeks. that will still cause serious problems for ultra sound screening and amniocentesis tests which are the major tests for detecting physical and mental disability.\n as we have heard, the amniocentesis test is not available until 16 weeks, and the results take up to four weeks to obtain. in some cases, the tests have to be repeated. a friend of mine had an amniocentesis test at 16 weeks. she waited three weeks and then had to have another before it could be confirmed that she was carrying an abnormal foetus. she eventually had an abortion at 22 weeks.\n having had an amniocentesis test, a woman would have reached 20 weeks before the results of the first test were known. where a second test is required, the 24-week time limit would provide the necessary leeway for an abortion to be carried out under the provisions of the abortion act 1967. no consideration can be taken into account other than the severity of the detected foetal abnormality. no consideration can be taken of the woman\'s circumstances, age or economic and social conditions.\n i ask the house to pause for a moment. if we pass the bill, we must bear in mind the anguish and anxiety that we will inflict on many women who would at least like to think that they had some kind of choice if they found themselves in those difficult circumstances. i admit that we discussed that point at length in committee. however, we must take into account the mental stress that poverty and poor housing can cause to women.\n 1 pm\n today is friday. when all this is over in the house of commons, i shall be going to my surgery—in common, no doubt, with many of my hon. friends. i know before i get there that at least a dozen, perhaps 20, housing cases will be awaiting me. people—maninly women—who bear the responsibility of the family, come along and say, "i am in a terrible state. i have three children." i am not talking about women asking for abortions. i am talking about the strain from which they suffer. such women, with two or three children, may be living on the 10th floor of a block with the lift always out of order. i can imagine many such women, if they become pregnant again, thinking, "my gosh, i really cannot go through with this"—and who could blame them? yet those hon. members who are sponsoring the bill and who intend to see it through would toss those people on one side. i think that that is cruel.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.15', 109, 'uk.m.10538', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what the hon. lady is now saying goes to the heart of the debate. as i understand it, she is arguing that if a woman is under stress, in the difficult circumstances that she describes—and i agree that all hon. members come into contact with women in that condition—she should then be able to obtain an abortion for social reasons, because of the stress on her family, because her home is overcrowded or for some similar reason.\n surely this is what the real argument is about. a substantial number of people feel that it is not legitimate for a woman to ask for an abortion for those social reasons.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.16', 6, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'she should make her own decision.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.17', 30, 'uk.m.10538', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this the crux. will the hon. member for barking (ms. richardson) amplify that point? will she clarify why an abortion should be allowed simply on grounds of stress or overcrowding?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.18', 140, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thought that i had done so. i entirely accept that such a woman could probably obtain an abortion up to the end of the 17th week under the bill, but we are thinking beyond that point. as has been said repeatedly in the chamber, in committee and elsewhere, it is not always possible to get the two doctors—or, in this case, doctor and consultant gynaecologist—before the end of the 17th week, and we are very worried. although that may not involve a large number of women, many will feel threatened, because the act—if we are unfortunate enough to see it become one—will be hanging over them, and they will not know what to do. i believe that the house has a duty to take into account the so-called social reasons—although in most people\'s terminology "social" means something more pleasant.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.19', 74, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "not once has the hon. lady made any mention—i hope that she will—of what happens to the child involved in a late abortion: the child that is dismembered in the course of a dilatation and evacuation operation; the child that is placed in a black sack and incinerated, as in the case of the carlisle baby, at 21 weeks' gestation after struggling for life for three hours. not once has she mentioned the child.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.20', 8, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is necessary to weigh these matters up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.21', 152, 'uk.m.10421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend aware that the doctor who refused to treat the foetus in the carlisle case was a member of the society for the protection of the unborn child? is she aware that when the health authority looked into the matter, it decided that the doctor had made the right decision? is she aware that life decided to call in the police, which meant that the woman involved had to be told what had happened and had to be interviewed by the police for three hours? is she aware that the police finally decided that there was no case to answer? is she aware that pressure has been exerted on the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) for an inquest to be held, which means that the mother will have to go and register the death of the child and will probably have to testify at the inquest?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.22', 12, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we are getting rather wide of the matter before the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.23', 130, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend. it happened in his constituency. he has taken a close and concerned interest in the matter.\n i shall say something about the carlisle bably. i could not understand why the matter was not reported at the time. it should have been. if anything went wrong, it should have been dealt with in the proper way at the time. i do not understand why it should have come up so much later. from time out , i understand that the hon. member for mossley hill—he will correct me if i am wrong—prompted the coroner to have an inquest. that seems to be rather strange. why did the hon. member for mossley hill do it recently? why did he not do it at the time?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.24', 2, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose ——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.25', 175, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "if i may continue before the hon. gentleman intervenes.\n time out informed me that it has spoken to the coroner and that the coroner, who was drawn in at that late stage, relatively recently, on looking at the files, decided that perhaps there should have been a registration of death. it was too late to do anything about the body of the child, because he had to look at the files. apparently, the coroner then wrote to the home secretary to inform him of that. as the hon. member for mossley hill had raised the matter with him, out of courtesy the coroner also wrote to the hon. gentleman. i have it written in shorthand, as it was given to me by time out . the coroner said: i was very startled when it suddenly appeared in the press. i only wrote to tell mr. alton as a matter of courtesy. maybe i was very naive, but it just didn't cross my mind that he would announce it to the press. interesting, is it not?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.26', 95, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a public letter. it does not state in any way that it is confidential. it states: i received the police file on 21st april, and having studied it carefully i came to the conclusion that an inquest would be in the public interest. i have posted a detailed report to the home office today, so that the secretary of state may decide whether he considers an inquest desirable. the letter is signed by ian morton, coroner for north-east cumbria. his reply is rather more reliable than the shorthand notes from time out .\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.27', 8, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that does not cross what i have said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.28', 25, 'uk.m.10421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i talked to the coroner this morning. he is dismayed at the use that the hon. member for mossley hill has made of the information.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.29', 123, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'again, there is confirmation of the whole matter.\n i return to the point that my hon. friend the member for carlisle (mr. martlew) and other hon. members have made. what about the stress to the mother? i wonder whether the hon. member for mossley hill considered, belatedly, bringing that to the attention of the coroner. i wonder whether he sat down and thought, "well, now, we are going to have to get this woman to court." that is appalling. that woman had an abortion. as everybody says, abortions are not lightly undertaken. often—not always, but often—they leave emotional scars. now, because the coroner says that there should have been an inquest, that poor woman will have to go through the whole thing again.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.30', 158, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "on the matter relating to the baby in pieces, which was raised by the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), we have heard the story time and again. i consulted dr. wendy savage, one of our leading experts. she consulted mr. arnie finks, one of the world's leading experts, and he said that, before an abortion of this kind is undertaken, and even before a caesarian operation is performed, the amount of anaesthetic given to the mother has to be terribly tightly controlled because it affects the foetus. when there is to be an abortion by this method, the mother is given a full anaesthetic and the foetus is entirely anaesthetised and probably dead. the idea of the foetus alive and in pieces is an absolute travesty of the facts. it is a fact that, even in caesarian operations, to protect the foetus from the effects of the aneasthetic, the mother is sometimes not completely anaesthetised.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.31', 75, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady—whom i called my hon. friend for the purposes of debate in committee, but who is now once again the hon. lady—has put the matter in perspective. it is a matter of balance. the mother's wishes are paramount. she must make the decision in consultation with her husband or the partner with whom she lives, who is the father of the child. we want such a decision to be taken in those circumstances.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.32', 60, 'uk.m.10602', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should point out that the channel 4 programme "women in view" considered the carlisle incident and the surrounding publicity. it found that a local journalist, running his own freelance agency, had made £5,000 from the story., which he obtained from the curate, whom i shall not name, at st. bride\'s, carlisle, who happened to be a member of spuc.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.33', 11, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the further we go into this matter, the murkier it becomes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.34', 88, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we must put this matter right on the record because the house and the committee were misled about the nature of the disability affecting the foetus in that case. it was suggested that it was a minor skin complaint, but it was a serious condition that can lead to suffering, rupture of the skin and internal organs and to death. the woman was told that her foetus was subject to those conditions, not to a minor skin complaint. the record should not be distorted as it has been.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.35', 40, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is right and we shall see what develops from that. the publicity surrounding that event appears to have been geared beautifully—perhaps "specifically" would be a more appropriate word to use—towards gaining publicity for the bill. i deplore such tactics.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.36', 18, 'uk.m.10421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the abortion in question took place in july 1987 and was brought to the fore on second reading.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.37', 41, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad that my hon. friend has put that on the record because i had forgotten that point. he drew the original article to my attention and i was amazed to find that the incident took place so long ago.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.38', 73, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is an important point. that information became public knowledge, not as a result of action taken by spuc, life or myself, but because the doctor and the nurses involved found the procedures so repugnant that they swore affidavits to that effect and asked for an investigation. the coroner has now said that there should be an inquest, because that would be in the public interest, and that should surely validate their action.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.39', 5, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not know sufficient——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.40', 2, 'uk.m.10421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose ——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.41', 17, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman should allow the hon. lady to deal with one intervention at a time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.42', 31, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as my hon. friend is the member for carlisle and has taken such a close interest in the matter, i am sure that he would be able to elucidate that point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.43', 87, 'uk.m.10421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the matter became public knowledge originally through an article in the catholic herald . it was then taken up by the sunday people , which gave a distorted view. an even more distorted view was given by the sunday mirror , which supposedly carried out an interview with the mother—which never in fact took place—in which she supposedly said that her child would be born a freak. no reporter ever talked to that lady and that comment was never made to that lady by the gynaecologist concerned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.44', 438, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when we see the official report of the debate we can piece together the true facts of the carlisle case in a way that we could not previously do. i am glad that some of the details of it are now on the record.\n 1.15 pm.\n there have been a number of interventions during my speech, but i shall now conclude my remarks as i know that other hon. members wish to speak. the bill is unacceptable, irrespective of the time limits. it does not take into account the social reasons that we have been discussing. some problems are known only to those who are affected, and they should have the benefit of choice, albeit a limited choice under the 1967 act. that is why that act should be left intact.\n a time limit of anything less than 26 weeks—which, in effect, is 24 weeks—would write off the interests of real, living women and their children in favour of the interests of an unviable foetus. we must make a decision today, and i hope that it will be the right one. from what the sponsors of the bill said in committee, i understand that they intend further attacks on the 1967 act. that has also been made plain this morning. people will be forced to the defensive. i put down a marker that i will not be forced to the defensive—i shall feel forced to the offensive.\n we must study the good practices of those european countries that have self-referral. we must ensure that the 1967 act is responsive to need in every possible way, without going beyond the bounds of legality. we must ensure that the nhs responds adequately in every part of britain. for example, it responds in the north but not in the west midlands. there must be decent, proper sex education at school and a properly funded family planning service. funds should be made available for research into contraception so that women do not take the pill and then find, as some do, that it does not suit them, or that being fitted with an inter-uterine device does not do the trick. all those measures would make women safer. there is a large failure rate in contraception so it is no use people thinking that women are simply being careless. we must ensure genuine choice for women.\n hon. members who want to end abortion will achieve only a return to back-street abortion. those of us who support the 1967 act want improvements so that there are safe and legal abortions, with back-up facilities, that allow women to live their lives with dignity and independence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.45', 387, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the amendments are all aimed at the very heart of the bill. i would prefer the bill to limit abortions to the 18th week of pregnancy, but i made plain on second reading the fact that i was ready to join the search for a formula that would safeguard the position of the woman who might be bearing a child suffering from severe abnormality, and on whom tests to establish the facts had not been completed by the 18th week of her pregnancy.\n that aspect was considered in detail in committee and i moved an amendment that now forms part of the bill. that was a genuine attempt by my hon. friends and myself to keep faith with the house. a number of reservations have been aired, even by supporters of the bill and it is necessary to keep faith with the house. the bill that we now seek to amend further is not the bill to which the house gave a substantial majority on second reading.\n the amendments now being discussed seek to raise the limit for all abortions from the 18th week of pregnancy. we must be clear about what will be the effects of that on—if i may use the term for the first time today—the right to life of the unborn. the bill in its present form does not change the grounds for abortion under the 1967 act. the intervention of my hon. friend the member for uxbridge (mr. shersby) was well intentioned, but the case he had in mind was irrelevant, because in all probability it would have been dealt with before the 18th week of pregnancy—very much earlier, probably.\n the bill concerns itself with the scandal of abortions for social reasons or for convenience. i remind the house that abortions under the social cause constitute the vast majority of abortions performed after 18 weeks. no less than 92 per cent. of all late abortions are carried out on foetuses, which, if they were permitted to be born, would be perfectly normal and healthy. many of us are appalled that under the 1967 act, 2·6 million foetuses had been destroyed by 1986. if they had been allowed to be born, most of them would have grown into healthy and normal children. slaughter on that scale continues, and the purpose of the bill—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.46', 2, 'uk.m.17340', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', " rose —'—\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.47', 98, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall not give way, because a number of other hon. members wish to speak, and owing to what has gone before, there is little time. i am sure that my hon. friend will understand.\n the bill deals with only a small proportion of abortions performed after 18 weeks, when the baby in the womb is perfectly formed. it is responsive to light and to sound, and it recognises its mother's voice. it differs in no material respect from what it will be 10 weeks later when, under the law, it is protected against the crime of destruction.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.48', 2, 'uk.m.10519', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose ——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.49', 404, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have already indicated that i shall not give way. [hon. members: "give way".] no, i must stick by my word. i did not give way to my hon. friend, and i have a number of other points to make. i want to be brief, to give others an opportunity to speak.\n amendment no. 2 is wholly unacceptable to the bill\'s supporters, and so is the amendment calling for a limit of 24 weeks. both ignore the fact that at those gestational ages, a pre-term baby can survive. a study undertaken at bristol maternity hospital in 1984 found that 72 per cent. of live-born infants of 22 to 27 weeks\' gestation survived. that finding was published in a report from the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists entitled "pre-term labour and its consequences". two years earlier, in 1982, the survival rate for the same group was 43 per cent. and in 1981 it was only 29 per cent. legislation should reflect and not ignore advances in medical science and practice. we should not be confused by the word "viability", which is not an objective pointer in terms of the right to life. it is the level at which medical technology can sustain the life of a prematurely born baby rather than the point below which the baby is not a human being with a right to life and above which he or she should be protected by law.\n i should have liked to say a great deal more, but i am anxious that the bill should make progress. [interruption.] if the house will not listen i shall develop the case that i intended to develop. the subject of my remarks has scarcely been mentioned today. it is the right to life of the unborn. on second reading, the house voted in favour of 18 weeks. the sponsors believe that we have the support of the majority in the country and we should prefer the bill to remain as amended in committee to meet the genuine concern of the house.\n the amendments provide us with a choice and we shall shortly be exercising that choice. in doing so, we should remember that the unborn child marked down for abortion has no choice. it is denied the right to be born—the right to a life before death. in those circumstances, only we can choose life and i trust that the majority of us will do so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.50', 259, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in considering the variety of amendments before us, it is right to pay some attention to the learned bodies that have given a great deal of thought to this issue. with the exception of one or two hon. members with qualifications in this area, most of us are lay men and women and we are dealing with a very complicated question. i remind the house, therefore, that a number of detailed inquiries have been conducted into the whole subject of viability and we should take their conclusions into account.\n the first was the distinguished committee of inquiry under mrs. justice lane set up by the government some years ago in response to continued criticism of the working of the abortion act 1967. on this narrow issue, that committee recommended that abortion should not be carried out beyond the 24th week of pregnancy. that was several years ago and the government made various administrative changes in the light of that recommendation—no doubt the minister will amplify this—which have meant that since that time very few abortions have been carried out beyond the 24-week limit. nevertheless, the law still stands as it as created—not in 1967, but in 1929 by the infant life (preservation) act.\n i believe that it is the will of the house, certainly by a clear majority, that the law should reflect the changes in medical practice that have taken place since then. i believe that if we could only secure expression for it there is probably a majority in the house in favour of a 24-week limit.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.51', 100, 'uk.m.17790', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman will have seen the gallup poll conducted in january among 746 gynaecologists. apart from abortion for foetal abnormality and threat to the life of the mother, they were asked what they thought should be the upper limit for legal abortions. ninety-eight per cent. of the gynaecologists asked supported 24 weeks or below, which shows that there is no support among the medical profession—or, i suspect, in the house—for this amendment. is it not time that we accepted our responsibility to the general public and debated the important amendments that the public want us to deal with?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.52', 20, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i sympathise with the hon. member. i am addressing my remarks to amendment no. 7, which deals with 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.53', 34, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. as i believe it to be the will of the house that there be a division, i beg to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.54', 30, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i think it is much too early. i think the house would prefer to hear the minister and the promoter of the bill, together with those who oppose the amendments.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.55', 655, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was outlining to the house what i believed was the first substantial committee of inquiry into the issue, which recommended to parliament and to government that there should be a limit of 24 weeks. that committee of inquiry took place some years ago. the most recent study was conducted not by this house, but by a select committee of another place. only a few weeks ago that committee, having deliberated on a bill to amend the infant life (preservation) act 1929, concluded that the limit should be 24 weeks.\n the third study of this matter was by a committee that included representatives of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the british paediatric association, the royal college of general practitioners, the royal college of midwives, the british medical association and the department of health and social security. that very important committee published a report in august 1985 on foetal viability and clinical practice. its recommendation was clear. it said that the gestational age after which a foetus is considered viable should be changed from the present limit of 28 weeks to 24 weeks of gestation.\n the committee continued: a strong argument which persuaded the committee against recommending a gestational age that is set too low, is the certainty that fear ignorance and administrative delays will continue to be a major reason for late attendance for termination of pregnancy. these late attenders are usually the women in greatest need of help—the very young and socially deprived. that was not a committee of social workers. it was a highly expert medical committee that recommended to parliament what should be the state of the law. we would be wise to consider its opinions.\n just before the bill\'s second reading, the viability committee of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists circulated a statement reiterating the royal college\'s view that there should be a 24-week limit. i am sorry that the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) has left his seat, because this is an important argument that is contrary to his. the viability committee said: twenty-four weeks gestation marks a … boundary below which the lungs are not expected to function. a reduction to 18 weeks"— or for that matter any other limit— has no scientific basis and would discriminate against women who may be most in need. on future medical advance, the committee said: further medical expertise will increase survival rates rather than lower the age at which survival is possible. for those reasons the house would be wise to accept an amendment to the 1967 legislation, creating a bar at 24 weeks of pregnancy. remembering the point made by the hon. member for barking (ms. richardson) that the medical profession always operates within a two-week limit of safety, a legal statement that abortion may not take place beyond the 24th week will ensure that it will not happen after the 22nd week.\n i say bluntly to my hon. friend the member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) and to other hon. members who support the bill that, if they were honest, they would say that there is no ethical difference between an abortion at 10 weeks, 17 weeks or 24 weeks. from their standpoint, the alternatives are all equally wrong. those of us who do not share that view have the responsibility of determining what the boundary of the criminal law should be.\n i do not believe that any of the other amendments have any logical argument behind them. the 24-week amendment has the validity of scientific opinion and, therefore, of public opinion behind it. by passing it into legislation we should be keeping open the option created in 1967 for women and their medical advisers to secure safe and legal termination of pregnancy as the lesser of two evils in any given situation in which they decide to do that. that is what the house would be wise to vote for.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.56', 190, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'by coming back to the house with the amendments that we made in committee we have kept faith. we promised particularly to take on board the issue of handicap, and by doing that and ensuring that the house—if it is allowed to get to that stage—has a choice of weeks, we have kept complete faith.\n one thing has not been mentioned during the debate, yet it is the most fundamental of all. what we are deciding today is awesome. it is what is human life? when is a human being not a human being? how can we, in a supposedly civilised society, have a law that allows the treatment of two babies of identical age to vary to such an extent that the one is cherished and its life fought for and the other is disposed of as having no value? i ask only that when we vote for 20, 22 or any other number of weeks, we remember that, if we would not do to a baby in an incubator what we would to a baby in the course of an abortion, we should vote to outlaw these abortions\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.57', 299, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i commend to the house the best possible option which, from the point of view of the promoter and sponsors of the bill, would be that of 20 weeks. we commend it because it will save lives. twenty-four weeks is a no-change option, which is why my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) and others support it.\n i hope that the house will cease to hide behind euphemisms such as "products of conception", zygote, embryo and foetus, which itself means little one. but we do not recognise that little one\'s right to life, and that is what the bill seeks to do. it is extraordinary that foetal brain material can be used to give another life. what does that say about the unborn child? what do we allow to happen to the unborn child? the most dangerous place for it is inside the womb. dilation and evacuation require the crushing of the baby\'s skull, the breaking of its spine and its removal piece by piece, and it is a barbaric, degrading and corrupting practice to allow in our country. prostaglandins require the baby to be brought on through a labour that can go on for hours, and it can be left writhing in agony as a result. no anaesthetics are used in these cases. this time limit was set 59 years ago. surely, as a matter of public policy, we should be reviewing it.\n no other country in western europe allows abortions as late as we do. the average eec time limit is 12 to 14 weeks. in sweden, which is outside the european community, it is 18 weeks. that is why the bill is reasonable and why hon. members should vote for the best possible option that is available today—the 20-week option.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.58', 280, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'on second reading, i drew attention to the fact that abortion was an issue on which there are deeply held and wholly conflicting views, and i am sure that the whole house agrees with that. i also said then and i repeat now that the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) was entitled to be judged on the proposals before the house rather than on any views that he might hold about what, from his perspective, an ideal position would be. i set out at some length some of the facts about tests and about other matters which i hoped would help the house to reach a conclusion. in view of the pressure of time on the house and what i perceive to be a general desire to reach a conclusion on these matters in the public interest, i shall keep my speech brief. i hope that i carry the whole house with me on that.\n in the spirit in which i approached the second reading debate during which i drew attention to some of the problems, it is right to recognise that the amendments to the bill in committee which changed its form before it returned to the house, are of some significance. they go some way to seek to meet the concerns about disability and the birth of disabled children. it is for the house to judge how far they go to meet those concerns. we should at least recognise the importance of the changes that have been made, even if there are those who feel that they do not provide the basis for consensus on the i 8-week time limit which remains in the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.59', 82, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give the government\'s view on the wording of clause 1(2)(b) which says: if the child were horn it would suffer from severe physical or mental disability (the nature of the disability to be identified in the certificate)"? will the minister give the government\'s view without further defining the physical or mental disability and the dangers of uneven practice developing in the countries of britain? what guidance can the department give on the satisfactory or otherwise nature of that wording?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.60', 442, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i shall cover that point briefly in a moment. i shall deliver my speech in the order that seems sensible in the interests of consistency and brevity.\n i should like to deal with the inter-relationship of the matters that we are dealing with now and the infant life (preservation) act 1929. i think that the house understands that in the abortion act 1967 there is no time limit whatever on abortion. it is sometimes presumed that such a time limit is set by the operation of the infant life (preservation) act. it is important that that should be understood, but i do not propose to reiterate the rather complex lines of argument underlying the point.\n as minister for health i owe the house such assessment as is available from the advice available to me about the impact of the bill on the current arrangements for abortion that are laid down in the 1967 act. this picks up the point made by the hon. member for caernarfon (mr. wigley). it is indisputable—indeed, it is the purpose—that there would be some reduction in the number of abortions that could be carried out legally. the department estimates that at least 7,630 fewer abortions would have been carried out in england and wales in 1986 if the bill as it stands had been in force. about half the women affected would have been non-residents and the remaining abortions—for very young women or those in much later life which might go ahead at present in appropriate circumstances—would have been prohibited. as i said on second reading, out of a total of 8,276 abortions in england and wales in 1986 at a gestational age of 18 weeks or over, more than one third were to women under 20 and about 3 per cent. were to women aged 40 and over.\n the hon. member for caernarfon asked about wording in the bill. it is undeniably a matter of some uncertainty how doctors and others would interpret the bill. it is possible that the exemption for foetal handicap, which is more tightly drawn than the present ground 4, could mean that fewer abortions would be carried out in that category. the difficulty and part of the uncertainty arises from the fact that the medical technology involved is not sufficiently refined to make it possible to foretell with certainty the degree of disability that a child would have after birth. against that background, i cannot give the house a clear-cut or definite statement about the precise consequences of the change. it would be irresponsible of me to pretend that i could do that and i shall not seek to do so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.61', 5, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way.?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.62', 34, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'no, because i feel that i owe the house a short speech. as minister for health and especially in view of the pressure of time, there is nothing else that i can properly say.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.63', 5, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.64', 30, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i should be grateful if the hon. lady would let me continue. i am sure that the general mood of the house is that we should proceed with the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.65', 5, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.66', 55, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'will the hon. lady let me proceed?\n at the end of all the arguments, i have to accept, as the house has to accept, that there is no single conclusive factual, technical or legal point which can make up the mind of the house as a whole or of any of us as individual members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.67', 5, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.68', 27, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i shall give way to the right hon. gentleman because the 1967 act was his and it would be a proper courtesy for me to do so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.69', 90, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the minister. i am seeking information from him, and do not seek to alter his opinions. will he confirm that the parliamentary answers that he gave on 8 december about the time limits in other countries are correct in that in france the limit is 24 weeks, in italy 23, in the netherlands 24 and that the figures given by the promoter of the bill are for the quite different limit for abortion on request in their law and are not the final limits for abortion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.70', 283, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i can confirm that any answers that i have given in hansard are correct on the basis of the best information available to me. all those points, while they appear to be facts, conceal a wealth of potential argument about the exact grounds on which abortions are permitted in different countries at different periods of time.\n at the end of my second reading speech i emphasised, and i emphasise again, that in purely personal terms, not as a minister or as a member of the government, i was prepared to vote for some time limit, but i did not feel able to vote for the bill as it then stood. the hon. member for mossley hill has gone a long way to meet some of those concerns, and i as an individual will take that into account. however, the questions i have to ask myself as a member of parliament, not as a minister—i speak now as a member of parliament—are broad ones. for example, do we have a balance that commands the kind of consensus support in this matter that we would like?\n secondly, if the bill were passed in its present form, with the 18-week limit and even with the changes, would it be likely to command a balance that would lead to consensus? if the house believes, as i do, that the answer to both those questions is no, it would be right to vote for one of the compromise solutions. i shall not tell the house what i think it should vote for; it would be wrong for me to do so. but it is in that spirit that i shall decide which of the amendments to vote for.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.71', 50, 'uk.m.10519', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i ask for your assistance in this matter, as i am a new member. the minister referred to the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and i would like to ask him to clarify that reference and to provide the house with information.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.72', 10, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that is not a point of order for me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.73', 29, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move , that the question be now put, but mr. deputy speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question. \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.74', 118, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to you for calling me, mr. deputy speaker. it is important that the house ceases to play political games and concentrates on what is being proposed here today. we know that there is probably a majority in the house for the recommendation of the bma that the abortion limit should come down to 24 weeks. i would support that, if we could also have exceptions for the hard cases about which we all know—late detection of foetal abnormality or the menopausal woman or young girl who does not know that she is pregnant until very late. what is on offer is enormously different. i believe— [interruption.] mr. deputy speaker, i cannot even hear myself speak.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.75', 1, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.76', 40, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i was sitting at my hon. friend's side and it was difficult to hear her. there is a deliberate ploy on the part of conservative members to intimidate or participate in conversations.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.77', 57, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. gentleman has anticipated what i was about to say. i must listen to the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms short), and it is even more difficult to hear what she is saying at this end of the chamber than from the area in which the hon. member for sheffield, hillsborough (mr. flannery) is sitting.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.78', 293, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'most of the medical bodies have recommended—this has been accepted by a majority in this place—a time limit of 24 weeks. i would find that limit completely acceptable if there were an exception for hard cases.\n the house must make an important choice that will affect the lives of many women and families. present practice is, in effect, a 24-week limit. the recommendation of the dhss is that there should be no abortion post-24 weeks except in hard cases. only 29 abortions took place post-24 weeks in 1986 the last complete year for which figures are available to us. for the three quarters of the next year there were 19 such abortions. the house wants a 24-week limit with exceptions. the select committee of another place recommended a 24-week limit with exceptions. we have in practice a 24-week limit with exceptions. i beg the house seriously to note that. what is on offer is not the 24-week reform that the majority of hon. members have said in various surveys, for example, that they want. instead, we have a serious restriction that is based on no rational scientific or technical evidence. it has been put before us by those who are completely opposed to all abortion. i respect them for taking that view, but i cannot respect them for not having the guts to put that proposition before the house. they will not do that because they know that that proposition would not be carried. instead, they have chosen to introduce a duplicitous bill. they pretend that they are trying to prevent late abortion, but that is not their true position.\n i should like to see a series of actions taken to prevent late abortion. that would find great favour on the opposition benches.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.79', 77, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "does my hon. friend agree that it would be much better if those who have handicapped children received more support? the house could provide more support. is my hon. friend aware that 200 of those who voted for the bill's second reading had, 10 days earlier, voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children? further, is she aware that five of the 12 sponsors of the bill voted against an attendance allowance for severely disabled children?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.80', 12, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. let us not have a re-run of a social security debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.81', 163, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend makes her own point. half the people of our world go hungry nearly every day, yet that world produces twice as much food as the peoples of the world need. when we consider the stance that is taken by conservative members on international economic change that could produce a better life for the poor, i cannot accept that they are seriously committed to the beauty and preservation of human life. they are putting another agenda before us.\n those who are critical of the bill want to do everything possible to prevent late abortion. it is gravely wrong—the minister should take this point much more seriously than he does—that 20 per cent. of abortions that take place after 20 weeks involve women who referred themselves before 12 weeks. delays are built into our legislation and the way in which the nhs behaves, and these result in late abortions. we could avoid that. we could remove a whole series of late abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.82', 165, 'uk.m.22646', 'uk.p.LDem', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "does the hon. lady agree that there is no need for self-referral to encourage earlier abortions? i am sure that we are united in our desire to cut out the trauma of a late abortion, which is particularly horrible for the doctors, the gynaecologists, and the mother as well as for her immediate family. at a later stage, we should consider providing for the signature of one doctor for an abortion up to 12 weeks. surely that would overcome people's natural fear about self-referral—heir fear about a woman's right to demand from a doctor an abortion whenever she wants. such self-referral may be abused by women who use abortion as a form of contraception— particularly unpleasant way of using abortion. if we agree to a time limit of 24 weeks today—more than 160 hon. members are in favour of that—oes she agree that an amendment at a later stage to require the signature of one doctor would overcome many of the problems of late abortion?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.83', 7, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. interventions must be brief and relevant.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.84', 45, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is absolutely right. if the house wants to make one change in our legislation that would prevent late abortion, and if the sponsors of the bill are as distressed about late abortion as they claim, we should learn from our european partners.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.85', 10, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.86', 13, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i believe that there are many strands of opinion still wishing expression.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.87', 118, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to you, mr. deputy speaker. i find it distressing that hon. members who claim to be deeply concerned about this matter will not listen to serious proposals that would achieve the objectives of which they claim to be in favour.\n hon. members claim to be in favour of preventing late abortion. it is absolutely proven by medical evidence and by experience in other european countries that, if we allow self-referral—let us be clear that that means self-referral to one doctor and not women deciding for themselves without medical advice—we would prevent an enormous number of late abortions. we would prevent the distress that that means for doctors, nurses, the other medical staff and the woman.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.88', 87, 'uk.m.10489', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i accept the distress that is felt by the medical profession, but that feeling is also shared by the woman, and she appears to have been forgotten by the promoters of the bill. does my hon. friend agree that it is an impossible task to prove, beyond doubt, the date of gestation? if the bill goes through, it could result in criminal prosecutions against practitioners and women seeking abortions. in that way, the bill is based on sand and it is opening the way to further misery.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.89', 44, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is absolutely right. because of the ulterior motives that lie behind the bill, one of the terrible things about it is that it is not well constructed. the provisions contained in the previous legislation relating to doctors acting in good faith——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.90', 45, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if the house does not move to a closure within the next two minutes, it will be denied the opportunity to vote on the amendments. therefore, i beg to move, that the question be now put— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.91', 20, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman has just heard the ruling from the chair. it was given within minutes of his rising.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.92', 19, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order. therefore, i beg to move again, that the question be now put— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.93', 16, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i see no reason to vary the ruling that i gave a few moments ago.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.94', 2, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose ——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.95', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'name him.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.96', 51, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i do not wish to detain the house. when mr. speaker was in the chair this morning, he said that he would take into account the time that was wasted on petitions—[hon. members: "wasted?"] and wasted on any number of other devices.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.97', 25, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman must not persist in challenging my ruling. it is a matter for the occupant of the chair and i have ruled.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.99', 147, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am trying to make a number of enormously serious points which have not been put before during the debate and i am being interrupted constantly. therefore, we cannot have a rational debate about these very serious matters. that is deeply regrettable.\n i was replying to an intervention made by my hon. friend the member for bristol, south (ms. primarolo) about the position in which medical practitioners would be placed by the bill. under the provisions in previous legislation, if practitioners made a judgment in good faith, that was all that was required of them. that will be removed and doctors in hospitals throughout the country, who face all the difficulties where women request abortions, will face criminal prosecution in many instances if they do their very best in good faith to interpret the law and give women the rights that they understand the law to provide.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.100', 68, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady said earlier that she was in favour of 24 weeks as a reasonable and workable compromise. however, she will have heard the minister say that 24 weeks in law really means 22 weeks in practice. the figures provided by the professionals show that whereas— [interruption.] i understood that the 24 weeks would be reduced by two weeks. that comment has been made by many people.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.101', 2, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', ' rose ——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.102', 76, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not believe that the minister can intervene on an intervention.\n is the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short) aware that over the 24-weeks limit only 29 abortions were performed in 1986 whereas at the 23-week to 24-week stage, there were as many as 1,065 abortions? to have 24 weeks in practice the house may well vote in a few minutes for 26 weeks which will be interpreted in that way by the professionals.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.103', 44, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman's point is crucial. the house wants 24 weeks in practice. in practice we have 24 weeks and there were only 29 exceptions in 1986. the best way for the house to vote for 24 weeks is to vote the bill down.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.104', 6, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.105', 5, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the truth is objectively— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.106', 22, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we do not conduct our debates in this fashion. there should be no heckling from the front benches below the gangway.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.107', 179, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall be grateful if you will allow me a few more minutes, mr. deputy chairman.\n i want to make one or two more points to the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) who keeps asking about the unborn child's right to life. that is a very important question. there are competing rights. however, i put these points to the right hon. member for castle point and to all those who take a very anti-abortion stance. those people are absolutely entitled to that right of conscience and to live with it. however, they have no entitlement to impose that view on others who, in conscience, take a different view. those people have no sublime right to tell others in this country and the majority of public opinion, which takes a different view from theirs, that the law will be changed to force their view on others. that is wrong. the minority should not abuse the law in that way. they should exercise their conscience in their own personal, moral decision-making and through their own religious convictions.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.108', 38, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i listened very carefully to the hon. lady's last few remarks. did she not earlier suggest that consultants should not be allowed that same privilege; that they should be required to carry out abortions irrespective of their consciences?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.109', 166, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'absolutely not. all those questions are very important. i would insist on the right of anyone to take a stand on conscience, including anyone in the medical profession who does not want to participate in abortions. however, the minority do not have a right to prevent women and families who make other decisions from having their rights under the law. it is perfectly possible for us to arrange things so that the two sides do not collide. the minister—i have already put this point to him—should require all national health service areas to plan the local provision of abortion facilities. they should then appoint a range of practitioners. plenty of gynaecological work does not involve abortion. this does not mean that those who are opposed to abortion could not be appointed and promoted. that is not incompatible with the need. we can respect medical practitioners who are opposed to abortion, and extend the rights of the law to all who want to take up those rights.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.110', 55, 'uk.m.10160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. lady agree that one of the more crass and dangerous provisions of this very misconceived bill is the suggestion that rape and incest, while they might be grounds for termination in women below the age of 18, would not be so in women above that age? will she address that peculiar anomaly?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.111', 287, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i was coming to that. it is one of the most offensive features of this offensive bill. how can the sponsors possibly say that a woman under 18 who is raped or sexually abused is more innocent than a woman over 18? many women who are sexually abused or raped are mentally disturbed by the experience, in some of the most awful and brutal cases. there are known cases, to which i would refer if we had more time, of women being so distressed and upset that they did not report their pregnancy until a stage that would be too late under the bill.\n every hon. member was consulted about how rape could be prevented. an article in woman or woman's own was, i believe, sent to all of us. it told the story of a woman in her 50s who told how she was raped in her 20s, and how it still disturbed her life. she had had a child as a consequence of the rape. she had never loved that child; she never could and never would. that is the most tragic thing that can be imagined.\n the woman was telling the truth. that child, now an adult, had never been loved because the conception had been the result of a brutal and horrible rape. the bill's provisions mean that more children with experience of being unwanted because they remind a woman of a brutal, horrible, unwanted sexual experience would be born. that strikes me as deeply disgusting, and, while i understand why some people hate the idea of abortion, i do not know how anyone could bear to put his name to a proposal to judge between those under 18 and those over 18.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.112', 134, 'uk.m.10215', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend comment on the fact that many women who were raped, whether they were younger or older than 18, would not have time to reflect on whether they could ever love a child born in such circumstances? yet the bill requires them to make up their minds before the 18th week of gestation.\n here again is a case of people who have no intention of listening to the arguments trying to bully and threaten their way— [interruption.] if my hon. friend has not heard my question, i shall repeat it. obviously some hon. members cannot realise that a woman who has been raped, no matter what age she is, will not have time to reflect on whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.113', 27, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. perhaps the hon. lady would make more progress if she were allowed to speak. we are debating this matter. i hope that the house realises that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.114', 82, 'uk.m.10215', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is no wish of mine to have to repeat again what i asked my hon. friend, but i shall keep saying it until the house hears the point. it is important to realise that, no matter what the age of a woman, if she has been raped and becomes pregnant as a result she will not have time to consider whether she will ever be able to love a child born in such circumstances. the time limit in the bill— [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.115', 125, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with my hon. friend. we shall proceed much more rapidly if conservative members do not make so much noise that it is impossible to hear. a long time was taken by my hon. friend to make the same point three or four times, because it was absolutely impossible to hear her. she is absolutely right. raped women are often deeply disturbed by their experience. they need time to come to terms with it, and they need time to consider whether they are emotionally capable of loving the child born as a result of rape. the hon. member for mossley hill and his supporters do not have the right to intrude on such a deeply difficult decision.\n i wish to make two other points.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.116', 14, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.127', 116, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the house considered the bill on second reading, when it gave it a majority of 45 on a vote of 296 members. in committee, there were 30 hours of debate, 15 divisions and 27 amendments. now we have debated the bill on report this morning and it has completed its report stage.\n it would bring parliament into disrepute if we were unable to complete the voting on the report stage and give the bill its third reading. millions of people outside the house have followed our discussions this morning and over the months. it is genuinely a matter of great regret that the bill cannot be completed today——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.128', 21, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i understand how the hon. gentleman feels, and his regret, but he must address himself to a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.129', 51, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'because of these factors, and because there is so much concern that the matter should be resolved, i ask the leader of the house, through you, mr. deputy speaker, to make a statement about whether time might be provided at the end of business for the bill to be further considered.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.130', 101, 'uk.m.19424', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', "further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. proceedings on this bill have not been concluded today. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), who is in charge of the bill, has named the next private members' bill day, friday 13 may, as the day for further discussion of the bill so that there may be an opportunity for the house to take its decisions on these matters if that is what it wishes to do.\n the government's position is already clear. it is not our practice to provide extra time for consideration of individual private members' bills.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.131', 51, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker, and to the statement made by the leader of the house. would the leader of the house be prepared to consider, in the light of the proceedings next week and in view of the proscrastination and filibustering of some hon. members today——\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.132', 24, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we are not going to have recriminations of that kind this afternoon. the leader of the house has heard what has been said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.133', 47, 'uk.m.16389', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) claimed that the report stage of his bill had been completed. will you confirm that that is not so—that the report stage is continuing and has yet to be completed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.134', 5, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. gentleman is correct.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.135', 46, 'uk.m.10165', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i am in a somewhat unfortunate position, in view of the circumstances, because my private members' bill is down to be discussed first next friday. it is called the motor vehicles (wearing of seat belts by children) bill——\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.136', 9, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. with respect, we cannot have all that now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.137', 66, 'uk.m.10165', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i want to make it clear to the house that my bill has received all-party support at every stage. it went through committee in one morning and was unopposed on second reading.\n if the bill of the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) comes to the floor of the house, i hope that the house will allow a decision to be taken on it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.138', 11, 'uk.m.21855', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. these are matters for the house to decide next friday.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4.5.139', 47, 'uk.m.18584', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. as the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) announced that if his bill did not get through he would enter a monastery, may we assume that the church's loss will be our gain and wish him godspeed?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 6, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-06.4']]
['Abortion (Amendment) Bill']
[['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.2', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.4', 111, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. following the reply by the leader of the house during yesterday's business questions, and given that the abortion act 1967 was enacted at the seventh attempt only when the government of the day gave time to enable it to make progress, i wonder whether the right hon. gentleman, through you, sir, can tell the house whether he has been able to consider further the early-day motion which has been signed by 113 hon. members and the representations which he has received from thousands of people that time should be provided to decide this important matter, which is the concern of millions of people.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.5', 88, 'uk.m.18287', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if it is unparliamentary and out of order for an hon. member to accuse another hon. member of being a liar or a hypocrite, surely it is unparliamentary and out of order for an hon. member to accuse another hon. member of being in support of the murdering of babies. that charge was made earlier today by the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith), who accused those who had taken part in the debate on new clause 1 and the—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.6', 28, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. member is going back to something that apparently took place much earlier in the day. we cannot return to that point at the present time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.7', 185, 'uk.m.18287', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if the hansard report bears out the fact that the hon. member for rochdale accused hon. members who had participated in the debate on new clause 1 of being in support of the murdering of babies, will you ask mr. speaker to request the hon. member for rochdale to withdraw what many of us who took part in that debate regard as a grossly offensive and unparliamentary remark? will you ask mr. speaker to ask the hon. member for rochdale to withdraw that remark, which was made specifically against a group of hon. members who had taken part in the debate? i have reason to believe that the occupant of the chair at that time did not hear the remark. i ask you, sir, to look at the hansard record. if the allegation is reported there, will you ask mr. speaker on monday to ask the hon. member for rochdale to withdraw the remark? the hon. gentleman has left the chamber and i have reason to believe that he is prepared to withdraw it if requested.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.8', 25, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "we shall all be able to check the hansard report. i shall of course draw the hon. member's comments to the attention of mr. speaker.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.9', 183, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. speaker. before the hon. member for bradford, west (mr. madden) raised his point of order, the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) addressed a question through you to my right hon. friend the leader of the house, who made no immediate response. that may well have been because the hon. member for bradford, west wished, quite properly, to raise a point of order. we have had no answer from my right hon. friend the leader of the house.\n last friday, and again in a sense today—i make no comment on today's debate—we have seen a determined attempt by a minority to frustrate the progress of a bill which had a substantial majority on second reading, passed through the committee stage and completed its report stage, save for the votes at the end. may i ask the leader of the house, through you, sir, whether he will comment on the way in which private members' rights are being abused and the will of the majority is being made a mockery? will he do something about it?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.10', 138, 'uk.m.19424', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons', 'government', "further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i should like to reconfirm that it is not the government's practice to grant time for any individual private member's bill, however important the issues with which it deals. as i said yesterday, we believe that it would be a very grave step to intervene in the process of private members' bills. however, my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir b. braine) and the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), the promoter of the bill, have asked me to consider other ways in which hon. members could consider the matter. i understand their point and will of course bear it in mind. as the leader of the house, i am always happy to see them, or any other hon. member, to discuss the matter.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.11', 87, 'uk.m.16389', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. you have been in the chair for much of today. to prevent repetition in answering accusations of parliamentary mugging, foul play and cheating, will you confirm that the two bills debated today have been debated absolutely properly and in full conformity with the standing orders and that no hon. member has been called out of order? as mr. speaker has said, any accusation by the media of parliamentary mugging would be exaggerated and very much out of place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.12', 9, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order mr. deputy speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.13', 31, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. let me deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for bradford, south. it is a simple answer to a simple question: the hon. gentleman is correct.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.14', 9, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5.1.15', 22, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i must be fair to hon. members who have other bills on the order paper. i intend to take them now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 13, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-13.5']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7.1.1', 274, 'uk.m.17860', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. speaker. i wish to raise with you a matter concerning voting on the abortion (amendment) bill which took place in the house last friday. i apologise for not having raised the matter before, but i hope that you will accept that with no official hansard showing the voting lists being available to hon. members i have only just found out what happened from some of the unofficial voting lists that are appearing in the house.\n i voted on the bill, as did many other hon. members on both sides of the house, but i have only just found out that my vote has not been recorded. i find that i am not alone in that. i understand that several hon. members on both sides of the house have a similar complaint.\n having checked upon what happened, and bearing in mind that there was a great deal of confusion surrounding the votes, may i point out that this is an important issue, on which many hon. members have a serious need to show their constituents which way they voted?\n as representation on the committee to consider the bill very much depends on the outcome of the vote on second reading, may i ask whether it is possible—i appreciate that we are in a sort of constitutional no-man's land—that the vote could be taken again or that the various lists of the various divisions and parts of divisions could be published?\n i know that it is an unusual situation. we do not have an official division list. is there any way, mr. speaker, in which you could rectify that position?\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7.1.2', 247, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am obliged to the hon. member for nuneaton (mr. huckfield) for giving me notice that he would raise this matter. it has been referred to in correspondence from other hon. members.\n i understand from the deputy speaker who was in the chair at the time that there was considerable confusion as to whether hon. members were voting on the closure or on the main question. that view was expressed to the chair. the deputy speaker did what i would have done had i been in the chair and what is always done in the house if there is confusion in the lobby. the division was called off and was called for a second time.\n i realise that a number of hon. members who had been expressing views outside wanted the public to know that they had kept faith with what they had been saying. they were here to cast their votes. unfortunately, when a division is called off the list is immediately destroyed in order to avoid any misunderstanding arising. we keep only the list of hon. members who take part in the official division.\n the deputy speaker and i wish that we could help hon. members who stayed for the whole afternoon in order to cast their votes but who left in a hurry, understandably, after the first vote. it was a friday afternoon, when many hon. members have engagements in the country. however, i fear that i cannot help the hon. gentleman any further.\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7.1.3', 210, 'uk.m.17860', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i am grateful for what you have said and i do not, of course, cast any reflection on you or your colleagues in the chair. it is not that sort of matter.\n it is a serious matter and one on which hon. members are under great pressure from all sides in their constituencies. we are in an unprecedented situation, because there is still no official voting record. is it not possible to amend the unofficial lists that are appearing in the library and other places? i know that those are unofficial lists, but, if they are unofficial, surely some of the parts of the other division lists could be made available unofficially.\n not only was there a false start to the vote on the closure; a point of order was raised during the main vote, so that there were three attempts at voting. even if it is not possible to produce any kind of official or unofficial recollection of what took place, mr. speaker, is this a matter that you feel is in your power to bring to the attention of the committee of selection, so that it may have it in mind when it makes up the composition of the committee?\n ', datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7.1.4', 70, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i think that the last point raised by the hon. gentleman is a substantial one, which will be borne in mind by those responsible. there is no doubt that due to anxiety to get to constituencies hon. members did not come back to hear the result of the division in order to know that all was well. i am sure that the hon. gentleman's point will be borne in mind.\n ", datetime.datetime(1979, 7, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1979-07-18.7']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (DIVISION)']
[['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.1', 366, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'on friday last i undertook, in response to a request from the hon. member for swindon (mr. stoddart), to look into the matter of the delay that occurred in the locking of the doors during the course of the first division on that day. the basic reason for the delay was the absence of division sheets in the l to z desks in the aye lobby. the missing lists were eventually discovered in the drawer in the other division desk. i am satisfied that that was a simple human error and that there is no question of there having been any malicious attempt to disrupt the business of the house.\n with regard to the timing of the order to lock the doors, the house will be aware that standing order no. 34, by which the procedure on divisions is governed, lays down that the speaker directs the locking of the doors after the lapse of at least six minutes from the direction to clear the lobby. on 12 march 1975, my predecessor ruled that the period of six minutes should be extended to eight minutes, in order to allow hon. members time to come in from norman shaw north. in doing so, he did not, however, change the period from a minimum period to a fixed period. since that ruling was given, the occupants of the chair have always regarded themselves as working on a period of at least eight minutes.\n it therefore happened last friday that when the deputy speaker was informed by a number of hon. members that the division sheets were missing and that they had therefore been reluctant to pass the tellers without their names being recorded, he decided to defer ordering the doors to be locked until he was satisfied that the sheets were available and that the hon. members in question had had the opportunity to return to the lobby. in my view, that was an eminently sensible decision and an absolutely justified use of the discretion of the chair. had it not been taken, the division might well have had to be held again, to the general confusion of members, and it would have been a waste of time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.2', 85, 'uk.m.19206', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am most obliged to you, mr. speaker, for making that statement. it has clarified the matter, and hon. members will know the position in the future.\n i should like to take this opportunity, however, of refuting the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) that it was a time-wasting exercise. it was not. i believe that it was a relevant point of order, and your ruling clarifies the issue to my satisfaction and to that of other hon. members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.3', 8, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a different point of order, mr. speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.4', 33, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'may i interrupt the hon. gentleman? i hope that he is not seeking to raise the matter about which he wrote to me, concerning privilege. that matter is not allowed to be raised.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.5', 45, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. on 21 january i wrote a personal and urgent letter to the minister of state, department of health and social security in respect of a dying constituent who had, in the eyes of my local social services department—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.6', 121, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman and i know the correspondence that has passed. even if he is not raising the matter to which he referred, i have said before that it is a waste of the time of the house to seek to raise, under the guise of a point of order, a dispute with a minister. i apply the standing orders of the house, and i can rule only on the standing orders and on our customs and courtesies. i must indicate to the hon. gentleman that if there is a dispute about his not having received a proper reply, or if there has been a delay or anything of that sort, i am not a court of appeal against ministers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.7', 58, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for your guidance, mr speaker. my point is not what you have suggested it might be. i asked the minister to investigate the case as a matter of urgency. today, four weeks later, i still have not received a reply from the minister. i have received a letter from solicitors retained by the medical profession—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4.1.8', 35, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i have already indicated to the hon. gentleman that the letter from the solicitors, to which he referred—with which we have dealt privately—cannot be raised here on the ground of a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 18, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-18.4']]
['Abortion (Amendment) Bill']
[['uk.proc.d.1988-05-09.10.1.1', 149, 'uk.m.16389', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. following the conclusion of the debate on the abortion (amendment) bill on 6 may, you may have seen a number of press reports and television interviews in which it was suggested that there had been a parliamentary mugging, foul play and, according to one broadcast, cheating.\n i should be grateful if you would confirm that on 6 may the standing orders were fully and properly followed in parliament, that the rules of debate were properly followed, that the treatment of the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) appeared to many of us very generous, in that closures were granted within an almost unprecedentedly short time and that, in all, there was a perfectly fair and proper debate on a number of amendments throughout the morning. there was no parliamentary mugging, no foul play and certainly no cheating on that day.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-09.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-05-09.10.1.2', 37, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i cannot be held responsible for the extravagant adjectives that have been used elsewhere, but i confirm what the hon. gentleman has said. to my knowledge, the debate proceeded in good order and under our usual procedures.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 5, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-05-09.10']]
['ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING']
[['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.1', 355, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i will, with permission, mr. speaker, now answer question no. 21, no. 101 and no. 105 together.\n the government have now studied the working of the 1967 abortion act. our conclusion is that, while the act has operated to the benefit of many people, there is cause for real concern about the way in which certain of its provisions are working in practice. we therefore propose to appoint a committee of inquiry to review the operation of the act on the basis that the main conditions for legal abortion remain unaltered. i will, if i may, circulate the full terms of reference in the official report.\n the essential point is that the inquiry will be concerned with the way the act is working and not with the principles that underlie it. it will be open to the committee not only to recommend changes in the law but also to suggest interim changes in the regulations under the present act should they find this necessary. i am glad to tell the house that the honourable mrs. justice lane has accepted our invitation to preside over the inquiry, and, in choosing other members, we shall be looking for people with the right kind of knowledge and experience who are not already committed on the subject.\n the government believe that family planning can often improve the quality of domestic life: it can prevent the unhappiness that unwanted pregnancies can cause and reduce the need for abortion. the government propose to encourage the growth of local authority family planning, including domicilary services, particularly in areas of special need. provision has therefore been made mainly in the rate support grant for expenditure in england and wales to treble by 1972–73. the rate of growth in subsequent years has yet to be settled. advice will remain free to all and so will equipment to those requiring it on medical grounds. local authorities may waive charges for equipment in other cases.\n hospital authorities are also being asked to increase provision for family planning.\n no change is proposed in the arrangements for the provision of family planning advice and equipment by general practitioners.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.2', 120, 'uk.m.19232', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "is the right hon. gentleman aware that the establishment of this inquiry will give great pleasure to and allay many fears of those who are in favour of abortion law reform just as much as to those who are against it? is he further aware that his reply about general practitioners will cause anxiety not only to general practitioners but to the general public, since a recent survey showed that the general public want and expect their general practitioner to give this advice? is he aware that at the moment this service is curtailed because private prescriptions have to be used? if the e.c.10 could be used far more contraceptive advice could be given in general practitioners' surgeries, and accepted.\n ", datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.3', 57, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'we are increasing the facilities throughout local government and hospital clinics for people who cannot afford the supplies involved. the government see no reason for taking over from the vast majority of the public who are well able to seek advice and provide their own equipment if need be. the job is now done by general practitioners.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.4', 73, 'uk.m.18904', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my right hon. friend aware that this most welcome and much-needed extension of the family planning service should help to relieve poverty and reduce the birth rate? is he aware that much more will need to be done to stabilise the population over the next 30 years? can he say when a decision will be made and announced about the population study group to which the prime minister referred on 26th january?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.5', 51, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'that is a question for the prime minister. i would not like my right hon. and leaned friend to delude himself into thinking that the increase in family planning is intended for population policy reasons. it is intended to increase family happiness and as such has an important contribution to make.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.6', 60, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. gentleman aware that his statement will be welcomed by hon. members on all sides, particularly by those who think it a crazy social policy to make abortion easy and family planning difficult? can he assure the house that all interested parties, including the medical and nursing professions, will be able to give evidence at this inquiry?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.7', 22, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i can certainly give my hon. friend that assurance. we are lucky to have got so distinguished a chairman for the inquiry.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.8', 82, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman tell us whether the position which he has outlined applies to scotland; secondly, will he accept that the medical profession will welcome any kind of investigation into abortion? is he further aware that we also welcome the fact that the secretary of state has said categorically that the main conditions of the act will not be affected? can he tell me whether the position of voluntary bodies in family planning will be affected by the new proposals?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.9', 54, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'the abortion announcement was made on behalf of my right hon. friends the secretaries of state for scotland and wales as well as myself. family planning policy was announced for scotland by the secretary of state for scotland about two weeks ago. family planning bodies will, i imagine, benefit from the increased resources available.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.10', 68, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. gentleman aware that many people like myself who support this measure will welcome the inquiry because we are concerned about certain aspects of the policy? would he tell the house whether this inquiry will alter the imbalance in certain parts of the country, particularly in the liverpool area, where it is almost impossible to get an abortion because of opposition from certain people there?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.11', 24, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'it will be open to the inquiry to consider any evidence that is put before it, including that to which the hon. gentleman refers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.12', 53, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the inquiry be empowered to take evidence, preferably written, from women who have had abortions in the private sector as to the standard of care they received and, bearing in mind the implications of the tax position here, the sums of money that they have been asked to hand over in cash?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.13', 36, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'that sort of question is entirely for the committee, but as it has a chairman who is a high court judge i am sure that it will be able to handle such evidence, from whatever source.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.14', 35, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the minister aware that the house will be gratified by his statement? may we take it that there will be no religious embargo on membership of the committee for the medical and nursing profession?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.15', 14, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'we shall seek objective members with suitable qualifications, obviously regardless of any religious background.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.16', 64, 'uk.m.16405', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'while not accepting the morality as distinct from the legality of abortion, may i ask my right hon. friend whether, pending the results of the inquiry, he will look very closely at applications for the licensing of abortion clinics having regard to the strong feeling of the clergy and many people in my constituency about the proposal for such a clinic at buckhurst hill?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.17', 19, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i assure my hon. friend that the government will continue to examine very carefully all applications for further clinics.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.18', 207, 'uk.m.16475', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "before dealing with the right hon. gentleman's very welcome announcement about the inquiry and the family planning matters, may i ask him why the b.b.c. carried on its one o'clock news a complete statement to the effect which the right hon. gentleman has just given to the house? will he bear out my view that it is very unfortunate for information to be given to the public through the mass media before it is given to the house?\n we welcome the setting up of the committee of inquiry in view of certain disturbing features of the working of the act. first, will the right hon. gentleman confirm that a close look will be taken at the working of private clinics, and particularly the length of time which people spend in them, and the possibility of touting for custom? secondly, referring to his announcement about family planning, can he confirm that domiciliary services will be made available in all parts of the country because we on this side of the house share the view that it is much better to prevent unwanted births rather than abort them? finally, will he consider making contraceptives available free of charge to those in need on social as well as medical grounds?\n ", datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.19', 179, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'contraceptives are already available on social grounds when the local authority judges fit and when the income is low.\n i regret that the b.b.c. has, according to the hon. lady, published my statement in advance. i referred as long ago as october to a pending government announcement about family planning and i have answered a number of questions tabled by my hon. friends about abortion, with the promise of an early statement. therefore, it is not surprising that some decisions on this matter should have been expected. certainly the inquiry— [interruption] —the order paper today is peppered with questions on this subject and it was not surprising that people should conclude that there might be a statement today. i shall certainly see whether there has been any "leak" of the crucial information.\n the inquiry will be able to consider the practice of private clinics. the government believe that the principal growth in family planning should come in giving advice in the home to those who, for one reason or another, are not able to take advantage of contraceptive methods.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.20', 54, 'uk.m.10249', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'while thanking my right hon. friend for his comments on family planning matters and for setting up the inquiry, may i ask him whether i would be right in saying that the committee will not be precluded from making comments on the essence of the act if it felt that those comments were necessary?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.21', 42, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i do not want to open up the subject which took so long to debate in the house originally, but obviously if the committee felt trammelled by its terms of reference it would be able to write to me and say so.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.22', 107, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome for the very carefully measured terms with which he made his announcement about the inquiry into the abortion act and that there is growing evidence that the great demand for abortions is caused by a lack of family planning provisions? there will be a welcome for the fact that the right hon. gentleman has linked the two subjects together.\n will the inquiry be able to look into some of the widely publicised allegations made against the working of the abortion act, some of which have been found by his department to be totally unfounded?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.23', 33, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'yes. one of the main values of the inquiry will be that it will separate truth from fiction. a number of statements have been made which the house would like to have examined.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.24', 78, 'uk.m.18700', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. gentleman aware of the general satisfaction that the inquiry will proceed on the basis that the law will not be altered, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of this house voted in favour of the 1967 act and that it is proper to emphasise the terrific social benefit which the act has brought rather than its minor shortcomings which are insisted upon by those people who voted against it in the first place?\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11'], ['uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11.1.25', 49, 'uk.m.17947', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', 'i think that the right hon. gentleman is wrong to stoke up feeling on this issue. a number of hon. members on both sides of the house would like to reopen the whole issue, but they have come together in welcoming an inquiry into the workings of the act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1971, 2, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1971-02-23.11']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.2', 301, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order mr. speaker. may i seek your clarification and guidance, particularly as regards the conduct of the debates on the first few amendments? i have no criticism of your selection of amendments, mr. speaker—i think that it is wholly commendable—but there might be a good deal of worry and confusion about the way in which the debates proceed.\n perhaps i may give an example by referring to new clause 1 and amendment no. 3. new clause 1 seeks to make two changes in the wording of the infant life (preservation) act 1929, but i want to deal only with the second, because it relates to the time limit. the time limit is specifically identified in the 1929 act as 28 weeks. the new clause proposes 24 weeks. there lies the difficulty, because subsequently we shall move in due course to amendment no. 3, which is selected, in the names of my hon. friend the member for barking (miss richardson) and others, who will be arguing for a time limit of 27 weeks, and that amendment is to be discussed with amendment no. 2, in the name of the hon. member for devizes (mr. morrison)—he will be arguing for 24 weeks—and amendment no. 48, on which the argument will be for 22 weeks.\n my question to you, mr. speaker, is this. in the event of new clause i being accepted, that will include 24 weeks. will that mean that the other amendments to which i have referred will automatically fall? it is very important that hon. members should have it clearly understood what they are voting for. if we vote for new clause 1, that means 24 weeks and the other amendments must, by definition, fall. i should be glad of your clarification of the matter, mr. speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.3', 103, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'first, perhaps i may say that i spent a considerable time, as the house would expect me to do, in the selection of amendments, and i seek neither commendation nor criticism of it, because this is a discretion vested in the speaker.\n the first new clause amends a totally different act, the 1929 act, and the other debate is, therefore, separate, and it would not fall. the debate on amendment no. 3 will still be in order whatever is decided on new clause i. that is my ruling. otherwise, i would have bracketed them together and we would have taken them all together.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.4', 168, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. certainly i would not be presumptuous enough to comment on the manner in which you have selected the amendments, but i am, as i am sure my hon. friend the member for fife, central (mr. hamilton) is, trying to help the house. in amendments nos. 3, 2 and 48, there are various options before the house on the number of weeks at which it may be decided that, in certain circumstances, an abortion can take place.\n i observe, mr. speaker, that you have not selected the amendment in my name—the only amendment that i have on the amendment paper—which clearly indicates that the time should be 22 weeks. given what we have all read in the reports of the committee proceedings, especially the statement made by the government spokesman, the house would certainly want the option to decide whether it wants the period to be 22 weeks. unfortunately, the house does not have that choice as a result of the selection.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.5', 59, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman is clearly criticising my selection. that is out of order and cannot be allowed. i have made the selection, and it is unfair to the house if we are to have an argument—for or against the bill—about whether that amendment or any other ought to be selected. i cannot allow such a discussion to continue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.6', 135, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. if the question is put on the amendments in the order in which they are on the amendment paper, if the question is put to amendment no. 3 and it is passed, i take it that the house will not then have the opportunity of having the question put on amendment no. 2. would you, therefore, mr. speaker, when we come to that grouping, allow amendment no. 2 to be taken as a manuscript amendment to amendment no. 3 so that the house may have the opportunity of deciding on 24 weeks as well as 27 weeks? that in no way disputes your selection of amendments, mr. speaker, but it is a means whereby the house might be enabled to take the decision it might wish to take.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.7', 51, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am obliged to the hon. gentleman. i want to help the house as much as i can. i will make a statement in a short while when i have considered the point that he has raised. i think that it is quite likely that it will be in the affirmative.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.8', 43, 'uk.m.10283', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. may i make the same point in relation to amendment no. 48, which reduces the period to 22 weeks? it would be unfortunate if there was an affirmative vote that precluded discussion on amendment no. 48.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6.1.9', 13, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i shall look at that and make a statement in a short while.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 2, 8, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-02-08.6']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.3', 1828, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time.\n before beginning my speech, i apologise to the house on behalf of the hon. member for dunbartonshire, east (mrs. bain), who is a sponsor of the bill and who has had to go to scotland for the funeral of a close relative. however, she hopes to be back in the chamber before the end of the debate.\n i rise with some trepidation to move the second reading of the bill, which seeks to amend the law on abortion as embodied in the 1967 act. no hon. member can be under any illusions about the passions aroused by this subject. indeed, i confess to having them in some measure myself. i hope that the proposals in the bill will receive a wide measure of support in the house and outside. i am encouraged in my task by two facts—first by the evidence of the mounting disquiet that there is in the house about the workings of the 1967 act. that disquiet has steadily increased. in 1967 only 29 hon. members voted against the second reading of that bill. in 1970, 263 hon. members called for an official inquiry into abortion. in 1976, 313 hon. members voted to reappoint the select committee on whose recommendations the bill is based. those results mirror the disquiet which is found in the country at large.\n secondly, i am seeking to legislate in response to the recommendations of a select committee of this house. to remove any ambiguity i say at once that if i have strayed beyond the recommendations of that select committee in any respect, that is entirely inadvertent. there may be errors of drafting, but they are not intentional. any errors can be remedied in committee.\n the house will recollect that the abortion (amendment) bill was introduced by the hon. member for glasgow, pollock (mr. white) on 27th november 1974. that bill received its second reading on 7th february 1975 by 203 votes to 88. the bill was then referred to a select committee without a vote. the members of the committee were nominated by vote on 26th february. the bill failed to complete all its stages before the end of the session and therefore lapsed. following a debate in the house on 9th february 1976, in the last session, the committee was re-established with the same membership.\n during the second reading debate the then minister of state, the right hon. member for plymouth, devonport (dr. owen), said: i have said that this is not a delaying device. … the truth is that it is more likely to reach the statute book more quickly through adopting the proposed procedure. not only is a pre-legislation select committee a good principle, but it is a sensible way in which to proceed in a difficult area. when the select committee reports, it will be open to hon. members to put forward legislation in the normal way or for the government to consider whether they themselves should put forward legislation."— [official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1795.] when winding up the debate and addressing the minister my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) said: we would not expect nor would we tolerate, any undue delay in the government\'s implementing any urgent recommendations the committee might feel disposed to make to check present abuses."— [official report, 7th february 1975, vol. 885, c. 1853–4.] the minister indicated assent.\n it is said that the select committee\'s report is biased because certain members refused to take part in its work during the last session. however, a careful study of its proceedings will show that this is a false charge. the members of the committee can answer for themselves during today\'s debate. personally, i have little sympathy with those who opt out of something and then complain about the result— particularly as the result does not include a recommendation on the grounds for abortion, which, as i understand it, was the principal fear of those particular hon. members.\n i have used my place in the ballot to introduce the bill because the government\'s current legislative programme—anyway until recently—precluded any consideration of the select committee\'s report during this session. i beg leave to doubt whether next session will be any better, as the general election approaches. thus from the time that the hon. member for pollok first moved his bill at the end of 1974, four years would elapse before anything could take place on the recommendations that were included in his bill.\n i feel that i must turn, albeit briefly, to the secretary of state\'s statement of 10th february. this was a curious statement, to say the least, because it appeared to pass judgment on my bill, which had not been published at the time, and on the deliberations of the select committee, and in a sense to anticipate the decision to which the house will come today.\n when i first announced my intention of bringing in this bill, i approached the department of health and social security. i was courteously received by the minister of state and his officials, who said at that time, quite rightly, that this was a house of commons matter and that they would reserve their position until the debate took place. i complain that the next thing i heard was a telepone call from the guardian asking me for a comment on the open letter that the secretary of state had addressed to the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel).\n i must say that i find that statement misleading in a number of respects. first, it is misleading on the abortion figures themselves. the incidence of abortion may have fallen purely in numerical terms, but it has risen as a percentage of live births, which is the true statistic in my view. if i use the exact dates mentioned in the secretary of state\'s statement and figures that have been supplied to me by the library of the house of commons only three days ago, i find that, overall, abortions per 1,000 live births were 142 in 1972, 175 in 1974, and 177 in both the years 1975 and 1976. that seems to me to be a plateau and not a fall.\n when we turn to the younger age groups we find that for the ages of 20 to 24 the rate has risen from 108 in 1972 to 140 in 1975. in the under-20 age group the position is far more dramatic the rate having risen from 257 in 1972 to 391 in 1975. moreover, the illegitimacy rate, which is also mentioned in the secretary of state\'s statement, was 9·1 per cent. in 1975, which is the highest recorded figure ever. i submit that these figures give a totally contrary impression to that contained in the secretary of state\'s statement.\n then again, the secretary of state says that abuses have been "largely eradicated" in the private sector. if even a quarter of what i have been told since i embarked upon this task is true, let alone what the select committee was told, there is still a great deal to be done to remedy these abuses.\n the secretary of state also mentions counselling. this is indeed to be recommended and warmly supported. but is it not difficult, to say the least, for counselling to be truly dispassionate on this particular subject when the counsellors themselves may have an interest, financial or otherwise, in the eventual abortion? surely the important thing is that the woman should be helped to come to the right decision and that she should not be pressurised in any way whatever.\n the secretary of state also says that the conscience clause is working satisfactorily. my evidence and a great deal of the evidence that was given to the select committee suggests that that is just not true.\n finally, i must remark to the minister of state—more in sorrow than in anger— that it appears to take the introduction of a bill by a private member or the report of a select committee of this house to produce any action on this subject at all. i put it to the house that this does not necessarily prove the need for legislation but it makes a very good case for it. i am extremely doubtful whether administrative measures alone can solve these abuses.\n thus in essence my bill seeks to remove the worst exploitation of women in the private sector, to afford greater protection to doctors and nurses in the performance of their tasks and to strengthen the law in certain other respects.\n one effect of the bill which may not be so readily appreciated is that it gives the opportunity to the department to institute better arrangements for the after-care of women both as regards the after-effects of the operation itself and, secondly, in relation to subsequent pregnancies. this is a very important aspect indeed.\n during the course of my researches for the bill i have been particularly struck by the work that has been carried out in this country and abroad on the aftereffects of abortion. the house will remember that the lane committee itself was very concerned about this point. indeed, i know that this concern is shared by even the most devoted advocates of easier abortion. opinions differ on the work that has already been done, but most are agreed on the importance of after-care and the need for further research.\n in this connection it is very significant that countries such as hungary, czechoslovakia, bulgaria, romania and the soviet union—although other countries have liberalised their law in the last 10 years—have tightened up their law in the last 10 years, and they were among those countries in which abortion was most freely available and uncontrolled.\n i accept entirely that it is wrong to muddle up this aspect with the more fundamental arguments in connection with abortion itself. all i am saying is that the bill provides a framework under which after-care can be extended in the private sector, so that, together with the administrative reforms undertaken within the national health service, progress can be made towards reducing these highly detrimental effects.\n the house will observe that the select committee made no recommendations in relation to the criteria or the grounds for abortion. it said simply, in paragraph 26 of its report, a decision must be left to the individual consciences of members. i must confess that this part of the problem has given me more concern than any other, but i have taken the view, rightly or wrongly, that it would be inappropriate to include the criteria in the bill, and this was the agreement to which i came with my sponsors. i cannot say—no member could—how the bill may be amended in committee, but if that is the case, then the house will have another opportunity to decide the matter at a later date.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.4', 20, 'uk.m.10316', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "should one of his hon. friends actually propose such an amendment in committee, what would my hon. friend's attitude be?\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.5', 196, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my attitude would be, in the words of mr. asquith, that i should have to wait and see. [hon. members: "oh"] i think that that is a very fair position to take up, and we should have to see what was proposed.\n i now turn to the clauses. clause 1 sets an upper limit of 20 weeks\' gestation for termination of a pregnancy, subject to two conditions: that the child, if born, would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, or that the treatment is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health.\n i interpose here to say that members of the select committee have indicated to me that i have departed from their recommendation in relation to the time limit imposed in clause 1(1) ( b ). if that is so, it was entirely inadvertent and it arises from my understanding of the committee\'s references to the lane report in its own report. anyway, i do not regard this as a very important point, and if i have got it wrong, it can be amended in committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.6', 29, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if my hon. friend does not regard it as important, will he concede that it might be extremely important to the women who are in trouble at that stage?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.7', 77, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'absolutely. all i would say to my hon. friend is that when i came into the chamber i was handed the latest gallup poll, which covers a sample of 571 gynaecologists. in addition to the evidence that the select committee heard, the results of this poll are very marked because they show that the vast majority —i think it is 91 per cent.—of the gynaecologists polled felt that the limit should be not more than 20 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.8', 36, 'uk.m.18724', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. gentleman aware that i have had a letter from the chairman of the royal college of physicians on behalf of the society of gynaecologists urging that we should reject that point of view?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.9', 435, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "this is something which we can look at in committee. the members of the select committee must answer for this. they received a lot of evidence, including some weighty medical evidence, in favour of this point.\n it is generally accepted by now that termination should not be performed after the age at which the child is capable of surviving outside the womb. the present upper limit is 28 weeks. the select committee took evidence from a number of bodies and it is generally agreed that the upper limit should be less than 28 weeks but not all agree—i concede this point—on what the time limit should be. i shall not weary the house with the evidence i have, but the recommendations vary between 20 and 24 weeks, with a preference for the former. for these reasons, the committee accepted 20 weeks as the upper limit subject to the provisions i have mentioned.\n the clause includes a subsection which allows the secretary of state to vary the time limit by order. this is included to meet the position should the world health organisation, which is currently discussing the problem, come up with an alternative proposition.\n clause 2 makes it obligatory that at least one of the two registered medical practitioners … authorising the abortion must be a registered medical practitioner of not less than five years' standing. secondly, neither of the doctors authorising the abortion should be associated with or able to obtain financial benefit from the clinic or nursing home carrying out the abortion.\n the weight of medical evidence to the select committee came down in favour of a period varying between three to five years for one of the doctors. the committee was obviously influenced by the qualifications required under the mental health act 1959 and the cremation act 1962. i emphasise that this clause does not mean that a woman's doctor who is newly qualified would be prevented from being involved in the decision. if the woman's own doctor were of less than five years' standing it would simply mean that the second doctor would have to have had longer experience.\n the select committee also formed the opinion that it would give some reassurance over the working of the 1967 act if provisions were made to ensure that two medical practitioners acted independently of each other. these factors give rise to the provisions of clause 2.\n abuses of the law will be less likely the more the scope for profit making is reduced and, in particular, the decision whether to abort can be influenced by the prospect of financial gain, direct or indirect.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.10', 76, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can my hon. friend tell the house whether it applies to normal general hospitals? this is important, because presumably under clauses 6 and 7 it does. if that is the case, no consultant, registrar or any doctor working in a general hospital or holding any appointment there—since they would obtain financial benefit from the same place—would be able to give an opinion. does not that cut out all the consultants whose opinions would ordinarily be canvassed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.11', 19, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have had a lot of advice about this and i am told that this is not the case.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.12', 5, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is in the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.13', 1086, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "clause 3 requires the person terminating the pregnancy to inform the woman's general practitioner. the lane report supported this as good medical practice. the implications for after-care are obvious and as, the house will note, if the patient objects to this information being given to her general practitioner, the surgeon is absolved from this requirement providing that the steps have been taken in accordance with the regulations made by the secretary of state.\n i turn to clause 4. the committee's recommendation contained in paragraph 91 of its report has been overtaken by events, namely paragraph 31 of schedule 6 to the criminal law act, which sets the penalty at £1,000 in any event. i have therefore included only that part of the committee's recommendation which favoured extending the time limit for summary proceedings to three years from the commission of the offence. the present time limit is six months and is too short in view of the difficulty of the collection and presentation of evidence.\n clause 5 strengthens the position of those who have a conscientious objection to participation in abortion operations. i regard this as a very important clause, although obviously, as the committee pointed out, this question is largely a matter for administrative action but, as with so much else in this bill, it is necessary to lay down guidelines. the house will know that a number of doctors and nurses have been placed in positions of considerable difficulty and distress as a result of their beliefs. the clause seeks to emphasise their right to conscientious objection on religious, ethical or other grounds, and that in court proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection need not rest upon the person claiming it. during the course of preparation on the bill, i received more evidence and applications on this point than on any other.\n i turn now to what i believe to be the most important clauses of the bill, clauses 6 and 7. i remind the house that the committee stated that legislation should be introduced to require all referral agencies, pregnancy advisory bureaux and pregnancy testing agencies which charge fees to be licensed by the secretary of state and subsequently legislation should oblige the secretary of state to make regulations by statutory instrument to license and control places used for giving treatment for the termination of pregnancy, referral agencies, pregnancy advisory bureaux and pregnancy testing agencies which charge fees.\n it would have been open for me to propose two short clauses giving these powers to the secretary of state. it is my view, and i hope that i shall carry the house with me, that it would be invidious, both to the secretary of state and to the house, if no guidance were given to the secretary of state about the conditions to be imposed for the grant of a licence or for the content of the regulations. i just ask hon. members to consider the difficulties of questioning a future secretary of state on this point. that minister will be perfectly entitled to reply that he had given a licence and that was that. i believe that i have interpreted correctly the committee's wishes on this point. in the course of the debate we shall be able to make their position clear.\n in addition, previous legislation, in particular the nursing homes act 1975, has laid down conditions and it seems sensible to follow that example. the house will recall that the previous secretary of state—the right hon. member for blackburn (mrs. castle)—accepted an interim recommendation of the select committee to provide lists of agencies and bureaux considered satisfactory, and to make approval of places for the purpose of section 1 of the 1967 act conditional on their non-acceptance of patients referred by unlisted agencies and bureaux. this list has now been published by the present secretary of state.\n while this was a step in the right direction, the committee accepted evidence that legislation should be introduced to give the secretary of state control over these organisations. for the purposes of definition, i have used the same definitions for referral agencies and bureaux as was included in paragraph 451 of the lane report and a corresponding definition for pregnancy testing agencies.\n several points have been put to me in connection with the clause. the first is that the present system of indirect control is preferable to the direct control envisaged in the bill. the committee was particularly impressed by the evidence from the department which said, on 14th april 1975: we would welcome legislation to regulate referral and advisory services—the main gap in our powers which was identified by the lane committee is in relation to the pregnancy advisory bureaux and the referral agencies, that is an area in which we would welcome legislation. the second point made to me is that these arrangements are far too inflexible and that it is better to leave the matter of licensing entirely to the secretary of state. this puts the secretary or state in a difficult and invidious position in carrying out what everyone agrees is a difficult task. it is necessary to be specific in the conditions laid down. moreover, the secretary of state would have wide residual powers to impose any additional requirement if he saw fit.\n thirdly, it has been represented to me by the charities operating in this area that the provision in subsection (4) ( e ) would gravely inhibit their work. the lane committee itself recognised that the private sector must be treated as a whole and that registration as a charity is not an appropriate criterion for assessing the medical aspects of referral or treatment services or any abuses connected therewith. i am convinced that the component parts of these charities, the clinics and the referral agencies, can stand on their own feet financially, particularly in view of the fact that the latter are now undertaking other work in the birth control field. but be that as it may, i believe that it is quite impossible—we have considered this matter very carefully; it may be possible to suggest an amendment in committee—to divide the various parts of the private sector.\n i acknowledge frankly that these two clauses have been the most difficult ones in the bill to draft and i do not pretend that they are perfect. all i am saying is that they make an attempt to do what the select committee asked to be done, and they can of course be further considered in committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.14', 119, 'uk.m.18362', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend note that clause 7 says: the secretary of state shall make regulations in relation to the use of premises for any of the purposes to which section 6 above applies, and in relation to places approved by him for the purposes of section 1 of the principal act."? section 1 of the principal act covers national health service hospitals. so that means that not only is every doctor in a general hospital prevented by clause 2 from giving an opinion but so is every general practitioner who has any appointment whatsoever in a general practitioner hospital where abortions take place. whom does that leave? i suggest that it leaves practically nobody on the medical register.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.15', 163, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not think that my hon. friend has read the clause sufficiently carefully. clause 6(8) says: nothing in this section shall require premises to be licensed because of the use of those premises— | (a) by a registered medical practitioner for the purposes of his general practice; or | (b) as a hospital vested in the secretary of state under the national health service acts; or | (c) in accordance with an approval of the secretary of state under section 1 of the principal act." | my hon. friend is a very skilful parliamentarian. he is also very good at drafting legislation. i confess that i am not and i have had to do this myself. my intention, and i am sure it was the intention of the select committee, was obviously not to include national health service hospitals and i thought i had covered that in that subsection. if i have not, we can always change it. that was my intention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.16', 44, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend said that he was not able to draft a clause which would enable the charities which are operating in this field to survive. is he saying that that is just bad luck and that the charities will have to stop operating?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.17', 54, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i did not say that at all. i said that this was to follow the advice of the lane committee and that it was given to me by my legal advisers. nothing precludes my hon. and learned friend or anybody else from trying to achieve that in committee. i shall have to consider it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.18', 88, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is not my hon. friend aware that the department in its evidence to the select committee said that it would welcome regulations? my hon. friend is surely quite correct in saying that he has had to draft this by himself. if that is the wish of the department, surely at a later stage in the passage of the bill it should be possible to get the best possible advice to cover the intention which i should have thought my hon. friend had made perfectly clear to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.19', 8, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am most grateful to my hon. friend.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.20', 85, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "in view of the hon. member's mention of lane, and so that there should be no misunderstanding in the house, does the hon. member agree that, whatever special consideration may or may not have to be given to charities or those that call themselves charities, the principle of the severance between the counselling service and the clinic was recommended by the select committee after careful thought? i think that the house should know that that is the intention of the sponsor, as i understand it.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.21', 363, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am grateful to the hon. member. that was the intention of the select committee and it is the intention that i have tried to write into the legislation.\n i turn now to clauses 8 and 9 which deal with prosecutions which may arise under the principal act or under this bill. clause 8 restricts the publication of the identity of a witness who has had or who has been advised about an abortion and which is the subject of proceedings. the wording of the clause follows exactly the wording of section 4 of the sexual offences (amendment) act which has recently been through parliament. i do not think i need say anything more about this clause except that all the arguments used on the sexual offences (amendment) act can be applied with equal force to women involved in these proceedings. additionally, the present law provides a number of remedies to discourage malicious prosecutions.\n clause 9 provides that senior police officers investigating offences under the original act or this bill may apply to a judge—i emphasise that word—to inspect and take copies of any entries in registers or other books kept by places undertaking abortion or by the referral agencies. the house will be aware that the 1967 act has presented the police with very considerable difficulties.\n i accept, and the select committee accepted, that doctors are especially vulnerable to mischievous and unfounded allegations, but i do not believe that any doctor who is conducting his affairs properly has anything to fear from this particular proposal.\n i again emphasise that it is only a senior police officer who can make the application and it must be to a judge. the judge will obviously take into account the prima facies evidence presented to him before he grants a warrant. if the house accepts—this is the crunch—that the effective enforcement of the law is de- sirable, these two clauses are vitally necessary.\n it is always necessary to balance any marginal reduction of confidentiality against the exploitation of pregnant women by abortionists who break the law. i believe that this provision is justified by society's overriding interest in ensuring that the law can be effectively enforced.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.22', 60, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend imagine that the offences against the person act 1961 and the infant life preservation act 1929 ever did or do now apply to scotland? if not, does he know what the law of scotland was before the 1967 act? how is a person in scotland going to apply to a judge of the crown court—in england?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.23', 44, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my knowledge of scotland is not very great. again, if we have it wrong i will gladly consider any representation my hon. and learned friend cares to make, because the last thing i want to do is to offend against anything in scots law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.24', 2, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'exempt scotland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.25', 39, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not think that that will he possible, if i may just continue with this point. exempting scotland would mean repealing entirely the act which was piloted through by the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.26', 98, 'uk.m.17097', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is making a very important point regarding police investigation which he considers, although it is a loss of privacy, to be important to his bill. can he tell me whether he does not think that in clause 9 ( b ) there should not be inserted later when this is considered, if it gets that far, some protection for the person concerned, namely the woman, the patient? there is no reservation of any protection of privacy for the person who has undergone this very distressing experience. does he not think that it should be there?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.27', 269, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "this is a very important point. we will certainly look at that. i emphasise to my hon. friend that i have simply sought to put into legislative form what the select committee recommended. these are exactly the points we shall want to consider in committee.\n clause 10 is included to make clear that abortion shall include acts done with intent to terminate pregnancy if such exists. the lane committee considered this matter in some detail and recommended that the procedure of uterine evacuation should be carried out only by registered medical practitioners and that the act and regulations should be amended to ensure that the procedure is covered thereby. because there is some doubt about the effect of the present law on this procedure, the committee shared the view of the lane report and recommended accordingly.\n i know that many hon. members wish to speak in the debate, and i do not want to delay the house any further. however, the house must be aware that this is a subject that simply will not go away. there is far too much concern throughout the country for that to happen. it is a subject that cannot be lost conveniently in the proceedings of this house and in our parliamentary system. it is not a matter for governments and oppositions, or even for political parties. it is a matter for the house of commons as a whole. the house of commons appointed the select committee and the house must decide on the committee's recommendations. this bill simply provides a means for that to happen, and i commend it to the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.28', 42, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'in view of the substantial number of hon. members wishing to speak, i earnestly appeal for brevity in speeches, otherwise very many will be disappointed. i also ask that interventions should be kept to a minimum and that they should be short.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.30', 137, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) has made many references to abuse and to a wide range of public opinion supporting the bill without giving us a shred of evidence for either of those claims. he has not told the house of a single abuse that has occurred since the 1967 act was introduced and certain measures that were taken by my right hon. friend the member for blackburn (mrs. castle). it is not good enough.\n he has referred to a gallup poll of 500 doctors, but without knowing the questions that were asked it is difficult to know what the result signifies. i notice that he specifically did not mention a letter to the prime minister that was signed by no fewer than 1,200 doctors, consultant gynaecologists and professors of gynaecology at many teaching hospitals—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.31', 27, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i must intervene on that. yesterday i received a petition from no fewer than 10,000 doctors and nurses saying that my bill did not go far enough.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.32', 851, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "that does not surprise me. it is very easy to get 10,000 catholic doctors and nurses to sign a petition on this subject. in fact it is the easiest thing in the world to send out duplicated letters urging people to write to their members of parliament in their own handwriting saying that they are christians and therefore against abortion. but christians are divided on abortion just as they are divided on all sorts of issues, such as public ownership, the level of defence expenditure, and just about everything one can think of. it is the easiest thing in the world to whip up that kind of phoney public opinion. i am sorry that hon. members on both sides of the house are paying too much attention to that.\n the significance of the letter to the prime minister is that its main signatory is dame josephine barnes, who one could call the doyenne of gynaecology. she was a member of the lane committee and is a woman of considerable influence. the letter was also signed by a large number of professors of gynaecology, including two in glasgow, one in dundee, and others from teaching hospitals in oxford, cambridge and many other parts of the country.\n i shall quote from some sections of this letter, particularly those that refer specifically to the lane committee: the lane committee reported in 1974 after nearly three years of thorough investigation and found that the abortion act had proved its value in relieving human suffering. we agree with the findings of this carefully researched report which has never been debated in parliament. that was one of the major objections to the amending bill introduced by my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white)—it was brought forward before the lane committee had reported. that committee's report contained a great deal of very carefully researched evidence that would have helped hon. members to arrive at a decision. the letter goes on: those abuses which occurred shortly after the inception of the bill have now largely been overcome. nevertheless we recognise that there are still problems within the working of the act that require attention. the most important of these concerns the question of regional variations in the availability of abortion facilities within the health service … mr. benyon's bill is based on the recommendations of a truncated select committee on abortion whose members were widely known to be in favour of restrictive abortion policies. like the committee, he does not address himself to the real issues that affect patients and their doctors. his bill, if ever enacted, would make very much more difficult the work of reputable agencies and particularly the two major charities which have had to shoulder so much of the burden in birmingham and other cities. the bill would infringe civil liberties by allowing the police access to confidential medical records for no foreseeable practical gain. gynaecologists and other doctors would find themselves increasingly harassed and clinical freedom would be threatened. implementation of this unnecessary bill would result in the very reverse of what its supporters claim for it. that is the answer to what the hon. member for buckingham has said, and i hope that the house will have due regard and give considerable weight to that letter which was received by the prime minister only two days ago.\n i agree with the hon. member for tiverton (mr. maxwell-hyslop) who pointed out to his hon. friend that the bill is badly drafted and that he apparently does not understand the implications of his own bill. it is badly drafted, it is ill thought out and it will have the most appalling effect if it ever becomes law. it is a denial of the rights of a woman to decide how many children to have and when she will bear them, and the thing that i find equally objectionable is that it displays complete mistrust of the medical profession in a way that is truly astonishing.\n the author of the bill can claim no measure of public support. since the 1967 act was introduced there has been no clamour for a measure such as this either among the public as a whole or among doctors. it is based on an unbalanced report from an unbalanced select committee composed of hon. members who were and still are entirely opposed to the 1967 act. a number of hon. members, including the sponsors of the 1967 act and representatives of the two main parties, withdrew from that select committee because they were not prepared to be associated with its report.\n i assume that the hon. member had considerable difficulty in drafting his bill—he admitted as much. that is why the bill appeared rather late. also he has been unable to persuade a single leading figure from his own front bench to sponsor the bill. in the notice that he gave in december he had listed the right hon. member for lowestoft (mr. prior) as one of the sponsors. but on the list of sponsors printed on the bill the right hon. member's name does not appear.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.33', 29, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when i gave the list in to the office upstairs i had written in my very bad handwriting "dr. j. bray". this had been misread as "mr. j. prior".\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.34', 14, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that the hon. member is casting unseemly aspersions on the office upstairs.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.35', 4, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'he cannot write either.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.36', 62, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i see that the name of the former liberal chief whip is included in the sponsors. no doubt he is a great authority on unwanted pregnancies. i also note that a member of the snp is a sponsor of the bill. no doubt the women of scotland will notice this. in scotland women who apply for terminations are able to obtain them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.37', 9, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. john corrie (bute and north ayrshire) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.38', 1205, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "no, i shall not give way. interventions take up much too much time.\n a total of 98 per cent. of abortions carried out in scotland are conducted in nhs hospitals, and they are fortunate in their gynaecologists. the bill does nothing at all to deal with the abuse referred to in the doctors' letter—namely, that it constitutes an abuse of the 1967 act since women in this country do not have the same access to terminations in nhs hospitals. why should women in the west midlands, merseyside and yorkshire have so much difficulty in obtaining legal abortions on the nhs? why should reactionary consultants refuse to help women with legal grounds under the act? this is an abuse, and the hon. gentleman wants to make it easier for consultants to further that abuse.\n clearly, the minister should be taking steps to see that enough doctors are appointed in those regions to make it unnecessary for women to have to travel away from home either to areas in the national health service or to seek help in the private sector. it is this restriction that drives women into the private sector.\n the charitable clinics and nursing homes were set up because of this attitude of the reactionary chauvinist doctors to whom i have referred. those who deny relief are the very ones who drive women into the private sector. yet it is the highly responsible skilled and efficient private sector, namely the charitable clinics and advisory bureaux, that this bill seeks to smother in a welter of crazy bureaucracy, involving umpteen inspectors, police and others to administer its provisions. that is rather extraordinary from a representative of the conservative party, most of whose members complain about the level of public expenditure. this bill will certainly add to that level of expenditure.\n to show his impartiality, the hon. gentleman takes a mighty swipe not only at women but at doctors. he mistrusts them and says that they cannot be trusted if they are working together in general practice or in clinics or nursing homes—and, as the hon. member for tiverton pointed out, this would also apply to doctors working together in hospitals.\n the hon. gentleman does not make it clear what he means by his provision dealing with the question of doctors who can authorise abortions. is he saying that in a hospital the consultant in the department would not be able to get his houseman to sign the certificate?—what does he expect them to do? is he saying that two doctors in practice together shall not be able to sign the certificate? if he says that, he is implying that there is a great deal of abuse of the act among reputable members of the medical profession. i do not believe that, nor did the hon. gentleman bring forward a shred of evidence to show that it is so.\n the bill also provides that at least one of the doctors shall be qualified for at least five years. that is a nonsense. five years as what? it does not say that such a person should have been working for five years as a gynaecologist or an obstetrician. as the bill is drafted, it means that a doctor working for five years as a geriatrician, ent surgeon, a genitourinary surgeon could take part in this procedure. i hope that is not what the hon. gentleman intends, but that is what his bill could mean. i do not think the house would wish to support this.\n the other objectionable part of the bill, which again shows the hon. gentleman's mistrust of members of the medical profession, is that an anonymous witness can lay evidence with the police and the unfortunate doctor could have the threat of legal action hanging over his head for three years. it also means that women could be called to give evidence where they may feel very reluctant to do so because they would not want their own personal details and information brought forward in a court of law. one can see that the clause would put an enormous weapon into the hands of all those who oppose abortions to lay evidence against doctors who they claim had too liberal a view of abortion, to send complaints to the police, and to insist that the procedures were brought against the doctor, thus ruining his reputation and taking away his livelihood.\n the other objectionable aspect that i find insupportable is that the bill would give power to the police to enter nursing homes, advisory bureaux giving advice on abortion procedures, and to enter and take photographic evidence not only of records in connection with a specific complaint in a patient's case involving alleged illegality, but of general records, and thus would be able to obtain information from whole pages of names kept in the clinics. they would be able to use that against the doctor concerned.\n that is an infringement of the civil liberties and rights of doctors. it is an infringement of confidentiality between doctors and patients going far beyond anything that obtains in this country at present. that must be objectionable to hon. members on both sides of the house, whatever their views.\n these aspects of the bill surely are sufficient for us to throw it out. the attempt to question what procedures doctors adopt does not appear in any other area of medical activity. why should it he laid down in this area when it is usual procedure?\n the select committee had a great deal of evidence from members of the medical profession. it took evidence from the british medical association, the royal college of psychiatrists, the royal college of pathologists, the royal college of general practitioners, the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the royal college of physicians in edinburgh, the association of anaesthetists, the royal college of midwives, and the family planning association. all without exception support the 1967 act. all the medical evidence from those weighty professional bodies was against the proposals of the previous bill which the select committee was examining. it was only in a very small degree that the royal college of midwives criticised it and suggested that abortion work should be separated from gynaecological departments for various reasons, but it was not opposed to the 1967 act. where is the weighty evidence that supports the report of the select committee, or the views put forward by the hon. gentleman?\n the hon. gentleman also mentioned the legislation introduced in many countries which, he said, supported his view. the situation is that where any country has introduced legislation in the past few years, certainly since 1966–67, it has always introduced a liberal act. in australia, france, germany and even in italy, it is now possible—or shortly will be, because the bill has gone through the italian chamber of deputies—for women to get terminations up to the thirteenth week. what the hon. gentleman is doing by bringing forward his bill, is making it more difficult for women to get abortions, and this may drive them abroad to get abortions there. it will be a reverse of the situation in earlier years, because british women may well have to go to italy for abortions. it is an interesting situation.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.39', 5, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'provided they can afford it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.40', 422, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, provided that they can afford it. that will not be a new position because women who could afford to do so have been obtaining abortions for years. the fact that there was restrictive legislation in this country made no difference at all, because women were able to travel to holland, switzerland or anywhere else to obtain their abortions. it was working-class women who suffered then and it will be working-class women in the main who will suffer if, by some misfortune, this bill receives a second reading.\n virtually the whole of europe has followed our lead in introducing more liberal legislation. i hope that we shall resist the blandishments, not very convincingly put, of the hon. member for buckingham, who, with this not-very-well drafted bill, would have us put back the clock and erect more barriers for women to surmount in seeking a legal abortion. this bill would condemn women to greater risk, further delay and possibly drive them into seeking unskilled help.\n the present procedure is safe and easy if it is done within the first 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy. let me show to the house exhibit a. this is the fearsome and terrible instrument with which a legal abortion is carried out up to 12 weeks. it looks like a drinking straw. the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) looks frightened to death. this is a tube made of flexible plastic. it is not a fearsome thing that dilates the cervix and causes lacerations. the contents of this would fill about half a teacup at the end of a three-month pregnancy.\n i hope that we shall see an expansion of day-care centres where abortions up to the third month can be carried out safely and speedily without red tape. i ask my hon. friend the minister of state to bear in mind that there will shortly be published another report from an all-party committee of this house. this is a committee whose members have many differing views. it is not the one-sided affair, as was the select committee whose report we have been discussing. the committee of which i speak has brought forward proposals dealing with abortions which are very different from those put forward by the select committee. i hope that my hon. friend will consider them very carefully. i hope, too, that before any new legislation is contemplated there will be the opportunity to debate the major report on the working of the abortion act which has never yet been debated in this house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.41', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.42', 35, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if speeches are to last for 20 or 25 minutes—and i make no complaint of that—it means that about 15 or 20 members will not have an opportunity of taking part in the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.44', 451, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i hope that it will be helpful to the house if i intervene now to speak on this bill introduced by the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon). in doing so i am not giving a government view. as on all other occasions when this subject has been debated in the house, members are free to vote according to their consciences. my task, as one of the ministers responsible for the operation of the 1967 act, is to put before the house the facts which are relevant to the issues being discussed and which are in the possession of the government.\n i am sure that many members welcome this opportunity for the house as a whole to re-examine the working of the 1967 act and to hear members' views on the reports of last session's select committee. in this respect, mr. deputy speaker, if you could so interpret the rules of order as to allow hon. members to express their views on the second report of the select committee, such an interpretation, and any advantage taken of it, would be welcomed by the government.\n this bill is aimed at implementing the points made in the first report but i should remind the house that the second report consists of a number of recommendations for administrative action by the government. obviously, before considering any action arising from the second report the government would hope to get an expression of views from the house. i shall also be referring to the lane committee's recommendations in the course of my speech, particularly those urging legislation, and shall be saying what action we have taken in respect of them at appropriate points in my speech.\n a number of developments have occurred since the house debated the second reading of the last abortion (amendment) bill many of which have been reported to the house. from july 1975 this government have provided a comprehensive free family planning service within the national health service. as a consequence there is now a trend towards fewer abortions performed on women in this country. the number of such abortions, which reached a peak in 1973–74, has since declined.\n this decline continues. in 1976 there were just over 100,000 abortions on women resident in england and wales—a drop of 8 per cent. since 1974. moreover the decline is common to all age groups, including, for the first time in 1976, girls under 16. similar changes have occurred in the incidence of illegitimate births and pre-marital pregnancies. taking a global approach to illegitimate births, pre-marital pregnancies and abortions, there has been a fall of about one fifth between the ages of 16–24 and a stabilisation of numbers in the pre 16 age groups.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.45', 19, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would the minister relate those figures to the statistics for live births, which have also been falling very sharply?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.46', 98, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "starting from any baseline one can easily produce the statistics one chooses. it is to be expected that, with a family planning service within the health service, there would be a reduction in the number of live births. how many of those would have been babies subject to abortion is anyone's guess.\n the number of foreign women coming to this country for abortion has also fallen dramatically. it has halved since 1974. this reflects, to some extent, the passage of legislation in countries such as france and germany. nevertheless, it removes the opportunity for abuses talked of earlier.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.47', 90, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "since it appears that again my hon. friend's department has provided him with figures to sooth anxieties instead of stating the facts, may i point out that these statistics are totally misleading and partial? no mention is made of the overall drop in births in england and wales. i can give the figures. what it means is that the proportion of births which are illegitimate and the ratio of abortions to live births have not changed significantly. why does the department yet again give a minister statistics which are misleading?\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.48', 13, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i believe that i have answered the point made by my hon. friend—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.49', 1, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.50', 63, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'if there is a family planning service in the nhs, there is bound to be a reduction in the number of live births. that is simple. in any case, i wish that hon. members who oppose the measure would agree on their statistics. the hon. member for buckingham said that there was a plateau. that was the worst that he could put forward.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.51', 5, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what does the minister say?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.52', 1275, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'the minister says that there has been a decline in the number of abortions.\n meantime, my department has progressively tightened and extended its control of the private sector and in this respect my right hon. friend and myself accept that, if there is to be abortion in the private sector, it is our job to supervise the standards in that sector and to ensure that they are adequate. it is no exaggeration to say that the abuses in the private sector which caused so much concern in the early 1970s—taxi touts, the activities of unscrupulous agencies and nursing homes in exploiting women of this country and from abroad and the unethical behaviour of small numbers of doctors—have been progressively brought under control. the lane committee\'s recommendations on certification and examination were implemented through amending regulations last year, as was its recommendation that the chief medical officers of health should be empowered to disclose to the president of the general medical council information furnished under the regulations.\n there is now a provision in the criminal law bill in another place—for which my right hon. friend the home secretary is primarily responsible—for the maximum fine for offences against regulations made under the act to be increased to £1,000. this implements another of the lane committee\'s recommendations as well as one of the first report of the select committee and is part of an across-the-board exercise to increase fines in line with inflationary pressures since these fines were last reviewed.\n nursing homes are regularly inspected and any evidence of improper conduct promptly investigated. it might help the house if i indicate the range of the undertaking\'s that private nursing home proprietors must give my right hon. friend as a condition of his approval under the abortion act. this is the first time this information has been given to the house. briefly, they provide for the maintenance of detailed records, the inspection of premises and records by the department\'s officers at any time without notice, the giving of receipts to patients and the retention of copies for inspection, the acceptance of fees only after two doctors have certified that the act\'s criteria are met in each case, the number of patients per 24 hours not to exceed the number of beds approved, and for the examination of patients by a doctor before discharge.\n the nursing home must also undertake not to advertise abroad, either directly or indirectly, employ touts, or to accept patients who have been diverted from their intended destinations or touted for. the proprietors must have no connection with agencies or persons known to advertise abroad, or to tout for or divert patients.\n proprietors must also, in applying for approval, provide the department with detailed information about the business arrangements of the companies and individuals involved in the application, all of which is carefully inquired into by the department\'s investigators. medical and nursing arrangements, including staffing, equipment, procedures and accommodation, are checked by the department\'s medical and nursing teams.\n nursing homes which concentrate on abortions have had to satisfy my right hon. friend that the total costs charged to abortion patients treated on their premises are not unreasonable, and must not increase these costs without prior approval. all financial arrangements between nursing homes and doctors, other than payment of fees, and pregnancy advice bureaux must be reported to the department.\n the lane committee looked at the effectiveness of the existing arrangements for approving nursing homes and was of the opinion that no statutory requirements for approval should be laid down.\n the latest safeguard, announced by my right hon. friend on 10th february, is the publication of a register of approved pregnancy advice bureaux, following the undertakings he gave to this effect on 5th august last. nursing homes will be liable to lose their approval if they accept patients referred to them by unregistered bureaux which charge fees. registered bureaux, like nursing homes, will be subject to regular inspection without notice. the lane committee recommended a statutory system for licensing advice bureaux, but we now have a register and, in my view, should have an opportunity to see how well it works.\n on counselling—on the more positive side—my department has circulated draft guidance to the health service, professional bodies, and those giving guidance on the arrangements for counselling women who express a wish for termination of pregnancy. we are awaiting replies before issuing it for action. the lane committee stressed the importance of such counselling. the standard of counselling arrangements, as well as medical care, was included in the assessment of pregnancy advice bureaux in preparing the register of approved bureaux that my right hon. friend announced.\n an issue which is of great importance to the sponsors of the bill, and which arouses a great deal of interest in the country, is the question of the period of pregnancy after which termination should not be permitted. this is another area about which there has been great public concern, partly because of allegations that have been made in the past which received widespread and sensational publicity. there has also been concern for staff involved in late terminations.\n the lane committee recommended that there should be an upper time limit of 24 weeks on the grounds that there were some women who have compelling grounds for termination between the 20th and 24th week of pregnancy, and an upper time limit of 24 weeks would afford appropriate protection for a viable foetus. following the recommendations of the select committee, terminations after the 20th week of pregnancy are permitted only in hospitals or approved nursing homes which have resuscitation equipment and staff trained to use it. the number of abortions carried out after 20 weeks is in fact very small, amounting to less than 1 per cent. of all abortions in the country. less than a fifth of this 1 per cent. are performed after 24 weeks. this evidence led my predecessor, in giving evidence to the select committee on the abortion (amendment) bill, to conclude that the case for legislation was not necessarily very urgent.\n following the lane committee\'s recommendations, all nhs authorities have also been reminded of the code of practice drawn up by the peel committee on the use of foetal material for research, and strict arrangements govern nursing homes in the disposal of such material. information to hand indicates that this code is being observed conscientiously throughout the nhs and the private sector.\n there has also been a good deal of criticism, which has been aroused again today, about the pressures on staff not to exercise their right of conscientious objection. to the best of my knowledge, and on the information available, this belief is not well founded. a great deal has been made about the advice given by the chief medical officer of my department. this guidance was issued at the request of the medical profession to ensure that where a demand for terminations existed which could not otherwise be met in posts to be advertised, it should be made clear in the advertisements to all applicants for the job that such duties were an integral part of the post, and therefore questions on people\'s conscientious, religious and ethical beliefs could be avoided.\n in practice this advice applies to only a small percentage of the advertised posts in the relevant specialties, and there is no evidence that recruitment to the specialties is in any way adversely affected or that anyone has been penalised in following his career as a result. [hon. members: "no".] if hon. members know of any individual cases, or the bma knows of any individual cases, i shall be happy to go into them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.53', 5, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' sir bernard braine rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.54', 340, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i shall not give way to the hon. gentleman. the deputy speaker has asked hon. members to make short speeches and i have a lot of information to give to the house, so i shall proceed as quickly as possible.\n similarly, nurses are also able to exercise a conscientious objection to participation in abortion. i concede quite readily that in the case of small gynaecological units, where there is a small ratio of nurses to gynaecological operations this is a matter that calls for careful planning in order to achieve it.\n my right hon. friend provided the royal college of nursing and the royal college of midwives with a paper in 1974 explaining nurses' rights of objection and how they exercise them. i am entirely available to discuss these problems further with the professions, should they ever indicate a wish to do so, but so far there has been no general desire to change the present situation.\n another point that the house should consider is the staffing implications of a number of the proposals for my department. i know that it is the majority wish of the house that there should be restrictions on public expenditure, and my department is under pressure to make its contribution, particularly on the manpower side, but until now my department has been able to maintain and extend its work in inspecting premises and investigating possible breaches of assurances at a time when those manpower savings are required. the bill would extend the responsibilities of my department into some private consulting rooms and all premises charging fees for pregnancy testing, which include, among others, many dispensing chemists.\n this is in addition to the extra work which would be required to replace the present administrative procedures for controlling the private sector by statutory regulation. with very little prospect of finding additional staff resources to cover all these operations, i am afraid that these provisions would inevitably lead to a much less effective surveillance of those parts of the private sector which are most vulnerable to abuse.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.55', 58, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house will have noted that the minister keeps referring to what his department will do or has done. i must ask him—it is a fair question—why the promise given to the house that the government would accept responsibility and bring in a bill of this description, relieving a private member of the necessity, has not been met.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.56', 13, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'neither my right hon. friend nor i has ever given such an undertaking.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.57', 2, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'certainly, yes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.58', 1, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.59', 30, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the former government chief whip, my right hon friend the member for bermondsey (mr. mellish), has given me that undertaking this week.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.60', 39, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i must tell my hon. friend that i have looked into the matter as carefully as i can. although i may have overlooked something, i can find no such undertaking given to the house on behalf of the government.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.61', 5, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall bring it forward.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.62', 206, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "it would not be right for me to conclude these general remarks on the bill without commenting on the provisions affecting the charitable organisations in the private sector. i have read the views of members of the select committee who would maintain that there are no truly charitable bodies in the private sector of abortion. but, whatever one's view on abortion, it seems to me difficult not to conclude from the history of the growth of the private sector and its current decline that the charitable organisations, through charging moderate fees and providing a reasonably high standard of in-paient care, have contributed to the improvements which i have mentioned in the private sector generally. the organisations concerned are as closely supervised as are any of the others in the private sector with which my department deals, and they will obviously be vitally affected by the provisions of the bill. the house will need to consider whether that would serve the overall objectives of preventing abuse in the private sector.\n there are some indications that national health service provision for abortion is improving, although i accept that regional variations remain, and i note the criticisms made by my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short).\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.63', 113, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what proposals does the minister have for seeing that facilities ate mote evenly distributed across the country? secound, does he feel that the regulations which he has announced will be as effective as actual legislation for licensing agencies and private bureaux?\n finally, does the hon. gentleman intend to sit down and leave the house with a major—indeed, fundamental—difference on the figures which he has given regarding abortion rates and the fall in the birth rate? i regard this as very serious. is the hon. gentleman aware that the number of women entering the main childbearing years—for example, 20 to 24 years of age—has fallen recently, and that this makes nonsense of his figures?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.64', 850, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'with respect, i have given the figures which the government think are most relevant to the matters at issue. i have explained the introduction of the family planning service. even selecting his own careful figures, the hon. member for buckingham could not argue a better case than that there was a plateau. i shall leave it for the house to judge. we have given our figures to the house, and i am willing to stand by them.\n i was just coming to the question of provision in the national health service. the hon. member for reading, south (dr. vaughan) seemed to think that i was about to sit down, but i regret to say that it will be a minute or two yet before the house is relieved of my presence at the dispatch box. i apologise for taking a little longer than i intended, but i have given way several times.\n on the question of administrative control of nursing homes as opposed to regulations, although i had intended to deal with that matter in summing up, as the hon. gentleman has brought it up, i shall reply now. yes, we believe that our present administrative arrangements, because they are more flexible, are likely to be more effective than any cumbersome and rather rigid regulations in a situation which has changed quite remarkably over 10 years. regulations, of course, would have to be subject to amending regulations, whereas administrative control can be subject to regular and fairly quick adjustment to circumstances.\n i return now to what i was saying about nhs provision. for example, day-care facilities, which offer an equally high standard of treatment in many cases and more effective use of the available resources, have increased. unfortunately, i cannot be precise about the increase for abortions specifically since the figures are not collected on that basis, but the use of day-care facilities for gynaecological patients, which include abortion, has increased by over 30 per cent. between 1972 and 1975. moreover, the mean waiting time for admission to hospital from gynaecological waiting lists for therapeutic abortion has reduced from 12½ days in 1971 to 9½ days in 1974.\n i regard that as another improvement in the national health service provision. obviously, there is a great deal more to be done, and i would argue that this is where the resources of the government and the country should be concentrated in this field.\n the outcome of the present debate is not known. if the bill fails to receive a second reading, that will be that, for the time being at any rate. if, however, this bill finds favour with a majority of the house, my right hon. friend and i will place the resources of our department at the disposal of the house with a view to consulting the appropriate professional and other interests involved, and this will provide a comprehensive background of information and views for the use of the standing committee which will eventually have to consider the bill in detail.\n as i explained at the outset, my task today is primarily to inform the house of the current position. i have drawn attention to what. i hope. a fair-minded person will regard as the most relevant developments related to this bill and knowledge of which is held at the department of health and social security. when i took up my present appointment last september, it was clear that abortion would be on the agenda before long and that the department had no plans for legislation on the subject.\n i must add that, in view of the information which i have given the house today, neither my right hon. friend nor i, had we been left to our own resources, would have seen the need to introduce legislation, given the administrative action which has been taken. i believe that the hon. member for buckingham will be prepared to withdraw his charge that nothing ever happens except when a bill on abortion is before the house. i believe that i have shown to everyone generally that there is a substantial amount of activity on the part of my department in between times.\n the house will be aware that my right hon. friend has expressed his view that there is a case for a period of calm while the web of administration which i have described continues to regulate and reduce the problems which gave concern not so long ago. the really important task at the moment is primarily associated with the improvement of the health service in this field. that is where we should concentrate.\n there is one other point. i have been endeavouring to present some departmental information as dispassionately as possible. i hope that i have succeeded. however, i think that i owe the house one more duty before i conclude, and that is to disclose my own personal bias in order that it may help hon. members to weigh the importance of what i have said. i shall be voting against the bill, although on this occasion i shall leave it to others to argue the case.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.66', 249, 'uk.m.19526', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i intervene briefly, i hope, as chairman of the select committee, and i wish to explain one matter at the outset since my hon. friend the minister's predecessor referred to that committee as a pre-legislation committee. in fact, it was a committee which had to take note of the fact that its terms of reference were the abortion (amendment) bill, which bill had received a second reading.\n at the end of our first sitting, arising out of our examination of the bill we made recommendations which could be carried out administratively. my hon. friend is quite unfair in referring to the action taken by the department as having been a consequence of the lane report. it was a consequence of the recommendations of the select committee. we expressed our appreciation of the immediate reaction of the secretary of state in accepting all those recommendations and putting them into effect.\n at that point, at any rate, the select committee had acted with universal support. however, in view of some of the observations which have been made. i wish to emphasise that the committee had in fact examined the provisions of the bill. what we did was first to examine the provisions of the bill carefully. we came to tentative conclusions. the house ought to know that those conclusions were unanimous. only on two points of detail was one dissenting voice recorded.\n that was the position on the bill. of course, the conclusions were tentative because we had not taken evidence.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.67', 9, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. friend keeps referring to "the bill".\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.68', 691, 'uk.m.19526', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i mean the abortion (amendment) bill which was referred to the select committee.\n we then took evidence. the evidence having been taken, there was the question of presentation of the draft report by the chairman. i went to the trouble and care of submitting to the committee guidelines for that draft report. those guidelines were accepted unanimously by the full committee. in fact, we decided to ask leave to sit again, and we did not then present the committee's report on the bill.\n in the following session, the committee was re-established. the hon. members who resigned—i hope that i am being fair to everyone—did not resign on any point of substance which had been before the committee. they resigned on the general ground that, in their judgment, legislation was unnecessary or inopportune. that was the point at issue. i considered that, as we had been set up by a vote of the house to do that very task of consideration of legislation, the committee should proceed with its examination.\n we took further evidence. then came the question of the chairman's draft report. i accepted that it was my responsibility to present that draft report within the heads of agreement and the guidelines that we had agreed previously during the previous session's deliberations. that is the position with regard to the report.\n i have said that the committee was set up to examine a bill that had received a second reading. that obviously affected our consideration and the recommendations that we felt able to make, but i assure the house—and this is in all fairness to my colleagues on the select committee—that we examined the bill not only within the guidelines that had been agreed by the previous committee, but conscious that we should seek as broad a consensus as possible.\n what did we do? we made radical and drastic amendments. i remind the house that we removed from the bill the provisions on criteria consultant medical advisers at the clinics, foreign women, foetuses, foetal material and the onus of proof.\n i have referred to the matters that we took out of the bill, but one has only to compare the two bills to concede that we also made radical changes in the provisions that we considered should still be recommended to the house. i emphasise that we considered this in the light not only of evidence but of the point that my hon. friend the minister of state has made about the action taken by the department.\n may i give an illustration? the first session's committee agreed, amongst other things, to propose legislation to deal with the traffic in the abortion of foreign women. that was the agreed conclusion of that committee. but the second session's committee recognised the steps that had been taken administratively and such facts as the minister of state has put before the house today, and we decided to recommend no legislative action. equally, the first committee agreed to recommend back-up legislation on foetuses and foetus material but, again it is clear from the matters to which i have referred that after we had received further evidence, we decided to make no such recommendation.\n i now want to turn to the recommendations that we made. it is rarely recognised—although it ought to be—that the unique feature of our abortion law is that the evidence of two registered medical practitioners is required before an abortion can take place. i am all in favour of that. one has only to think of the condition of pregnant women to realise how distressing it is for them in other countries to have to go through the official machinery and to face bureaucracy in seeking abortions. but i emphasise that two registered practitioners, not one, are required under the 1967 act.\n anyone who is concerned about this subject must also realise how important it is that there should continue to be confidence in the system. the confidence must lie in the fact that two practitioners are required. the committee recommended that one of the practitioners should have professional standing of some seniority—five years' standing—and this is wanted by the medical practitioners themselves.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.69', 1, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'geriatricians.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.70', 1452, 'uk.m.19526', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is on dangerous ground if she is asking that the medical practitioner should have gynaecological qualifications. we have not provided for that in our recommendations, but we have recommended that the two practitioners should be independent and that one of them should have some medical standing. we do not go as far as the earlier bill, but with the provisions we suggest one can surely rely upon the advice of two medical practitioners.\n i turn to the referral agencies and the advisory bureaux. our recommendation is simply that: legislation be introduced to require all referral agencies, pregnancy advisory bureaux and pregnancy testing agencies which charge fees to be licensed by the secretaries of state. that is beyond argument. it is no good the department\'s saying what has been said by my hon. friend the minister this morning. there is really no argument about this. it is what the lane committee insisted upon and it is also what was proposed in the grylls bill, which the department accepted. the department told the committee that it would welcome legislation. professor lafitte told us that he would prefer legislation. he would prefer the direct power to license rather than the indirect temporary approach through the clinics. who is there, apart from my hon. friend, who believes, having looked at the evidence, that there is any case for anything except the licensing of these agencies?\n i want to be fair about this. i have called professor lafitte in aid because it is important that we should pay attention to his point of view. he speaks for the british pregnancy advisory services. it would be unfair to suggest that professor lafitte agrees with the opinion expressed by the select committee. i refer the house to the opinion that the select committee expressed—not a recommendation—because it is quite clear. the select committee recorded: in view of the evidence we received about financial abuses and the importance placed by many witnesses on unbiased counselling. your committee are of the opinion that it is better to insist upon a severance and not to afford any exemption to charitable advisory services. as a result they would depend upon fees and genuine charitable contributions. your committee recognise that due notice would have to be given to allow the charitable agencies affected to make the necessary changes. we should try to achieve maximum consensus.\n it is generally agreed that, as far as possible, abortion should be carried out in the public sector, in the national health service. equally, as far as possible, abortion should not be carried out in the private commercial sector. between these two sectors we have the reputable charitable organisations.\n i put to the house the views that the committee expressed in the light of evidence that it received. those views are quite firm and definite and, as the hon. gentleman said, this is a matter that should be borne in mind during the committee stage. i refer the house to the recommendation that we made and to the opinion that we expressed arising from this.\n we carried out exhaustive inquiries in both the first and second committees as to whether the licensing of the agencies should be done administratively or by regulation—largely because the lane committee, which was not well versed in this field, recommended administrative action. everything my hon. friend the minister said favoured regulations. it is a question of the approval of the clinics and the licensing of the agencies.\n i do not want to exaggerate this, but, notwithstanding the welcome administrative action taken, there have been some abuses. we recommended what the lane committee said could not be done—the fixing of maximum charges. this has been accepted but it is surely a matter for regulation and not administration. there is an inspectorate at the department and a whole series of conditions are laid down for the operating of agencies. when we reach that stage, regulations are unavoidable and essential.\n british pregnancy advisory services raised with us, when it saw our recommendation, the question of consultation. we made quite clear that regulations enforced consultation. we all know that no department issues regulations without full consultation with all concerned. what is much more important is that the regulations must come to the house, so those consulted have recourse to the house if they feel that their representations have not been adequately considered.\n we have emphasised, and this again is a matter for regulations, that if we go to the limits which we have provided there should be a right of appeal. this again is a matter for regulations. we have pressed the department to go so far that what is needed is no longer capable of being done administratively. that would be unfair to everyone. one must be fair and above board and do it by regulation.\n undoubtedly legislation is needed on the upper time limit. there is a choice between two periods, or a qualification upon that choice. one can accept lane and 24 weeks, or peel, the other report, and 20 weeks. we must bear in mind that peel has the support of the world health organisation and the medical profession. [ interruption. ] as far as it has indicated, the who\'s opinion is 20 weeks. we have a choice between 24 weeks and 20 weeks, with the weight of the medical profession behind 20 weeks. [hon. members: "no."]\n i remind the house that lane recommended that after 24 weeks there should be no abortion, that the only treatment was to induce labour. we do not think that that is very satisfactory in the light of the evidence we received, and we recommend 20 weeks. we say: but provision should be made allowing such treatment"— that is, abortion— where the child would be born with a major disability whether physical or mental or where it is necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; and to provide by regulation an element of flexibility with regard to the time limit. that is a far better recommendation than was made by either lane or peel.\n those are the main recommendations of the select committee. it is misleading nonsense to say that they can be carried out administratively. they are all matters that depend upon legislation. my hon. friend can say "i don\'t like them, and i will not legislate", but he cannot say that the government can carry out any of these main recommendations without resorting to legislation.\n i should like to say something about other recommendations that we have made. i begin with the question of penalties. i remind stalwart supporters of the lane committee that what is recommended was that offences should be made indictable and that there should be no time limit. we decided that that was to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. we said that the obvious thing to do was to extend the time limit for summary proceedings. i say to anyone who calls in aid of the lane committee that that is a much more sensible recommendation than it made.\n i turn next to the matter of prosecutions. we do not accept the provision in the white bill to shift the onus of proof, but we were faced with the difficulty of obtaining evidence. that was recognised by the whole medical profession. abuses are remarkably few, but the whole profession is stigmatised by them. in one of our previous recommendations we said that documents should be made more widely available and should be available to the general medical council. this has been done.\n we took what i thought—and as chairman of the all-party civil liberties parliamentary group i am very sensitive on this issue—was the best course, saying "you have established the need. we are very reluctant to extend powers. you will do this only by application to a high court judge." all this concerns only bodies and people charging fees for the work they do. it is not an uninvited invasion of privacy but something that we believe to be necessary if we are to get to the heart of the problem of dealing with the handful of offenders who bring the whole profession into disrepute.\n we received a good deal of evidence that people were disturbed about the provision for conscientious objection. i have already said that we rejected the argument—whatever its strength—that the onus of proof should be shifted with regard to offences under the 1967 act or under this bill. we took the same view about conscientious objection. we removed the placing of the burden of proof on the conscientious objector. we took a very balanced view of the matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.71', 6, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' dr. oonagh mcdonald (thurrock) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.72', 335, 'uk.m.19526', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way, because i have spoken long enough and want to finish my speech quickly.\n we accept that it is the common view that as far as possible abortion should be carried out in the national health service. we strongly believed that if we strengthened the provision about conscientious objection we should also look at the consequences, so in our second report—to which my hon. friend the minister referred only incidentally—we recommended recognising that there was an obligation as far as possible to provide facilities for abortion as necessary to implement the 1967 act in the health service. to ensure the widest possible availability, we recommended that there should be special units in the national health service to provide abortion in those hospitals where it was shown that women were driven to pay for abortion because they would not otherwise be able to have the facility of abortion at all. i regard that as a recommendation of some importance.\n but what disturbs me is that we have had no response from the government, although we have made specific recommendations concerning the public sector. we are returning to the days when we had no select committee. i do not invite the house to set up a permanent select committee on abortion, of the kind that we had on race relations, but one might recommend that. i happen to be chairman of the select committee on race relations. we did have a response during the past couple of years when that select committee was in operation.\n i fear, when we have emphasis upon administrative solutions, that within a year or two we shall be in the same difficulties we found before the select committee was set up. i am sure that the most effective answer is to recognise the 1967 act, as the bill does, and to say that there were matters arising from the operation of that act which should be attended to, and that the bill provides an opportunity to do that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.74', 203, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'abortion is not a party political subject, and there has long been a convention that party leaders do not intervene in debates on it, but the house will be sympathetic to my position and will accept that, having been the originator of the 1967 act, it is only reasonable that i should say a few words about the proposed amendment to it. however, i wish to make clear that i speak entirely for myself and will express my own views and not those of my party. if anyone doubts that, he needs only to note that my hon. friend the member for rochdale (mr. smith) is a sponsor of the bill and that hon. members of my party, as always, have their own views on this subject.\n reference has already been made to the letter sent to the prime minister by dame josephine barnes. i should like to quote another paragraph from it: the lane committee reported in 1974 after nearly three years of thorough investigation and found that the abortion act has proved its value in relieving human suffering. we agree with the findings of this carefully researched report which has never been fully debated in parliament. that is a fair point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.75', 65, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'after the first year of operation of the abortion law, the number of abortions in scotland, england and wales was 53,000, but the figures which i obtained this morning from the library reveal 106,000 abortions—and they include abortions only up to september last year in scotland—showing that, since the introduction of the abortion law, the number of abortions in england, wales and scotland has doubled.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.76', 1127, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is true, but what matters is the trend of the abortion figures. naturally, in the first year of operation of the new legislation the figures were relatively low. few of the charitable services had got started. the national health service was not geared to dealing with the new law. the medical techniques used in abortions have been greatly simplified and improved since the early years. however, in the past two or three years the figures have been coming down, and that should be noted.\n the right hon. member for sunderland, north (mr. willey) fairly said that the select committee, under his controlled chairmanship, particularly in its first sitting, confined its activities to those matters on which those of us who were members of the select committee, how- ever different might be our fundamental views, could agree about improving the administration of the act. our report was valuable because it was unanimous. we made recommendations which, within a matter of weeks, were accepted by the then secretary of state for social services and they were implemented. it is fair for the right hon. gentleman to claim that the work of the select committee helped to draw attention to the recommendations of the lane committee and to prod the department into action. a couple of years ago we got the improvements which, i believe, have led to a greatly improved administration of the abortion act.\n i hope that, if we are to be given examples—which we have not yet—of current abuses of the act, or allegations of abuses of the act, they will be taken from the past two years. i do not know whether hon. members heard the radio phone-in programme this morning, but the old stories were trotted out about examples of which we all know and condemn of several years ago as being reasons for supporting the bill. the administration of the act, particularly after the taking of the latest steps outlined by the minister a few minutes ago on pregnancy advice centres and referral agencies, has greatly improved.\n one of the useful results of the work of the select committee was that parliament, through the select committee, was able to review the recommendations of the lane committee. however, the letter sent to the prime minister highlighted the chief point of maladministration of the abortion act, namely, the regional variation in abortions in the national health service. i am told that of the people who obtained abortion in the birmingham area only 13 per cent. are able to do so under the national health service, whereas in the newcastle area 95 per cent. of abortions are carried out under the national health service. those are the regional extremes, but a variation of from 13 per cent. to 95 per cent. is quite extraordinary.\n i should have thought that that was one of the main issues on which we should be pressing the department. it is one of the problems which the bill in no way touches and yet it is highlighted in the letter sent to the prime minister. there are plenty of examples of abuse of the abortion act, in medical and financial terms, over the past three or four years. there has been widespread concern among hon. members, whether supporters or opponents of the 1967 act. in particular, we have been concerned about the inflow of foreign patients, to the great lucrative benefit of a small number of members of the medical profession.\n however, the picture has changed, and the house should note the publication of the international planned parenthood federation, which shows that, since we legislated in 1967, 33 states have introduced new abortion laws and most of them are more liberal than our 1967 law. many of them, particularly the more recent statutes of other countries, permit abortion not only after examination by two doctors, as under our law, but at the request of women. there is a campaign to alter the law in that direction in this country.\n the result of the change of the law elsewhere, particularly on the continent, and the tightening of the administration of our act has been a dramatic fall in the number of patients coming to this country. according to the figures for last year, the number of foreign patients who had abortions in this country was down 50 per cent. on the 1975 figure. no matter how one may play with the statistics, one cannot pretend that this has anything to do with the fall in the birth rate among foreign women in this country. there has been a dramatic fall in the number of abortions.\n my attitude to the bill is this: several of the clauses in the bill could individually be quite easily defended. many of them contain measures which could be taken by the department without the need for legislation, either by way of administrative guidance or by regulation. what worries me is not the effect of each of the proposals but the effect of the bill as a whole. the secretary of state, in his letter to me, was right to claim that the bill would throw the abortion law into fresh confusion just at the time when the administration of the law was settling down in the way that parliament originally intended.\n that is the burden of the case against the bill. moreover, as it will cause legislative confusion, it will cause delay in the administration of abortions in the health service. one of the good results is that in the past 10 years the number of abortions carried out late in pregnancies has been in decline. the majority are now carried out after less than 12 weeks of pregnancy, and fewer than 1 per cent. of the pregnancies are over 20 weeks.\n i dare say that other hon. members have, like myself, been besieged in advance of the bill, by letters and leaflets on this subject. the two organisations which are campaigning to get their members to write to members of parliament asking them to support the bill stand for the total repeal of the 1967 act. their objective is to stop abortion, and they make no bones about it. they are entitled to their view, and i make no complaint about it. but let us not pretend that the purpose of the bill is to tidy up the administration of the act. the purpose of the steam behind the bill is to stop abortion.\n if we decide, as we decided in 1967, that we want a civilised and reasonable abortion law within which it will be possible to terminate pregnancy, we should stand by that attitude and reject an attempt to interfere with the act in such a fundamental way.\n i beg to oppose the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.78', 550, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in supporting the bill, i should like at the outset to make two remarks. first, as a member of the select committee, i endorse every word that the right hon. member for sunderland, north (mr. willey) said in his excellent and utterly convincing speech. he clearly made the case for legislation. secondly, i should like to make my own position plain, especially in the light of the remarks made by the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel).\n some people wish to alter the 1967 act in order to make abortion freely available on request. the hon. lady the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) does not disguise that fact, and she is entitled to her opinion. there are others who wish to make abortion more difficult. some argue that it is the woman\'s right to choose, irrespective of the effect upon the infant in the womb. others take the view that any abortion is a wanton destruction of an unborn child.\n i do not hold with these extreme views and nor did parliament when it enacted the 1967 act. i do not seek any alteration in the criteria for lawful abortion, nor does the bill. the select committee made plain that this was a matter to be left to the conscience of individual hon. members.\n in general, i agree with the lane committee that the 1967 act has done much to reduce the toll of suffering, ill health and premature death that prevailed under the previous confused state of the law, but it would be a great mistake to believe that the scandal of illegal abortion has ceased under the act. i concede, too, that it is most unfortunate for those who support the act that its introduction has not been accompanied by the development of comprehensive facilities within the national health service all over the country, with the result that even where the criteria have been satisfied, it has not always been possible for a woman to obtain a lawful abortion.\n the inevitable result has been the development of a large and flourishing sector in which, because the motivation was not care of the woman but the making of profit, the "social" clause has been interpreted so freely as to constitute abortion on demand. however, the 1967 act did not provide statutory control over nursing homes and clinics in the private sector. it has been prodded in that direction only by the house, by the bill of the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) and the recommendations of the select committee.\n it is hardly surprising, therefore, that the select committee found that the vast majority of women who sought advice in the private sector had abortions. it was 98 per cent. in the case of at least one major referral agency.\n nor was it surprising that there developed a large and lucrative traffic in abortions for foreign women and that large fortunes were made by unscrupulous operators. the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) and i predicted in 1967 that, despite the good intentions of parliament and the noble protestations of the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles, the act would lead to grave abuse—and it has. the grave public disquiet which resulted led inevitably to the appointment of the lane committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.79', 39, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that my hon. friend would wish to make clear that when he speaks of the private sector and the profit motivation throughout it, he would wish to except the charitable groups who are not concerned with profit.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.80', 21, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'emphatically not. they are better regulated, but they are the means through which large numbers of doctors are making large fortunes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.81', 1, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'nonsense.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.82', 473, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the evidence was given to the select committee. if the hon. lady has not read it, i shall not assist her now.\n in considering the bill, it is important for the house to remember that such was the dilatoriness of the government that the lane report was never debated. that caused the hon. member for pollok to introduce his controversial bill and led subsequently to a concerned and anxious house setting up the select committee.\n the minister spelled out a list of administrative actions taken by his department on bureaux and counselling. it is important for us to remember that virtually no action was taken by the department to remove the known abuses, condemned by the lane committee and by public opinion, until after the select committee had made its nine interim recommendations to deal with the appalling and disgusting situation in the private sector. that is the answer to those who argue that the bill, which seeks to do no more than implement the main recommendations of the select committee, is not necessary and that it is safe to leave these matters to the department. after the minister\'s appalling speech, it is clear that it is totally unsafe to leave such matters to the department and that the house must speak today in a very clear voice.\n i respect the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles enormously and i know exactly where he stands on this issue. he challenged us to refer to abuses that have taken place in the past two years. i accept. let me go to the heart of the matter because no one has referred to it so far.\n when the right hon. gentleman introduced his bill in 1966 he said that it was not intended to leave a wide open door for abortion on request. eight years later, the lane committee recognised that, contrary to the right hon. gentleman\'s intentions, abortion on request was being practised. the committee\'s report said: the criteria for abortion as expressed in the act are imprecise and can be widely interpreted and that: some practitioners interpret the act to mean that … termination is possible in every case". what flowed from that imprecision? strongly associated with the practice of abortion on request has been the prospect of financial gain for those authorising and performing abortions. the financial and vested interests which developed after 1967 included the referral agencies that receive fees, the doctors who perform private sector abortions and the investors with an interest in private clinics. the concern which such vested interests have aroused is caused not simply because profiteering in this area is distasteful but because they have led directly to a blatant disregard for the intentions of parliament and those of the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles when he introduced his bill in 1966.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.83', 23, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. gentleman aware that rich women have always had abortion on request and that some of us care about poor women?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.84', 24, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree that the present arrangements discriminate against the poor. that is wrong, immoral and something that the house should not put up with.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.85', 30, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman explain why he is so against profits being made out of abortions when he supports profits in virtually every other matter that comes before the house?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.86', 400, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am pleased to do so. abortion is not like any other medical procedure. it involves two lives, one of which, of necessity, must be destroyed. that is why it is not a matter which should be the subject of profit making.\n it is not surprising that the lane committee, in the same paragraph in which it observed that a small number of doctors … have used the act to make large sums of money pointed out that in some parts of the commercial private sector the provisions of the act have been flouted and abortion on request has been the rule. i submit that this association of the profit motive with the authorising of abortions outside the spirit of the law is a scandal and that the house should recognise it as such.\n my hon. friend's bill provides that two doctors authorising an abortion should not be in private practice together or share a mutual financial interest in the same nursing home or agency. that is a perfectly proper provision. the bill enables the dhss to license feecharging pregnancy advising bureaux and it would prohibit the granting of a licence to any bureau which has financial connections with a private abortion clinic. these proposals should help to reduce the monetary incentives that exist to approve abortions outside the spirit of the law. indeed, the general feeling of the select committee was that if it were possible for the resources to be made available the whole matter of abortion should be taken out of the hands of the private sector and dealt with within the national health service.\n it should go without saying that a woman who is facing the agonising decision whether to seek an abortion is entitled to unbiased medical advice of the highest quality. such advice would have to take into account the interrelation of a number of factors—her age, her previous obstetric history, the duration of pregnancy, her physical and mental health, the availability of skilled help and supporting services, and the risks of termination both long-term and medium-term.\n the select committee heard evidence that shows that abortion is not as simple as some people believe. indeed, there is mounting evidence that the effect of an abortion on safe child-bearing later should be researched more deeply. the reluctance of the department to pay any attention to that or to give it any encouragement caused us concern.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.87', 8, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' dr. m. s. miller (east kilbride) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.88', 22, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am talking about the period of the select committee after the hon. member for east kilbride (dr. miller) had left it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.89', 28, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can the hon. member give the house one scrap of reliable medical evidence that there exist problems after an abortion which might not have existed in any case?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.90', 43, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is not for me to read the select committee's report to the house. it has been available for some time. i advise the hon. member for east kilbride to examine what we were told. i shall not go into the details now.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.91', 53, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there are a number of relevant papers, for example a paper in the british medical journal by john a. richardson and geoffrey dixon which says that there are twice as many deformed children born as a result of a previous abortion and a very high incidence of premature deliveries and miscarriages following abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.92', 1080, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was aware of that. i did not wish to underline the stupidity of the intervention by the hon. member for east kilbride who is a member of the medical profession and yet walked out of the select committee. the hon. member should have seen what was said in evidence. i am grateful to my hon. friend the member for reading, south (dr. vaughan) for bringing such information to the attention of the house.\n in the interests of good medical practice the bill also requires that doctors carrying out abortions must notify the woman\'s general practitioner of the abortion, provided that her consent has been obtained. the lane committee said on this point: we have received a number of complaints from general practitioners upon whose patients abortions have been performed without the customary notification to them. we have no desire to encourage in doctors an attitude of possessiveness towards their patients but we consider that those who perform abortions without making every effort to obtain a patient\'s consent to her general practitioner being informed may be failing in their duty towards her. we regard this as being of great importance because of the need for counselling and after-care. the lane committee also pointed out that after an abortion medical after-care may well be needed for conditions such as anaemia, chest infections and episodes of thrombo-embolism; that gynaecological care might be needed to avoid the sepsis which can lead to sterility; that contraceptive care is needed for most women after an abortion; and that considerable time may be needed to ensure an adequate discussion of suitable methods.\n the committee also said that common psychological reactions include guilt feelings and varying degrees of anxiety and depression; and that patients need the opportunity to discuss their reactions and feelings, which may be intense, and that is done ideally in general practice with a doctor whom they know. clearly a statutory requirement of notification of a woman\'s general practitioner should help to ensure the availability of these important elements in medical after-care.\n the problem of late abortions has caused as much public concern as any other aspect of the abortion controversy. a healthy child born of a healthy mother and given intensive care from birth now has a reasonable chance of living even if it is born a few weeks before the 28th week of pregnancy.\n the 20-week limit which, with some qualifications, is proposed in the bill, would accord much more closely with current medical knowledge and opinion than the present 28-week limit. i refer not only to domestic medical opinion, on which the select committee took advice, but also to that of international bodies. seven years ago the international federation of obstetrics and gynaecology recommended that abortion—which implies that life cannot be maintained in the foetus after expulsion from its mother—should be restricted to termination before 20 weeks. in a report published in 1975 a world health organisation scientific group concluded that infants delivered from the 22nd week onwards have a "survival potential".\n i understand that there is often considerable difficulty in calculating gestational age with accuracy and, as the lane report observed, many women seeking abortion claim that their pregnancy is at an earlier stage than it is in fact. i suggest that the risk of mistakes in the calculation is a strong argument in itself for bringing forward the upper time limit as the bill proposes.\n in any event it is generally agreed that the risks of an abortion to the mother increase substantially after the first three months of pregnancy. that is reflected in the experience of other countries with long experience of therapeutic abortion—many of which have earlier time limits than we do, particularly for abortions that are carried out for social reasons.\n there is another reason why the 1967 act cannot go unamended. the act includes a conscience clause. yet the harsh fact is that from the outset the problems of medical and nursing staff with conscientious objections to abortion have continued unabated. the royal college of obstetrics and gynaecology said in their evidence to the lane committee that there was "a very real need" for an inquiry into how far junior doctors are under duress when they engage in operations to terminate pregnancy. commenting on the fear of such junior doctors that distaste or conscientious objection might prejudice the advancement of their careers, the royal college said: their fear is amply justified. indeed, the select committee received numerous complaints and allegations of discrimination, especially about fully-qualified doctors being debarred from appointments.\n the nursing profession has also been adversely affected. the lane report commented that the abortion act had brought unhappiness to many nurses in the national health service. the committee found that trained staff had resigned from their posts because of the act. it found that many nurses were loath to opt out partly through reluctance to place an extra workload on colleagues and partly through fear that adverse comments might be made in their personal records which would affect their promotion prospects.\n the evidence that the select committee heard from nursing organisations convinced us that non-catholic nurses with conscientious objection to abortion faced particular difficulties since in many hospitals the so-called conscience clause is in practice interpreted as allowing religious objections only. the bill would amend the conscience clause and also delete the provision in the act that in any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection should rest on the person claiming to rely on it. that is only fair.\n in conclusion, in my view the bill would for the first time combat some of the worst abuses of the existing abortion law, would ensure that women receive proper medical advice before abortion and proper medical care afterwards, would give added protection both for the viable foetus and for conscientious objection in the healing professions, and would assist the department of health and social security and the police in enforcing the law in this very difficult area.\n this debate should remind us once again that we are not talking about any ordinary surgical operation, such as the removal of tonsils, but about something that must inevitably involve two lives and the destruction of one of them.\n it behoves us, therefore, to see that the shattering experience of abortion for a woman is not a source of profit for the unscrupulous and that it is preceded and followed by the best possible advice and care. for those reasons i shall support the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.94', 39, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'many of us would wish that women were more fully represented in this chamber today than they are, because abortion is something which happens to them and they have stronger rights to speak on the subject than many men.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.95', 2, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'hear, hear.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.96', 312, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the sponsors of this restrictive bill—no one will deny that it is restrictive—have been claiming that it is based strictly on the recommendations of the select committee that reported on 12th july last year. that is a false claim, but it will no doubt have misled many people all over the country into supporting the bill and asking their members of parliament to vote for it today.\n one important restriction that the bill seeks to impose is in clause 1(1) ( b ). that is to make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy that has lasted for 24 weeks even if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped". i regard that as completely inhumane, and it is not based on any recommendation made in the select committee report. i have the chairman\'s confirmation, both orally and in writing, that this has gone completely beyond the recommendations in the report, yet it was on the ground that the bill was based on that report that people were asked to write to their members of parliament and ask them to vote for the bill.\n the proposed restriction has not been based on the select committee\'s report. on the contrary, the chairman has told me that it cuts right across the committee\'s purpose in making its two major exceptions. this is not just a detail that can be regarded as a point for the standing committee, as my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) suggested. it is a clear indicator of the intention of the sponsors to restrict the basic grounds for abortion set out in the 1967 act. [hon. members: "no."] i hear cries of "no". this limitation to 24 weeks for a child that will be born severely handicapped is a basic restriction—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.97', 6, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.98', 23, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. my hon. friend has made his speech, which was quite long, and he has had a chance to make his own points.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.99', 4, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'do not make misstatements.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.100', 143, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in the bill the sponsors are asking the house of commons to deny to women in need a basic relief which has been granted to them under the act, that is, not to have to bear a child against their will if there is a serious risk that it would suffer from such physical and mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.\n another important restriction is contained in clauses 6 and 7, which my hon. friend the member for buckingham has said are among the most important clauses in the bill. i was listening to the spokesman of the charitable organisation british pregnancy advisory service last night, professor lafitte. he said that the bpas, the london pas and the brook advisory centres believe that these clauses would disrupt their services. yet those organisations are charitable organisations that have no motivaton for gain themselves.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.101', 28, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as a director of brook advisory centres i should like to confirm that the clauses would seriously disrupt the charitable work and medical work of terminating unintended pregnancies.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.102', 65, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not dwell on the other restrictive features of the bill, because many other hon. members are seeking an opportunity to speak. however, when i come to deal with the private sector, i ask hon. members to remember that it is the view of the chairman of bpas that these measures in the bill would greatly restrict and disrupt the operation of their services.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.103', 6, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.104', 799, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "no, i cannot give way any more. others will not have an opportunity to speak if i do.\n indeed, the whole impact of the bill would be to restrict and make more difficult the operation of the act. that, i believe, is the purpose of the sponsors of the bill, whatever they may say about curbing abuses. i think that my hon. friend the member for buckingham said that he did not rule out the possibility that in committee other amendments going further than the bill would be introduced. in that he discloses to us what he knows already.\n i draw the attention of the house to a judgment expressed by the british medical association in a letter dated 22nd february this year, in which it says, mr. william benyon's private member's bill to amend the 1967 abortion act is down for second reading on friday 25th february. we have now had an opportunity to study the bill and believe that legislation is not desirable at the present time to amend the act. in our view, time should be allowed to assess the effects of the changes already introduced; further changes which might subsequently become desirable could best be effected by the more flexible system of administrative control. that is signed by the secretary of the bma.\n i believe that a major thrust of the propaganda put out to support the bill has been that it will remove abuses. i do not believe that further legislation is required for the removal of abuses. the secretary of state has powers to impose by administrative measures any controls that may be required to curb abuses. he has recently reaffirmed this in a letter to the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel), and he has confirmed it today in his intervention in the debate.\n however, the department has in the past deserved sharp criticism. that is one of the points on which i agree with my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine). my own view is that after the 1967 act ministers of successive governments were far too slow to curb abuses, many of them ante-dating the act, and those abuses which were rightly disturbing public opinion, and for these failures i attacked them strongly in the select committee, because even then they had the powers of control that they needed. they admitted this. their fault was that they were too slow in using that in the face of the problems, many of which were new.\n first, i shall deal with controls in the private sector. the secretary of state, in consultation with the private sector, has established a series of effective administrative controls. i believe that they will prove more effective and more flexible than the complex legislation which we are now asked to pass, although they will be less likely to interfere with the proper operation of the 1967 act—which is a far more important consideration. i welcome the secretary of state's statement on 10th february about this.\n it was important that he should confer with the private sector, because since the 1967 act the private sector has helped to carry out the purpose of the act, and has provided well over half the services to which women in need are entitled and, indeed, the private sector has pioneered many of those services. let us remember that it has been providing these services at a time when the national health service has been adjusting itself at a very uneven pace to provide those increased services which are part of its responsibility under the law.\n had it not been for the private sector, there would have been far greater strains on the national health service and there would have been resort, on a far more serious scale, to the back-street abortionist, especially in those geographical areas where the national health service consultants so restricted the abortion service that they drove women in need to seek help elsewhere. in short, the bill seeks to impose a network of additional legal restrictions on the private sector at a time when the secretary of state, after consultation with the medical profession, has concluded that these restrictions are not required. in support of that is the letter from the british medical association which i have quoted today.\n let us turn now to the public sector—the national health service. by far the most serious abuse of the act, in my view and in the view of many people all over the country, is in the denial by the national health service consultants in certain areas of the service to which women in need are entitled by law. this is the abuse that any select committee concerned to help women should, as its top priority, have aimed to eliminate.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.105', 2, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we did.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.106', 767, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is the abuse which the house should be considering today, not the petty restrictive measures which the bill seeks to impose on the national health service, the private sector and, above all, on women in real and urgent need of help.\n a great deal is made in the bill of additional legal measures to protect those in the nhs with conscientious objections to performing abortions. yet the secretary of state, after consultation with the medical and other health professions, is able to say that the present safeguards for conscience are working satisfactorily. i know that this is contested, but the minister has repeated it again and again. in some of the areas in which consultants have severely restricted the level of abortion services to as low as one third of that provided by the nhs in the rest of the country i wonder what freedom of conscience can be exercised by members of the junior medical staff who wish to carry out their responsibilities under the law and to provide women in need with the relief to which they have a right.\n i am glad to see that the select committee, in a later slim report dated 22nd november 1976, has at least got round to describing the disparities in the nhs in these areas. i am sorry that the chairman of the select committee is not now here, but i wish to pay him a generous tribute—i see that he has returned—as i come to this second report. it stated: despite the improvements in some regions in the proportion of total abortions performed in the nhs, the regional disparities criticised by the lane committee largely persist. the committee made an important recommendation that: the secretaries of state should after full consultation, consider, by financing if necessary, the establishment, on a strictly experimental basis, of units in local hospitals where the availability of facilities is so inadequate, that women, who are entitled to have an abortion under the terms laid down by the abortion act 1967, either may not obtain it at all or may be compelled to pay for it. the establishment of any such units would be on an experimental basis only, would be provided with as adequate safeguards as could be devised and would be carefully monitored both with regard to their effectiveness and the efficacy of the safeguards. this recommendation needs no legislation. it could be put into practice by administrative measures, but, in certain areas, it will require additional finance and that, as we all know, is scarcer in the nhs perhaps than in any other social service.\n this poses a real dilemma for the government if they are to provide in the restrictive areas a level of abortion services comparable with that already available under the nhs in most other parts of the country. i think that the minister responsible here today must be warned that this is a responsibility which must lead to action, otherwise there will be a very strong reaction if it is delayed.\n the government seem to have two courses open. first, they can immediately inquire into the working of the abortion service in nhs hospitals in those areas where levels of abortion services are conspicuously restricted, and they can ensure that there are adequate medical staff and facilities to bring those services up to the national average, without putting too great a strain on other gynaecological services. any additional staff, especially in the light of this debate, would need to be carefully chosen for this purpose. secondly, the government can provide on an experimental basis the special units recommended by the select committee in its recent report.\n one course—i ask the minister to pay attention at this moment—which is not open to the government is for them to do nothing and to allow this serious abuse to continue. i hope that the minister will confirm that this is not his intention.\n until this major abuse is removed, i cannot see the justification for complicating the legislation governing con- scientious objection. if, as i believe, the minister is right in claiming that this is now working satisfactorily, the need for change cannot be justified. i hope that the house will reject the bill and that the government will decide as soon as possible how best to tackle the abuse and the gross disparities in the level of abortion services of the nhs in various parts of the country. then a great majority of women will believe that, in this matter at least, parliament has listened to them and that the government have got their priorities right.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.108', 655, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am happy to be able to give my support to the bill. i shall not speak for long, because nearly all the points that i would have wanted to raise have already been made.\n i question whether any fair-minded hon. member would doubt the intentions of the members of the select committee. i am delighted that tribute has been paid to what we on the select committee achieved after some of its members walked out and left us. when they walked off the committee, it was after we had taken part in a debate and in a vote in which they were overwhelmingly defeated. their action was rather like that of the small boy who picks up his ball and goes off home.\n i expect rather better from my government than we heard today. like the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon), i was totally shattered when i read that one of our ministers had written to the leader of the liberal party saying, before the bill was even published, that there was no need for it. i am a simple type of laddie, but i have a clear memory of what happened a few years ago. that was when the government offered me a deal. edward short, who at that time was leader of the house, called my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) and myself in and said that the government, too, were worried about how abortion was going and he offered us a select committee. i expect better from a labour government than for them to offer me a select committee if any report emanating from it is to be left on the shelves to gather dust as the report of the lane committee was. i believe that the lane committee did a good job, as the select committee did a first-class job.\n in this debate we have heard much the same speeches as we heard two years ago. it was interesting how fast the then secretary of state, my right hon. friend the member for blackburn (mrs. castle), moved on our first recommendations. i want the report of the select committee to be adopted on the floor of the house and the hon. member for buckingham has given us a golden opportunity to achieve this.\n my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) referred to the evidence to which we listened in the select committee. i attended every meeting of the select committee. we sat for nearly 100 hours and had 43 sittings. we heard witnesses from the salvation army, the church of scotland, the catholic church and the royal colleges. the best evidence that we received undoubtedly came from the royal college of nursing.\n my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east stands today like a modern joan of arc holding a wee bit of tube.\n i quote from last january's lancet: the fetal material was collected from the operating theatre as soon as possible after pregnancy had been terminated and was brought to the tissue bank on ice. relevant clinical data were recorded. the following organs, amongst others, were identified: upper limbs 74, lower limbs 61, lung 22, liver 21, eyeballs 11, brain 8. and so on.\n i do not agree with that sort of thing from medical science, but i suggest that it is not as simple as a half teaspoonful of some fluid. i claim that i am not totally anti-abortion. the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) talked about outside agencies. i, too, have suffered from them. some want no abortion. some want abortion on demand.\n i suggest that some hon. members want abortion on demand. they should bring in a bill aimed at securing that. the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles stated categorically that that was not what he was after. i hope that he will give the bill a good wind today.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.110', 1806, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short)—i am sorry that she is no longer present—complained that the select committee was both truncated and unbalanced. i agree with the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) that members of the select committee appointed by the house who chose to chicken out can scarcely quarrel if the report which was published does not entirely reflect their own personal views.\n the select committee on abortion, like the lane committee before it, was set up, as a result of widespread unease about the working of the abortion act 1967 on all sides of the house and in the country at large. as the house well knows, the then secretary of state accepted—we were grateful for this—some of the recommendations of the committee\'s third special report which could be implemented administratively—for example, making sure—it is incredible to relate that this should have been required in the first place—that a woman was actually examined by the doctor before he signed a certificate recommending an abortion.\n the lane committee in paragraph 201 of its report had strongly condemned as wholly unethical what it described as the growing practice of giving a certificate without even seeing the patient. the regulations were accordingly altered to provide that a certificate should henceforth record both that an examination of the women had been carried out and that the opinion was related to the circumstances of her individual case and not to some statistical evidence.\n the secretary of state also accepted the committee\'s recommendation that referral agencies and pregnancy advice bureaux which the secretary of state considered to be satisfactory should be listed and that the approval of places for the purposes of section 1 of the abortion act 1967 should be conditional on their non-acceptance of patients referred by unlisted agencies and bureaux. that, again, was a plus, but would this have come if we had not had the bill introduced by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok and a select committee? all along there has had to be this pushing of the department before action has been taken.\n but the licensing of such bureaux cannot be introduced except by a change in the law, and this we as a select committee believed to be absolutely essential.\n far and away the most important thing is to do away with the profiteering in abortion which takes place under the present law. as soon as my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) announced that he intended to bring in a bill to amend the 1967 act on lines recommended by the select committee, the powerful pro-abortion lobby swung into action. one group of doctors, calling themselves "doctors for a woman\'s choice on abortion", who should have known better, without waiting to see what the bill would contain immediately formed a group to oppose it, on the grounds that it would, they believed, restrict which doctors may authorise an abortion, impose controls on charitable agencies, ensure that a woman\'s general practitioner is notified, and ban most abortions after 20 weeks.\n let us examine these points as they are treated in the bill. the bill does indeed seek to restrict which doctors may authorise an abortion. in clause 2(1)( a ) it provides that at least one of the two registered medical practitioners must be of at least five years\' standing. what is wrong with that? whatever the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east may say, do we really want the law to enable two young, inexperienced doctors fresh from training to take such vital decisions?\n clause 2 also provides that the two doctors should be completely independent of one another and that at least one of the two is not able to obtain financial benefit from the place where the abortion is performed. again, what is wrong with that? no reputable doctor could reasonably object to this provision, and most would welcome the severing of the link between profit and abortion.\n as the lane report puts it in paragraph 443— in consequence of the abortion act a situation has arisen in which a very small number of perhaps 20 or 30 members of the medical profession and those associated with them have brought considerable reproach upon this country, both a home and abroad. it is not we who mistrust doctors. it is the lane committee and ourselves who mistrust only a very small minority who are bringing the profession into disrepute. it is this that the bill seeks to put right.\n secondly, control on "charitable" organisations. dr. george morris said on the radio on monday morning that the bill is designed to wreck charitable agencies. this just is not true. it is most interesting to note on this point the opinion of the lane committee.\n it said that some bureau owners have attempted to obtain an appearance of respectability by registering their services as charitable. these people calling themselves "doctors for a woman\'s choice on abortion" can have little idea as to how these so-called charitable agencies operate. some people seem to think that to attach the word charitable" to a pregnancy advisory bureau or referral agency makes it automatically altruistic and totally uninterested in cash. this is very far from being the case. it is true that technically they do not make a profit. they merely pay vast sums in salaries to their directors and administrators and surgeons, who put up the money in the first place. it is total hypocrisy to pretend that there is anything remotely charitable in the normally accepted sense of the word in the way they behave. their counselling is normally confined to suggestions to their victims as to how to raise the cash to pay them.\n some advisory bureaux are, in fact, nothing more nor less than a funnel to channel women to abortion clinics under the same ownership and with the same personnel. as the lane report pointed out, it is necessary to check the abuses in relation to agencies and advisory bureaux.\n there are, of course, many truly charitable organisations often attached to religious bodies whose sole aim is to help and counsel girls and women in distress. these would be in no way harmed by the provisions of the bill. it is only the sharks that we are after.\n as for ensuring that a woman\'s gp is notified, certainly clause 3 of the bill provides that the doctor terminating the pregnancy shall notify the woman\'s medical practitioner, but only after obtaining the woman\'s consent to do so. this is a perfectly sensible arrangement to ensure, as far as is possible, that the woman receives any post-operative treatment that may be required and that her doctor is fully in the picture and on the alert for any complications.\n the bill, in the all-important first clause, makes it unlawful to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks except in cases where the child would be seriously handicapped mentally or physically or the mother\'s health would be endangered. this clause may have to be clarified in committee to draw a clear distinction between terminations to abort the baby, and therapeutic terminations where an early end to the pregnancy is essential not to destroy but to save the life of the baby and mother, as for example in the case of toxaemia. if i had not had a satisfactory therapeutic termination 30 years ago i would not have my twins now. perhaps in committee in clause 1( c ) we could insert the words "or baby" so that the clause reads ( c ) that the treatment is necessary either to save the life of the pregnant woman or baby, or to prevent grave injury to her physical or mental health. this is simply a tidying up operation that can be done in committee.\n in the last 10 years since the 1967 act, there have been enormous strides in the medical techniques for saving the lives of premature babies, and foetuses which until recently were unviable can now be saved. the old upper limit, under the infant life preservation act, of 28 weeks has become unrealistic, and a lower limit of 20 weeks is vital.\n i notice that the expert opinion of my hon. friend the member for dorking (sir g. sinclair) is at variance with that of the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, sir john peel. there are many emotive phrases used to press the case for still easier abortion but perhaps the most misleading is "a woman\'s right to choose". if one has no religious convictions in the matter it is, i suppose, permissible to say that a woman may do as she wishes with her body as far as sexual intercourse is concerned. that is a view with which i personally profoundly disagree but even if one accepts this view, once the woman becomes pregnant that sole right ceases and other rights are created, namely those of the child and the father, who is all too often left out of account altogether.\n nor has anything like enough research been done or publicity given to the resultant morbidity and the very serious psychological effect of an induced abortion. it is simply not true to say, as one abortion pamphlet says, that a teenage girl who has an illegitimate baby has nine-tenths of her life mapped out for her and that most of her options are closed. that may have been so 20 years ago, but it certainly is not so today.\n it is still far from easy for a girl, or a widow for that matter, to bring up a child on her own, but if she cannot face this prospect there are hundreds of thousands of childless couples longing for the baby they cannot have who would give it a loving and secure home. whereas there may well be unwanted pregnancies, there need never be an unwanted child.\n people sometimes say "but what would you do if your daughter was in that situation?" both my daughters are intelligent and university material and should have an interesting and demanding career ahead of them. but if either should find herself in this situation, i hope and believe that our whole family would close ranks and help her to go through with the pregnancy as many thousands of other families have done and will continue to do. but the least i would ask is that if she did decide in favour of an abortion, the decision would be hers and would not be in any way influenced by a pregnancy advisory agency or a doctor—and there are more than a few in our big cities—who had a financial motive in the matter.\n these are some of the abuses of the 1967 act which we seek to remedy and i hope that the house will support us in this attempt.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.112', 2260, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i feel a certain inferiority in following the hon. member for lancaster (mrs. kellett-bowman) because she acted as if she were involved in some attempt to get into the "guinness book of records" for making a speech at the fastest speed.\n we have heard from the chairman of the select committee, who put forward the ludicrous proposition that there should be a permanent select committee on abortion. it would be much more appropriate for this house to have a permanent select committee on women\'s rights. we seem to be considering constantly anti-women measures, which preoccupy this male-dominated chamber. perhaps i should suggest to the prime minister that he appoint a woman minister with cabinet rank to guard the rights of women. then perhaps we should not have the kind of legislation that is constantly cropping up in this house to prevent women from having the right of abortion.\n i cannot understand why it is necessary to amend the 1967 act in a way that will make it more restrictive to women. why does not someone bring in a bill to amend the 1967 act by giving women the right to choose? that is the kind of legislation that we should be debating. if i get the opportunity for a private members\' bill, the woman\'s right to choose will be its subject.\n i bitterly resent constantly being forced into the entrenched position of having to hold on to what we have got in the 1967 act. as a woman and as one of the small minority of women members, i protest about the legislation that is set out by men. we have had the fundamentally weak sex discrimination act and the equal pay act, which have been of almost no significance to women when they get down to the nitty-gritty of having to use these laws, which have engendered a hardening attitude towards women. there are constant attempts to change the 1967 legislation in order to make it clear to women that their bodies are definitely not their own. they are the subject of laws to be made in this house, by and large, by the maleocracy. whichever way one looks at it, the house of commons is not a democracy but a maleocracy.\n a very sad feature of the bill is that two of its sponsors are women members. i am glad to see that the bill has no labour party woman as a sponsor. however, to see that two women have allowed their names to be so directly associated with such a fundamentally anti-woman bill is a cause for concern, and i hope that women outside the house will note that fact.\n the bill now before the house is an anti-woman measure, as was the bill introuduced by my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). if the 1967 act were amended in the way the bill seeks, women in the lower income groups would suffer far more than those who can afford, and always have been able to afford, a private abortion.\n it is time that we said firmly and clearly to the do-gooders in this house—who invoke righteousness, justice, and sometimes even god on their side—that it is time that they accepted the fact that women, and only women, have the right to decide what is to happen to their bodies, and have the right to control them and their own lives. in an age of professional experts, usually men, it ill becomes hon. members to believe that they can take away that right from women in the way that the bill deliberately and wickedly seeks to do.\n this debate, apart from the technicalities of the law in a house of commons firmly dominated by male lawyers, should be partly about the need for men to accept the right for women to be people, too. one of the fundamental rights which this bill will deny them is the right to decide on an abortion.\n the house would do well to debate what can be done to help women and to ensure that they never again have to resort to back-street abortionists, or even attempts to abort themselves. this house should be insisting to the labour government, who are making enormous cuts in the national health service, that they must provide an adequate service through the nhs which carries out only about a third of present abortions. but, instead, the house debates this bill, which seeks to downgrade women and to deprive them of their rights.\n most people would agree that it is time for free, safe and voluntary abortions for all women who want them to be carried out in properly equipped hospitals or clinics by humane and qualified people, including sympathetic and definite after-care counselling. yet there is no clause in the bill which even attempts to put in that kind of recommendation to help women. instead, it seeks to set up a police state in respect of women, with powers for senior police officers to make checks on what are fundamentally private matters between a woman and her doctor.\n anybody who is seriously concerned about abortion should be anxious about the help that women need over abortions—the need to get over the sometimes dreadful depressions that can afflict women because of an abortion situation. if the do-gooders are the slightest bit interested in giving that help, they appear at present to be overlooking that aspect.\n in efforts to change the abortion situation, one runs up against a great many vested interests. first, one has the would-be legislators, such as my hon. friend the member for pollok, my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), and now the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon). these are the people who refuse to see the need in human terms and who use their law-making power to make it difficult for women to obtain an abortion, and sometimes even claim they do not want to encourage "promiscuity", as it is called. secondly, we have some members of the medical profession who find abortions tiresome, who feel threatened by the idea of abortion on request, and who use the law to maintain its power by giving the doctor, usually a man, the privilege of defining the legality of each case—and in private medicine that means charging high prices and making unjustifiable profits from abortions.\n one of the myths used by anti-abortionists, and often used in debates in this house, is that abortion violates some age-old and god-given natural law. yet until 100 years ago almost nobody—not even the catholic church—punished abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. the greek city states and ancient rome, the foundations of western civilisation, made abortion the basis of a well-ordered population policy. thus, in some way or another women have always been the victims of expedience, depriving them of their natural rights.\n it was christianity that infused the foetus with a soul, but during 18 centuries of debate the church took the conveniently loose view that the foetus became animated by the rational soul, and abortion was therefore a serious crime—at 40 days after conception for a boy, and 80 days for a girl. no methods of sex determination were specified, but here is an early example of sex discrimination. english common law by the thirteenth century settled into a fairly tolerant acceptance of an abortion up until quickening—the unspecific moment, usually in the fifth month, when the women feels the foetus move.\n in the united states for a long time the common law inherited from england protected the rights of abortion in early pregnancy. suddenly in the nineteenth century things tightened up. in 1869 pope pius ix eliminated the distinction between an animated and non-animated foetus, and since then the catholic church has called all abortion murder and punished it severely. anti-abortion laws were first passed in britain in 1803 and became stricter through the century.\n there were three main reasons why abortion suddenly became a crime. the first was a decent reason. abortion until recently was a dangerous operation: crude methods, antiseptics scarce, dirty hospitals. it was in part the mid-nineteenth century wave of humanitarianism that pressed for abortion laws to protect women from the dangers of having an abortion. i would remind those who support this bill that those reasons do not exist today.\n the second motive was less laudable. biologists in the nineteenth century began to understand conception and women began to practise more effective contraception. catholic countries, such as france, began "losing" the then population race, and the church wanted to keep its mothers in the running. so the church itself turned to biology and used the idea that "life", and therefore soul-infused life, began at fertilisation. this reasoning also spread to england and america. at that time english and american industries needed workers—we did not have the unemployment we have today—the huge farmable territories of the new world needed farmers, and the american civil war depleted america\'s labour crop. abortion laws saw to it that woman took her place outside the other machines of a developing economy.\n in britain we broke away finally from these cruel ideas in 1967. pressure to do so came from the general public, national medical associations and distinguished doctors, as well as those hon. members who were fundamentally humanitarian and progressive. yet today we have this bill, which represents a threat to millions of women, particularly to millions of working women.\n there are no perfect laws to deal with abortion, no tidy situations in such a human condition. how easy it would be if that were the case! how easy it would be if every set of problems could be put through a super computer and the perfect answer provided! if that were the case, there would be no need for members of parliament. with abortion we have to balance one sad situation against another, and endeavour, by applying our experience and knowledge, to do what is best.\n women and only women should be supported in the abortion situation—not the unborn. i believe that the amendment bill of the hon. member for pollok has held up women\'s right to choose for at least a couple of decades. this bill seeks to strengthen that situation. as women members of parliament we are constantly placed in the situation of having to hold on to what we have got in the 1967 act, which is now out-dated, rather than making proper progress with women\'s rights.\n it is proper for christian groups to seek to persuade women that abortion is wrong and to point out that it has mental and medical dangers. the views of such people are sincerely held. i do not doubt that. but it must be said that some of the propaganda from the anti-abortion organisations such as spuc, some of the things that are said by its supporters in this house, are not only terrifying but, frankly, untrue. they are interested not in rational argument, in women\'s condition, or in women\'s rights. their mind is made up and they use any dreadful propaganda to terrify, but hardly any which might inform.\n one of the things which strikes me, as a feminist, is that for all their self-righteous talk of morality there is not one word of sympathy for women from these organisations. billions of words have been coming out of the printing machines but not one has said that this is a woman\'s right. there is no woman member of this house who is pro-abortion. women are the givers of life. to women abortion is a terrible thing. but sometimes a woman has to make that terrible choice, and i say that that choice should be hers alone.\n those who feel that abortion is wrong in all circumstances are entitled to continue to try to persuade women to accept their views. but they should not expect to use this house and the laws of this land in an anti-woman way. but that is the object of this bill.\n the bill is bitterly resented by women outside this house, by the tuc, the labour party conference, the labour women\'s advisory committtee and, perhaps more importantly, by the women\'s groupings and progressive pressure groups that would not touch party politics with a barge pole. after listening to abortion debates in this house, it is not difficult to understand why there are not more women members of parliament. i hope that women listening to the debate will think it worth while to go through party politics to join us in this house, because when it comes to the vote at 4 o\'clock today i fear that there will not be sufficient women to ensure that this dreadful bill is stopped.\n abortion concerns only women, not men. that is the message of my speech. one of the most fatuous remarks on this issue was uttered in a previous abortion debate by a male member of parliament who said that it was no more necessary for a committee on abortion to be comprised entirely of women than it was for the finance bill to be considered only by chartered accountants. however, it is possible for anyone to acquire a knowledge of accountancy. it is still impossible for a man, even a member of parliament, to have a baby.\n this bill attacks women\'s abortion rights. i hope that the hon. member for buckingham and his hon. friends the members for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) and lancaster who have, with others, produced this bill will withdraw it. that would be the decent and civilised thing to do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.113', 1, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'rubbish.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.114', 155, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i hope that the labour government will recognise that they are attacking women's rights on abortion by the cut-backs in the social services. i am certain that as a result of the government's plans to effect cutbacks in the hospitals the first departments to be closed will be those offering abortion facilities.\n in 1977 women are entitled to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies. they are entitled to decide what to do when struggling with an existing family, when facing a shot-gun marriage with no love in it, what to do as a 16year-old girl faced with the prospect of being involved in a single-parent family when a mere child, what to do about the quality of life of an unwanted child. this is a woman's right alone. what should be done about this bill is that it should be denied a second reading. i hope that the house will agree.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.115', 30, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i feel that i must say that i strongly deprecate hon. members giving the assurance that they will speak for only five minutes and then speaking for 22 minutes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.117', 515, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall honour my word to you, mr. deputy speaker, and i might be even briefer than promised. i declare my interest in that i am a director of brook advisory centres ltd. and i was a founder member of the brook clinic in edinburgh, of which i am currently honourary president.\n i went through the faculty of medicine before arts and law and i saw in those three experiences the effects of unintended conception. i saw the effects of abortions and the circumstances in which they had to be carried out. i saw the effect of crime on those who were forced to have more children than they could emotionally, rationally or financially cope with, and i saw the effects on those who had married, not always because they wanted to, but because they happened to have an unintended conception.\n i do not care whether abortion is considered right or wrong in or out of marriage. the problem is as big in marriage as it is outside it. it is probably more in the interests of the stability of marriage that that should be recognised. it is natural for men and women to make love. the process which results in a conception is regarded as a natural part of marriage if not a natural part of it outside of marriage. it is also natural for people to make mistakes, however good the precautions are.\n the question then arises whether it is wrong to correct those mistakes. no woman wants, and probably no man wants, an unintended conception. we have to accept that there are those who take the view, as a matter of doctrine, that abortion in any circumstances is wrong, just as christian scientists take the view, i understand, that surgery in any circumstances is wrong.\n while they are entitled to have their view and may accept it as an article of faith to which they adhere, nevertheless i do not believe that they have the right to force that doctrine on anyone else, or to claim that they are taking a higher moral stance than anyone else. i object to those who say—and i regret that they often say it puritanically—"you enjoyed the act, and this is your punishment for indulging in it". that is part of the thinking behind the bill, and i reject it.\n i object to those who will not face the moral responsibility in saying to someone "so you are pregnant—it serves you right. now go and deal with it." no one wants an unintended conception, but many women have the misfortune to have one.\n the matter is surrounded with emotion, and there is no better way of demonstrating it, i believe, than this. the law in scotland before the 1967 act was the common law, which covered all medical acts. a doctor could perform an abortion just as he could take out a tooth or an appendix, if he thought that it was medically right to operate. that was the law of scotland, and not one person of any faith ever complained that the law was wrong.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.118', 2, 'uk.m.22218', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'hear, hear.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.119', 566, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the law was altered, as the right hon. member for kilmarnock (mr. ross) is confirming, only when the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) came first in the list for private member\'s bills at a time when the law in england desperately needed to be changed. he had just won his seat at a by-election, and it would have looked absurd for a scottish liberal member to be amending the law of england only. but nobody of any faith objected to the law as it stood at that time in scotland, which enabled the civilised, ethical and sensible work of professor sir dugald baird to be carried on in aberdeen.\n it was because the 1967 act frustrated a sensible and civilised law that i was first moved to set up birth control clinics to try to prevent unintended conception and also to see what could be done for those people who inevitably got themselves into a situation that they never wanted. anyone who says that these people should never have had intercourse in the first place is taking a thoroughly unrealistic, unpleasant and impossible stance.\n i regret this bill for various reasons, first, because it does grave damage to the trust of the medical profession. what is a person in my constituency to do, and what will doctors who normally ask their partners for a second opinion do, when under the bill this will be forbidden? what will happen in a town with only one practice, or in those places where there is only one doctor? even worse, what will happen in a town that has two practices? people will say to parents "i saw your daughter in the surgery of dr. so-and-so, but i thought she was with dr. so-and-so. what was she doing there?"\n the pressures on a pregnant girl are appalling. the bill is thoroughly immoral, irresponsible and unthoughtout, as anyone who has ever had anything to do with these problems would agree. the bill envisages that a policeman should be able to look at files if he applies to a crown court judge. i find this offensive.\n anyone who seeks to amend the law should find out what the present law is. my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) does not know what the law is in scotland, because in scotland we do not have crown courts. it is very dangerous, when people are trying to change the law and are taking a moral stance that they do not know the law that they are trying to change.\n the bill offends many of the principles in which i believe. it will increase bureaucracy and state interference in private lives. it will frustrate the intended medical benefits and make it more diffi- cult for a girl to get an abortion quickly. the bill pretends that it does not want abortions to be carried out at a later stage than they are at present, but it makes it inevitable that abortions will be done later or not at all.\n lastly, i think that there is, dressed up in a pretence of doing right, an attempt to try to make it impossible to terminate unintended conceptions. i cannot believe in all morality that it is wrong to terminate unintended conceptions. a bill that makes it more difficult, more expensive, or impossible to do so will create a major misery.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.121', 790, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. and learned member for kinross and west perthshire (mr. fairbairn) has made one of the most powerful speeches of the debate, if not the most powerful, because he knew what he was talking about. i deeply deplore the terms in which the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) spoke because he has clearly neither done his homework nor based the bill on the evidence in front of him.\n we should all understand that whatever we do in the house women will still obtain abortions. it does not matter one hoot what we do. they have always obtained them in the past. it has been easier for richer women to get abortions than for poorer women. that was the basis of the abortion law reform society, which came into existence precisely because the law as it then stood was a law for the rich. it benefited the rich, and poor women had to go to the back streets to undergo all kinds of bloody surgery at the hands of butchers. the 1967 act was primarily due to pressure from the abortion law reform society. the right hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles, (mr. steel) had the advantage that the government gave time in the house, for without that on his side that bill would never have become an act.\n the 1967 act has been on the statute book for 10 years, but it is premature for the house to say either that it has failed or to claim that the abuses which undoubtedly occurred after the act was passed have not been removed. there are probably still some abuses taking place, primarily in the private sector. we hear a lot from conservative members about the merits of the private sector in cases of all kinds, but on the question of abortion, where life and death are concerned, the medical profesion are making profits out of women's bodies. the hon. member for buckingham seeks to pretend that the bill is out to curb the abuses, but it is doing nothing of the kind.\n there are one or two points which i wish to make, but i promise to make a short speech and i shall try to stick to our agreement. i do not think that sufficient emphasis has been put on the letter sent to the prime minister by 1,200 doctors, which was referred to by my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short). the importance of that letter is incalculable, not only because of the merit of those who signed it but because of its content. this is what is said: women would be more likely to seek abortion illegally, commercially or even abroad if the bill became law.\n that is the view of these most eminent gynaecologists and experts in the matter, writing to the prime minister. they do not put their names lightly to any letter containing such words. they went on to say—i take this from the report in the times —that the bill ignored the main issue and sought merely to increase bureaucratic devices for further restricting access to legal and safe abortion. the implementation of 'this unnecessary bill' would result in the very reverse of what its supposed supporters claimed for it. it would also infringe civil liberties by allowing police access to confidential medical records. i ask the house to note that. leading spokesmen of the tory party, including lord hailsham and the leader of the opposition herself, are going about the country saying that personal liberty is at stake under this government. what about clause 9 of the bill? for the first time in our history, i believe, it infringes one of the most sacred of our individual liberties, the right of confidentiality between patient and personal doctor.\n the police are to have access to medical records, even on suspicion. merely even if they have a suspicion, they must have access to the records. how tory members can put their names to that sort of provision and then go about the country saying that liberty is at stake under this wicked labour government, i do not know. if they wish to adhere to that sort of principle, they had better keep quiet about such things.\n i said earlier that rich women have always been able to get abortions. there are people at the highest levels in our land who have access to abortion clinics and have used them. let no one say, therefore, that this bill is anything but a class measure designed to penalise ordinary working people, and especially women. for that reason, i hope that all my right hon. and hon. friends will understand what they are about and will go into the lobby against it.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.123', 568, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in most cases, the arguments about a bill end when it has completed its passage through parliament and become an act. the abortion act 1967 has been an exception. far from ending, the argument has swelled until all parts of the country have seen protests, meetings, rallies and marches involving not hundreds but thousands and thousands of people. there have been debates on television, and there have been articles in newspapers and magazines.\n the argument goes on, and there is no doubt that it will not stop until parliament passes a bill to amend the 1967 act. indeed, it may not stop even then, for that will depend on the content of the amending act. however, i have no doubt that the pressure outside this place must eventually result in an act amending the one which the house passed in 1967.\n it is not surprising that the argument continues, for we are here dealing with the most basic issue of all—life and death. i strongly repudiate the suggestion that the bill is either a class measure or a measure introduced because we have some feeling that a girl who has an unplanned pregnancy must be forced to go through with it as some sort of punishment. not one of us supports the bill for such reasons. it deals with a matter of life and death. the question is whether one human being has the right to get rid of another simply because that other human being is inconvenient.\n i was not a member of the select committee, but i have read its reports extremely carefully. in support of what i have just said, the committee heard evidence of one case where an abortion was sought for no other reason than that the girl who sought it felt that her wedding dress would be too tight if she was not allowed the abortion. [hon. members: "oh."] that is in the committee\'s report. there was another instance of a mother who wanted her child to start a cookery class and therefore wished her to have an abortion so that she could do so. i myself know of a case where a girl sought an abortion simply because she wanted to play in the local tennis club tournament. [ interruption. ] i am sorry if there are hon. members who do not wish to hear the truth in this matter, and it surprises me that there should be such shrill objection to what is plainly a matter of conscience. i say to the house that it is not sufficient reason to get rid of a child that one simply finds its presence inconvenient.\n in company with the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), who introduced the first amending bill, i do not believe that abortion is wrong in every circumstance. there are some circumstances in which it is permissible. but i do not think it right to seek an abortion because the coming child is inconvenient.\n of course, women have rights. but so do children, even when they are unborn children. we have heard a great deal today about the principle of a woman having a right over her own body. that is fine with me, but she has not a right over anybody else\'s. moreover, she has every right not to have a child. i maintain that if she does not want a child she should adopt contraceptive measures.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.124', 8, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'women do, but the methods are not perfect.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.125', 165, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i recently visited an abortion clinic and spoke to each of the 32 women there. i put the same question to each of them: "what form of contraception were you following when you became pregnant?" i cannot believe that there would be support in the house for what the answer showed, for every one of those 32 women told me that she was not following any contraception measures when she became pregnant! it is impossible to support a state of affairs in which abortion is merely another type of contraception.\n as i have said, women have their rights. they have the right also to be warned of the possible dangers of abortion. it was said earlier in the debate that there is no documented evidence showing that abortion can be harmful. in fact, there is plenty of documented evidence. i have quite a bit of it here. i refer, for example, to the first report of the british perinatal mortality survey, an entirely reputable survey—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.126', 3, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'who wrote it?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.127', 82, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'these are the important words: any patient who has a previous history of an abortion should be regarded as a risk patient and invariably booked for hospital delivery under consultant care. that is clear enough. time and again, it has been proved that there is a strong connection between abortion and subsequent pregnancies producing handicapped children. surely, there can be no more stupid blindness than the blindness which will not recognise the facts and does not even want to inquire into them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.128', 6, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.129', 499, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way. it has been proved also that abortion induces sterility. there are many cases of women who seek an abortion at one stage but wish to have a child at another. they have every right to be told that, if they have an abortion at one stage, it may render them sterile. it certainly increases the incidence of ectopic pregnancy. there is no doubt about that. it has been proved also that a woman is more likely to miscarry if she has had an abortion.\n all these things are on record. a woman facing an abortion operation has the right to be told that it is not necessarily a simple "no account" operation, yet in present circumstances she has no such right. [ interruption. ] hon. members can make as much noise as they like. i will be heard on this matter.\n i have not yet touched on the mental anguish which may result from abortion. but this also can be very real. of course, i do not say that all women who have an abortion will have mental anguish afterwards. obviously, if a pregnant girl is of rather tough fibre and she says that she is not too worried about the abortion, she will not be harmed by it—or, indeed, by having the child. but the sensitive woman or girl for whom producing an illegitimate child is a truly terrifying thing is the very one who will be most harmed in thinking about it afterwards by the knowledge of what she has done to her child. these are facts. the legislation should allow for a woman who is making up her mind about an abortion to be warned about the risks that exist.\n i turn to the third report from the select committee. it recommended that counselling should be adopted, but i do not see anything about counselling in the bill. i do not doubt there is great need for professional counselling. there are several bodies who do this voluntarily and they give hope to girls who want to know the alternatives. there is one particular organisation, lifeline, which has professional, paid counsellors and which exerts no pressure whatsoever. it simply exists to tell the girls, "if you are making up your mind about whether or not you should have an abortion, here is what can be done to help you, here is the possible help with money, accommodation, baby clothes and so on". such professional counsellors are there to help. we care very deeply about a woman who has a pregnancy that she finds inconvenient. this particular organisation, as i well know, is most anxious to help. the service is free. already 150 girls a week go to lifeline either from gps or sometimes because an advertisement has caught their eye, or sometimes they are referred by social or medical social workers or bpas or the brook advisory service. these organisations send the girls because they recognise that help should be available.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.130', 6, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.131', 371, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. i am anxious to conclude my remarks as quickly as i can.\n there ought to be a body or bodies to which girls can go to get such advice from people who have no possible financial advantage in either encouraging them to have an abortion or encouraging them not to. the advice should be there.\n i now want to turn to clause 1 of the bill, particularly the point about the time limit. it is entirely wrong that children—and i speak the word "children" advisedly—who can move and breathe and cry should be disposed of after late abortions.\n a nurse came to me who had originally never had any objection to abortion. her job was to dispose of, to get rid of, indeed, to kill, children who had been aborted. she had done this over a long period of time but it suddenly made her think when she had in the premature baby unit of her hospital a six-month gestation baby. she, with the other nurses, was working and helping and trying to bring on the child. anyone who has spoken to a nurse caring for a premature baby would know that the love for that child is clear in her face. her job is in trying to save that child. this nurse told me that the child involved, a little boy called paul, would pull through. at the same time as he was in the incubator she had to deal with an aborted child of six-months\' gestation period who looked very much like the child she was trying to save.\n she came to me and asked "how can i do everything in my professional competence to save one child at the same time as i am destroying another, for no better reason than that the mother of one child does not want it and that the mother of the other one does?" she could not bring herself to continue in nursing in those circumstances, and who could blame her?\n it is all very well for the secretary of state to say we need not worry, that only 1 per cent. of babies are late abortions. he did say that. it is in his letter and it has been quoted.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.132', 17, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is no close season on lies in the house. my hon. friend did not say that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.133', 1, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.134', 73, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the suggestion is certainly implicit that it is only 1 per cent. and that parliament ought not to concern itself about that. but 1 per cent. is a thousand babies a year. good god, if we had 1,000 babies drowned. burned or anything else the whole country would be up in arms. it is not good enough to say that because only a small proportion of children are involved that does not matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.135', 14, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'it was 1 per cent. between the ages of 20 weeks and 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.136', 17, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in that case, i take it that there are even more before 24 weeks and 28 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.137', 17, 'uk.m.18528', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'what i said is that one-fifth of 1 per cent. of abortions take place after 24 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.138', 424, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i take the minister\'s point but however many it is, 1 per cent. or ½ per cent. or whatever, we are talking about 1,000 babies. i am shocked to think that there may be some hon. members of the house who do not care about what happens to 1,000 babies. i do. it is significant that the intention of the bill to save these babies is entirely without support in some parts of the house.\n my final point deals with clause 5. in committee i tried to move an amendment on the conscience clause because i was worried about it, as i well might have been. what worries me more than a little—with the greatest respect for my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon)—is that the new conscience clause does not precisely get over my concern about what is happening.\n what the conscience clause in the original bill says is: no person shall be under any duty to participate in any treatment authorised by this act to which he has a conscientious objection. it is right to draw the attention of the house to the fact that that does not stop authorities from failing to appoint doctors who have conscientious objections. i turn briefly to the first report from the select committee. the evidence there was absolutely overwhelming that people had been denied jobs in gynaecology because of their consciences. the report contains a letter from a doctor who says: i am a catholic, aged 33, and a medical practitioner with five years post-graduate training in obstetrics and gynaecology, and a member of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists. recently, i have applied for registrar appointments at three university teaching hospitals and have been unsuccess ful. at each interview i have been asked my views on the abortion law and have stated my conscientious objection to abortion on demand. at my last appearance before an appointments board i was directly asked if my coscientious objection was due to religious conviction. after the interview was over i was recalled by a member of the committee, himself a catholic and told that although i was the most senior and well qualified of the group shortlisted i was told that i was not given the job as i was a catholic. it was considered that to give me the job would be doing me a long term disservice and i was directly told that \'there is now no place for a catholic obstetrician or gynaecologist in the united kingdom\'". that is a terrifying thing.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.139', 3, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'who said it?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.140', 412, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'hon. members must read the select committee report on 29th march 1976. if hon. members are too lazy to read up on what has been said before the debate i am sorry for them. i was not. the doctor goes on: i have personal knowledge of at least six similar cases in which highly trained and well qualified doctors have been forced to leave the united kingdom because they are catholics.… i am extremely angry and frustrated …i fully understand and respect those who believe the abortion law to be right but i have always thought, perhaps naïvely, that britain respected all shades of opinion. there is another letter which is from a shropshire doctor about a practising obstetrician and a non-catholic telling him: it is impossible for a catholic to become a gynaecologist in the nhs at present. that is truly alarming.\n there have been other instances. a doctor from dublin who applied for an nhs post in oxford was not even short listed, although he was an outstanding candidate, a gold-medallist. it turned out that there were on the appointing board two people who would in no circumstances appoint a doctor who would not do abortions. in fact, that doctor was not a catholic, but there was a down on him from the outset because he came from dublin. he was not asked whether he was a catholic, but because he came from dublin he was not to be given the job. he was not a catholic.\n anyone who reads the select committee report will see that nurses have similarly been in great difficulty. one witness was directly asked by the chairman whether there was a danger that men and women of the highest calibre, possessed of the best possible instincts, desirous of entering the healing profession in order to save life, may be deterred from practising gynaecology or obstetrics in these conditions? is there a danger of that? the answer was: i am sure this is the case. that is a terrible thing to have to read. if people from kampala, new york or elsewhere were denied jobs because of their place of origin, there would be an outcry, just as there would be an outcry if others were denied jobs because of their convictions. but in this one respect it is supposed to be all right.\n i trust that the bill will be passed. i offer my hon. friend the member for buckingham best wishes for its success.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.141', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.142', 22, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i have the difficult problem that 22 hon. members still want to catch my eye, and the debate ends at four o'clock.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.144', 545, 'uk.m.22137', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i begin by congratulating my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) on being lucky enough to secure a high place in the ballot. i also congratulate him on the cool and dispassionate way in which he covered a topic which arouses strong emotions and feelings from both points of view.\n but my congratulations must end there, because i find myself in very nearly fundamental disagreement with the purpose of the bill and the way in which it is framed. i was not a member of the select committee, nor was i a member of the house when the earlier debates took place. therefore, my contribution is more concerned with the practical implications of the legislation in the country at large and in the west midlands in particular.\n we have heard today that the bill will restrict the availability of abortions on three grounds; first, by changing the wording of the provision on eligibility for abortion; secondly, by shortening the period during which abortions may take place; thirdly, by restricting the terms concerning the approvals required from doctors before an abortion can legally be performed.\n no doubt the sponsors had worthy and worthwhile motives for introducing the bill. certainly, there have been unattractive features of abortion in this country since 1967–the touting for custom at heathrow airport, the standards of medical care in certain clinics, the need for an effective conscience clause for doctors and nurses, and above all, the need for pregnant women to receive unbiased and even-handed counselling. but most of those reasons are either of historic interest, because they have already been tackled, or they are being tackled. the minister of state referred to at least two.\n it seems to me that supporters of the bill have forgotten the extreme difficulty with which women obtain abortions in the national health service in some parts of the country, even under the present legislation. my hon. friend the member for dorking (sir g. sinclair) referred to this. the birmingham area, for part of which i have the honour to sit, is notorious in this respect. with only 13 per cent. of total abortions in the nhs, birmingham has one of the lowest proportions of any area in the country. i wonder why.\n my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) referred to the moral suasion for people to participate in abortion activities. i have no doubt that in the birmingham area the reverse is true. there are a few senior gynaecologists there, led, i regret to say, by the professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at one of the leading teaching hospitals in the area, who are strongly opposed to abortion on any grounds.\n their leader is on record as saying that if a woman is going to have a complicated, difficult pregnancy, he will make a bed available for nine months. it is not for me to quarrel with the good professor's medical views, but his nine months are only the first part of childbearing. there is the birth, and the difficulty of child-rearing. for the first 16 to 20 years of the child's life the mother has to keep the child, often in inadequate housing and financial conditions. the good professor has entirely failed to see the major problem.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.145', 75, 'uk.m.16836', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am concerned about this point, coming as i do from the same part of the west midlands. is there any practice by which those doctors who will not participate in any part of the abortion procedure on moral or religious grounds preface their advice to women by saying that they give their advice from that moral standpoint, and advise the women that they may go elsewhere to obtain advice from a different moral standpoint?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.146', 541, 'uk.m.22137', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i thank my hon. friend for his intervention, but i am rather twixt the devil and the deep blue sea. the chair wants me to hurry and my hon. friend is asking me to explain something. certainly, there is a code of practice, but my point is that young doctors participating in abortion activities find that their careers are being blighted. one of them said that it was not a good thing in the birmingham area to be seen to be in favour of abortions, because the word goes round and a career is damaged. that is a great shame.\n i have already mentioned the low proportion of abortions on the nhs in the birmingham area, but birmingham is by no means the worst area. other areas have the following figures: sandwell, 12·4 per cent.; walsall, 11·6 per cent.; wolverhampton, 9·2 per cent.; dudley, 7·5 per cent. i have talked to many doctors in the metropolitan borough of walsall before today's debate, and they say that there is no point in sending a pregnant woman to an nhs hospital for an abortion unless she fulfils one of two criteria. one is that she is under 16 and the other is that she suffers from a chronic illness, such as heart disease or tuberculosis.\n therefore, she must go to the birmingham pregnancy advisory service, which costs £60. for many women in my constituency that is a great deal of money to find, especially in the short period during which an abortion can be performed. it is true that the bpas has done a great deal to provide finance for women who have difficulty raising the money required. if the activities of the bpas are restricted and smothered by new legislation and restrictions, many women in the west midlands area will be unable to obtain the abortions they earnestly require.\n i turn now to the question of post-abortion mental disturbance, which has been very much stressed by the proponents of the bill. in the current issue of the british medical journal there is an article about the incidence of post-abortion psychosis. the study covered 21 consultant psychiatrists in the west midlands and 1⅓ million people and lasted for 15 months. the incidence of post-abortion psychosis was 0·3 per 1,000 legal abortions. the incidence of puerperal psychosis, which, i understand, is postnatal depression, was 1·7 per 1,000 deliveries. in other words, nearly six times as many women suffer from postnatal depression as suffer from depression after abortion. that was a thorough study which i shall not go into in detail. it covered many people and many psychiatrists.\n therefore, the two main premises advanced for the bill are not founded in the west midlands. it is not easy for women to obtain abortions, and the view that women suffer psychologically from abortion is disproved by the fact that women suffer more from childbirth than they do from legalised abortion.\n i conclude by referring to two matters which have been mentioned by other speakers. the first is the question of freedom of choice. the woman's position is absolutely critical. she suffers the strain of childbirth and takes prime responsibility for rearing the child. therefore, her rights and requirements must be taken into account in framing legislation.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.147', 3, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what about contraception?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.148', 195, 'uk.m.22137', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am dealing with women who are pregnant. why they are pregnant does not concern me. there is no point in saying that it is a pity that they became pregnant. they are pregnant, and we must deal with that fact. it is no good saying that we wish they were not pregnant. they are pregnant, and they will go on getting pregnant.\n i wish to quote from a letter that i received from the walsall area health authority in reply to my request concerning the waiting list for abortions. the letter states: there is of course no real waiting list for abortions. these have to be carried out as early as possible in pregnancy and if the abortion is not immediately available in the walsall area some of these patients will go to wherever the service is available, if they can make the necessary arrangements and find finances, or just have the unwanted baby. if women have to traipse the country or go to europe for abortions, or bring into the world an unwanted, unloved, uncared for child, that is a sad reflection on us. that is why i shall vote against the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.150', 917, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for walsall, north (mr. hodgson), in an excellent speech said that it was sad that some women, unable to obtain termination of a pregnancy because of the area in which they lived, should have an unwanted baby. i absolutely agree with him. but it is desperately sad that it should be necessary to have this debate at all. perhaps the most saddening feature of my three years as a member of the house is that we have had to have three unwanted debates on abortion—unwanted because any abuses have been or are being cleared up by the department, and the abuses which still exist concern the lack of facilities and geographical spread of those facilities in the national health service.\n it is terrifying that we should be considering a bill which does nothing but restrict the right of women to an abortion under the abortion act 1967 and at a time when more than 30 other countries are relaxing their abortion laws, going much further than we are even considering going, with the exception of one or two countries in eastern europe which are taking retrograde steps. i should have thought that the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) would have felt a little uneasy about welcoming that sort of action by countries which the opposition normally call illiberal. i would deplore any further illiberality, not only in other respects, but in respect of abortion.\n i shall take only a few minutes because so many other hon. members wish to speak. in this debate and the discussion that preceded it in the country it has been alleged by those who support the bill that many women get pregnant and have abortions for frivolous reasons. i beg the house to believe that this is not so. i am sure that no woman would deliberately get pregnant on the basis that she could get an abortion quickly.\n we have heard the tales of the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) who, unfortunately, is no longer here, and the frivolous stories that she said she has heard. i believe that they are frivolous. if the hon. lady is to be believed and there is a young woman who wants an abortion simply so that she can continue to play tennis, she will no doubt come from a class or area where she can get that abortion, whether it is immediately available or not. the people whom we are seeking to protect are those who need early, safe and legal abortions, as far as possible under the nhs.\n i am deeply saddened that the bill has been brought forward at all. it is a forbidding bill in the most literal sense of the word and is littered with words such as "punishment", "offence", "guilt", "refuse", "fines" and "convictions". the word "fines" is mentioned 20 times in the eight pages of the 13-clause bill. it is a forbidding bill and that is how those of us who want to protect the 1967 act see it.\n the clause which requires a woman to obtain the consent of two doctors from different practices will be most restrictive for many women. london, birmingham and the great conurbations have been mentioned, but imagine a woman living in a village where there may be only one doctor or a small group practice. if she does not have a sympathetic gp, she will have to go to a second doctor and suffer all the embarrassment and emotional upheaval of explaining again—and this time to a stranger—what has happened and what she wants. the woman will also face the possibility of her family finding out, if they do not know, and her friends knowing what has happened. the clause can do nothing but deter women from seeking abortions when they are needed.\n the other particularly dangerous provision is in clause 9. it is incredible that this house, the so-called bastion of democracy, should be even thinking of giving power to the police to investigate records, take away doctors\' files and break that confidential link which has always existed between doctor and patient and which we should jealously preserve. it is monstrous, not only because women and doctors are involved but from the point of view of civil liberties.\n when we hear in this country and in others about police interference, we are up in arms about it, but we are now actually considering introducing some kind of law whereby the police may go into clinics and national health service hospitals. the bill is unclear on that point, because it contains so many negatives and double negatives. if the bill is enacted with this clause the whole tradition of confidentiality between doctor and patient will come to nought. i appeal to the house to throw out the bill. it is ill-considered and ill-drawn. it is a bad bill.\n i appeal especially to my hon. friends to remember that a large number of bodies within the labour movement are on record as wishing to preserve the 1967 act. the trade union congress, the annual conference of the labour party, the annual conference of labour women, the national women\'s advisory committee and a large number of individual unions have expressed that wish. the labour movement will be bitterly disappointed if we vote to support a bill of this kind which seeks to take away from women the rights that they have now had for 10 years and which the supporters of the 1967 act wish to see preserved.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.152', 368, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have followed the debate with care. although i am speaking from the opposition front bench, i give no party line. the issue is a house of commons matter and i speak only for myself.\n it is clear from the debate that the house is still deeply divided on this issue, but today we are not discussing the merits of legal abortion. we decided in favour of legal abortion by passing the 1967 act. it is important to bear that in mind. today we are discussing a bill which is aimed at tightening up the abuses which some people believe to exist under the abortion act. i confess to the house, perhaps because of my background as a doctor, that i am always conscious that, however legally justified and however much we may wrap it up in words, we are, of course, discussing the taking of human life.\n i vividly recall an eminent gynaecologist saying to me "it is all very well for you to fill in the forms"—and i have had to fill in abortion forms in my time—"but i actually have to do the job." in shaw\'s "st. joan" the prosecutor said how much easier it was to sign a form for execution if one was not the person who had to do the execution itself. but that is not the main point of today\'s debate.\n there is no doubt that there are still very serious abuses of the act, that there is far too much commercial gain and far too much exploitation of women for private motivation at a time of great anxiety. that is totally wrong. i suggest that there is widespread and genuine disquiet about that in the country. i have had a larger post on this one issue than on any other issue that i can think of in recent years. i am sure that we all want to see these abuses stopped.\n the crucial question is whether the bill could substantially reduce those abuses, without—and this is most important—harming the main intentions of the abortion act by making legal abortion more difficult and pushing abortion back into the back streets again. that is the question and the great dilemma before us.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.153', 70, 'uk.m.18135', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman is not opposed to abortion, is he saying that he is opposed to profit-making? it seems that he is putting a very strange interpretation on this relationship, so perhaps he would make it a little clearer to the house. is he not opposed to abortion, or is it profit-making to which he is opposed? if it is the latter, he is a very strange tory, indeed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.154', 251, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has come very late into the debate. obviously, he has not heard the earlier speeches from both sides of the house. it is the abuses about which we are worried.\n i make my own position quite clear. i believe that the bill could reduce the abuses. the government have been very seriously at fault in not letting us debate this issue before now. they gave a very firm undertaking at the time of the select committee report that we should be given an opportunity to debate it fully. we have been given no such opportunity. the government cannot now complain, as the minister seemed to imply earlier, if a bill is brought forward about which they are unhappy. it was quite wrong for the government, right at the last minute, before the bill came to us today, suddenly to say they will pop in regulations which they assure us will do the job of the bill, and regulations about licensing—which most of us want to see—and the advisory bureaux, which they say will do the job for us. that was quite wrong.\n i was very disappointed when the minister was unable to tell us of any real steps to ensure proper and equal distribution of provision right acoss the country. also, i am very dubious about the quality of the counselling that is now being given. in my experience, for many girls there is no proper counselling, either before an abortion or afterwards. that is very serious indeed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.155', 99, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i appreciate the hon. gentleman's concern and the way in which he is trying to make a balance. i first declare an interest. i am a family planning consultant. i assure the hon. gentleman that very adequate and good counselling is given in every respect in this very emotional and emotive field. however, does the hon. gentleman accept that if the bill, were it to be enacted, did not restrict the availability of abortion, the sponsors would not have introduced it? the object of the bill is to restrict abortion, and the sponsors would not have introduced it otherwise.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.156', 89, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the hon. gentleman for that intervention. as i saw it, the object of the bill was to stop the abuses. that is what i think the house would want to look at. if the bill will not stop the abuses, we should not give it a second reading. but if it will stop the abuses, we should give it a second reading. one way of looking at the matter and the implications of the bill would be to allow it to go into standing committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.157', 5, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a dishonest bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.158', 83, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house would be very unwise not to give the bill a second reading. however, i must be absolutely clear that personally i would not be prepared to vote for the bill as it stands on third reading. some very major changes would have to be made before i would vote for the third reading.\n in view of the time and as many hon. members wish to speak, i shall not go into all the detail of where the bill may be faulty.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.159', 5, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is an each-way bet.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.160', 105, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "however, i am worried about the 20 weeks' provision. looking across the european scene, i find it rather strange that every country that has an abortion law—apart from west germany, where it is 22 weeks—has elected to go for 12 weeks, with very strict regulations after that. this is a subject that i would want to look into in committee.\n i think we should pay much more attention—i referred to this in an earlier intervention —to the after effects of abortion. there are some very disquieting figures for miscarriages and deformities of children in subsequent pregnancies. this is something which the committee could look at.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.161', 11, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'how old are the women and how many pregnancies are involved?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.162', 176, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am also uneasy about the limit of 24 weeks, because by the time the investigation can be done to show a deformed foetus, we shall be running close to the 24 weeks. this is a matter which can be looked at and discussed in committee. it was not recommended by the select committee.\n i do not think that the minister gave us a satisfactory answer when i asked him whether he really felt that administrative changes or regulations would be as effective as legislation. this, again, is something we would want to look into.\n i feel uneasy about clause 9 which many of us have discussed today. i understand why the british medical association has taken the view that it has, but i would suggest to the house that it does not have quite the same perception of the whole problem as we have here. in this respect i think that the bma is mistaken and wrong. on balance i feel that we should have a full and proper examination of this subject in committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.163', 1, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'again?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.164', 27, 'uk.m.19401', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that we should have a proper debate on this subject and i believe that the house would be most unwise to reject the bill today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.166', 24, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'without wishing to indulge in the technicalities of the debate, i must congratulate the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) who introduced this bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.167', 51, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. with respect to my hon. friend, whose interest in the bill is known throughout the house, i have not seen him in the chamber very much today, although many of my hon. friends have been in the chamber for a very long time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.168', 6, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'he has been here all day.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.169', 12, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the selection of speakers is entirely within the discretion of the chair.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.170', 27, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. may i ask you to give some indication how the chair is selecting the speakers in this debate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.171', 36, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'this is not a matter which is normally dealt with at all, but i can assure the house that the hon. member for leeds, south-east (mr. cohen) has been here a great deal during the day.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.172', 254, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am obliged to you, mr. deputy speaker. i shall not reply to my hon. friend's comments because i have been here throughout the debate or, at least, for most of it.\n i am concerned not about technicalities but about the situation which i think most of us as members face. most of us have received a degree of correspondence, referred to in previous speeches, which is in excess of that we normally expect to receive on any issue or subject. we have to take account of that fact and i accept that we have to take our consciences into account. i hope that those who are strongly opposed to the bill will also accept my right to be very much in favour of it. i hope that they will consider this.\n i read recently in a weekly paper published in this country—i shall not mention its name—how 2,000 people attended a national rally in support of the abortion act as it stands and in opposition to this bill. this should be borne in mind. i spoke at a rally in bradford which not 1,000 but 41,000 people attended to express their opposi- tion to the present legislation as it stands. that was one of five rallies held simultaneously. one does not need to be a mathematical genius to calculate that five such rallies would represent about 200,000 people who are opposed to the present legislation. therefore, the ratio is 100 to 1 against the 2,000 who attended a rally in support of it.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.173', 52, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if my hon. friend is trying to draw conclusions from that, will he say how it is that those figures are not translated into national opinion polls, which continue to show that 70 per cent. of the people and almost 70 per cent. of doctors are in favour of the present act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.174', 58, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend as a politician should realise how unreliable in many respects national opinion polls are—[ interruption. ] hon. members can shout at me if they wish. they have made their speeches and i hope that they will do me the courtesy of listening to what i have to say, as i listened to what they said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.175', 15, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend has not been here all that time. i know he has not.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.176', 283, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i also hope that people will take into account the views that have been expressed. i may not agree with the bill in totality because it does not go as far as i would like it to go, but at least most people who have spoken in opposition to the bill have said that they regard the existing legislation as inadequate and subject to abuse. if we are to try to deal with the abuses, we must at least have the opportunity of considering these matters in detail in standing committee, where it may well be that the bill will be amended so that some of the abuses can be dealt with.\n for example, most people would accept that the present provision that an abortion can be carried out provided that the pregnancy has lasted for less than 28 weeks allows too long a pregnancy. there are also the commercial abuses which we should seek to deal with. if we reject or delay this bill as we delayed the bill introduced by my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), and if we allow the situation to continue and decide to accept the present legislation without change, it will be totally wrong. even though the bill may emerge from a standing committee in a totally different form, i hope that we shall at least make the changes that most of us regard as important.\n for that reason, if for no other reason, i hope that the house as a whole will support the bill and enable it to go to standing committee. the leader of the liberal party would be the first to admit that the present legislation has its shortcomings.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.177', 57, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when my hon. friend was not in the chamber, my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) read out a list of every major medical organisation in the country which agrees with the present legislation and is against the bill. will my hon. friend please take that into account when he plays the numbers game?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.178', 292, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not playing the numbers game. i will not join my hon. friend in playing it or even in referring to it. members of cohse and of other unions involved in nursing and other branches of medical care in my area are concerned about the present legislation and would like to see changes made along the lines that the bill suggests.\n there is a strong inference that the only people concerned about abortion are roman catholics. although i am a catholic i am able to say that the inference is not true. i have today received a letter from the anglican bishop of truro who is chairman of the church of england board of social responsibility. several people on that organisation expressed support for the bill. it is not only catholics who support it. the amending bill was moved originally by my hon. fiend the member for glasgow, pollok, and he is not a catholic, and it was supported by my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), who is not a catholic. another amending bill was introduced by the hon. member for surrey, north-west (mr. grylls), who is not a catholic. that dispels any suggestion that the only people who are concerned about abortion are catholics.\n those who are concerned about abortion are concerned about life. a number of people who will support abortion at the same time oppose capital punishment. we are concerned about life, and life is important whether it is at the end or at the beginning. if we can introduce any amendment to the existing legislation that permits us to consider the very important question of life, i shall support it and i hope that hon. members on both sides will do so as well.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.180', 390, 'uk.m.21736', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am happy to follow the hon. member for leeds, south-east (mr. cohen) in supporting the bill. we have all received a welter of statements about the bill and many of us have been listening to speeches on it for the past 4½ hours. but to the best of my knowledge it was not until my hon. friend the member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) spoke, followed by my hon. friend the member for reading (dr. vaughan) and the hon. member for leeds, south-east, that anyone mentioned moral matters as opposed to purely practical considerations.\n to the vast majority of christians and jews in this country abortion equals the taking of an innocent life, and taking an innocent life is murder. this should be spelled out clearly. to follow that analogy there are such things as self-defence, when the mother\'s condition is such that she cannot have the baby without risk to her own life, manslaughter, when the foetus is likely to be deformed, and even diminished responsibility. however, i refuse to believe that these reasons cover 1 million abortions over the last 10 years, 90 per cent. of which have been for so-called psychological reasons. i do not wish to impugn the motives of the opponents of the bill, but i will quote from the february 1977 publication of "christian order"; when professor jerome lejeune was being cross-examined by the royal commission he said, amongst other things, that, while attending a paris press conference where catholics, protestants, humanists and people of other beliefs put forward their views; "all of them said what they wanted to say (about abortion) and there was one woman who was a chief of the campaign in france … she said bluntly, \'we are fighting to destroy judaeo-christian society and civilization. to destroy it we have to destroy the family, we have to destroy its weakest point, and the weakest point of a family is the unborn child. hence we are for abortion\'." i wish—[hon. members: "come off it."] i do not care whether hon. members opposite like it or not. that is something that was said to the royal commission and it is something that affects a lot of people.\n it has been cogently argued by hon. ladies opposite that women should be masters of their own fates and captains of their own bodies—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.181', 1, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'mistresses.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.182', 31, 'uk.m.21736', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'mistresses then. but i put it to the house that if that had always been accepted as legal doctrine it is doubtful whether any of us would be sitting here today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.183', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.184', 4, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i call mr. abse.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.186', 11, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have had a debate in which, as one would expect—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.187', 58, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. we have been urged to limit our speeches to five minutes. is the next speech to be regarded as the winding-up speech, or will there be an opportunity for any of the other 19 members who still have not contributed to this debate to have an opportunity to do so?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.188', 9, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.189', 69, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i can deal with only one point of order at a time. the hon. member for liverpool, west derby (mr. ogden) is well aware that i have no control over the amount of time taken by any speaker. i have already indicated that i face great problems in this debate. i have asked for assistance. in some cases i have received it and in others i have not.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.190', 45, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. we have heard three contributions, one after the other, advancing the same view. it seems reasonable that we should hear one contribution from this side of the house with a different view from those three speakers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.191', 44, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'perhaps the hon. gentleman noted the fact that i called two members from the opposition benches, one for the bill and one against it. that was why i was not able to satisfy the request that was made to me earlier in the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.192', 43, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. you sought to guide hon. members into making speeches of five minutes, and i appreciate your difficulties. i am asking whether it is fair in those circumstances to allocate 25 minutes to another speaker.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.193', 16, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i assure the hon. gentleman that i have allocated nothing. i have merely called mr. abse.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.194', 62, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. some of us have been in the chamber almost continuously since 11 o'clock this morning in the hope of speaking in this debate. will you please encourage hon. members to keep their speeches as brief as possible so as to allow other hon. members who have waited a long time to make their contributions?\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.195', 22, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am sure that the hon. lady half an hour ago heard me say that 22 hon. members still wished to speak.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.196', 692, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have been waiting 10 years for this bill. although it would be desirable to hear as many contributors as possible, we must appreciate that the house of commons moves within a certain framework.\n i am not surprised that there is such a clamour to speak on this bill, which necessarily has aroused, as do all measures on the subject of abortion, a great deal of emotion, since it deals with matters of life and death. i am not surprised, as one is seeking to reconcile the predicament of the woman who is in grave trouble and under great pressure with the wish to preserve the sanctity of life. in endeavouring to resolve such conflicts, inevitably there are bound to be a variety of opinions as to how the conclusion can be reached.\n i am grateful to my hon. friend the member for reading, south (dr. vaughan) for bringing the house back to the details of the bill. it is clear that if, on the one hand, we insist that we wish to have abortion on request and, on the other hand, seek to have the abortion only if the mother\'s life is in danger, we see a total confrontation between the two sections of opinion. we live in a plural society in which we must take account of both views, but we have to seek legislation—which means that we must reach a consensus as best we can on a matter in which nobody can be fully satisfied.\n it is important that we look at this bill to see whether we can assauge that large section of public opinion that is clearly fiercely opposed to the way the existing act is operating without trespassing upon the fundamental principles within the 1967 act. i would rather look at the bill and see how it attempts to meet that need, and to reach that possible consensus.\n the first clause is the test clause, because it says explicitly that late abortions, as late as 20 weeks, should not take place. is anyone prepared to say that he finds it satisfactory that each year 1,000 unborn children who are capable of living outside the womb—i do not like to use the word "viable"—are slain?\n a session or so ago a bill of which i was a co-sponsor took the necessary action to ensure that an unborn child which received injuries as a consequence of the negligence of someone was protected. the house was ready to mobilise itself to deal with the problem of thalidomide children, of children who suffered within the womb. yet it can be extraordinarily complacent when those selfsame children are to be killed. that is not a tenable position. it is not good in moral terms and it is not good for the women concerned.\n the select committee had abundant evidence telling it of the seriousness of these late abortions. we had abundant evidence from sir john peel, president of the royal college, all of it stressing that there should be a limitation upon the late abortion. there is no civilised country in the world that permits an abortion to take place at 28 weeks. if we are trying to still the abortion controversy and to meet the demands of those who empathise with the unborn child, it is sheer folly to be so inflammatory as to say that the figure is only 1 per cent., as the minister did. it represents 1,000 children.\n the clause attempts to deal with the position revealed by the evidence which the select committee took, which made it clear that there was a need for some elasticity to deal with those cases where, until the pregnancy had lasted for 22 weeks or so, it might not be possible accurately to diagnose whether the child had suffered a deformity or disability.\n i say to hon. members whose opinions i respect and who try to say this is a class matter that the children who are being killed belong to every class. they are not exclusive to the wealthy or the poor. for me a child is a child whether he is born in a palace or a manger.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.197', 71, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when we say that it is a class matter we are referring to two things. first, it is working-class women who will find it far more difficult to get abortions and who will suffer most if this bill becomes law. secondly, if the same working-class women are forced into having back street abortions, it is those future working-class children who will still suffer the consequences of that kind of back-street butchery.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.198', 40, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not encouraged to give way when the interventions deal with basic matters of opinion on different sides of the argument, when we are trying to focus attention on the way to end the existing tension within our society.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.199', 4, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. mcdonald rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.200', 88, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way to the hon. lady. the question that must be answered and that cannot be avoided is whether hon. members who believe in abortion on request—never mind the 1967 act—believe that we should continue to have these late abortions and that 1,000 children a year should be slain. this cannot be dealt with by administrative action. it requires a change in the law. the only way to do it is to have something similar to the provision of the main clause of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.201', 8, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. helene hayman (welwyn and hatfield) rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.202', 19, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way again. it has been a long debate and i have some ground to cover.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.203', 4, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. hayman rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.204', 27, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend the member for welwyn and hatfield (mrs. hayman) was on the committee but she forfeited her opportunity—[ interruption ]—to continue on it by resigning.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.205', 14, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the house is doing itself no credit by the disorder that is going on.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.206', 405, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on clause 2 we should consider whether the doctors authorising an abortion should have been registered for five years or more. to repeat my question, do those who believe in abortion on request believe that it should be a considered decision? do they believe that the decision should be taken in a cavalier way, or should thought be given to the matter from the very beginning?\n in the 1967 act this decision, affecting life or death, was believed by the house to be one that should be adjudicated upon not by one doctor but by two. now, faced as we are—and as the select committee has been—with the representations that came from the royal college of gynaecologists and the royal college of pathologists proposing that one of the doctors certifying the abortion should have been registered for not less than five years, should we, as laymen, refuse to accept the views of those who have to take these fateful decisions, whose organisations have importuned us in this way?\n it astonishes me that some hon. members do not agree that if there is a genuine desire to assist women in difficulty at least she should have the benefit of proper advice. this advice should be given by more mature doctors. the bma stated that it did not want newly qualified doctors to be taking these decisions. if that was its opinion, why should the house or anyone else resist that view when the clear intention was to help women, not hinder them?\n i do not understand the views of those of my hon. friends who, above everybody else, should be concerned to ensure that a profit should not be made from abortion if at all possible. i do not understand why they object to a clause stating that the two doctors authorising an abortion should not be in private practice together or share any financial interest in the private nursing home or agency concerned.\n is it not desirable that we establish a state of affairs in which, if a judgment has to be made on an abortion, that judgment is reached for genuine and not for mercenary reasons. should not the house do everything it can to exclude from what should be an objective judg- ment the possibility of its being clouded by the idea of profit or gain? what possible objection can there be to a clause designed and seriously intended to meet that need?\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.207', 101, 'uk.m.10132', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i appreciate your difficulty in that, once an hon. member is on his or her feet, you have no control over the length of the speech, but do you not feel that it would help if you were to remind my hon. friend who is now on his feet that many of us who have been sitting here for most of the day, who have not taken part in any of the debates on the matter and who may have changed our minds, should have three or four minutes' opportunity before 4 o'clock?\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.208', 26, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i think that the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) has been long enough in the house for him to be aware of all those considerations.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.209', 38, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'let me now go—[hon members: "too long."]hon. members know that i am winding up the debate, and they ought to accept the situation with the same respect as i showed to others, many of whom spoke at length.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.210', 9, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'who says that my hon. friend is winding up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.211', 112, 'uk.m.22042', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. when my hon. friend the member for leeds, south-east (mr. cohen) sat down and my hon. friend now on his feet rose to speak, you were asked whether you accepted that this was the winding-up speech. you said that you were not responsible for the length of speeches, and, in fact, you denied knowledge that it was a winding-up speech. i wonder by what right my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) decides that he has the right to wind up when there are so many of us on this side still waiting to speak, having waited since 11 o'clock this morning.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.212', 19, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. lady is in exactly the same situation as i am. i am not aware of the position.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.213', 179, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i do not understand—or perhaps i do—why hon. members seem so concerned to see that i am not permitted to make a 20-minute speech. [ interruption. ] let me go now to clause 3. i put the question to those hon. members who purport to be concerned about women.\n clause 3 has as its object that doctors who carry out abortions should notify a woman's general practitioner of an abortion if he is not already involved, provided—and provided only—that consent has been obtained. in the light of all that has been rightly said about the sequelae which can follow an abortion, ranging from physical sequelae but to depression and much else, what possible objection can there be to an attempt to ensure that there shall be the follow-up and after-care which the hon. member for reading, south and others emphasised as necessary?\n i am endeavouring to focus the attention of the house upon the bill, not upon requests for abortion on demand or demands that there shall be restrictions, but upon the bill and the benefits which could accrue.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.214', 5, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'another red herring, as usual.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.215', 343, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'since time is pressing, let me turn now to the conscience clause. are not all those concerned with civil liberty troubled that the existing law is causing difficulties and that in legal proceedings an onus of proof can be put upon those who claim to have conscientious objection? is it satisfactory at present that the conscience clause should be restricted only to those who claim to have religious objections? is it not possible that there are doctors who are secular in their approach, as i am, but who nevertheless in many cases, if not always,have profound objection to participating in an operation?\n what is the objective here? we are trying genuinely to create a new balance within our abortion law so that those who have deep ethical, religious or other repugnance to the law as it stands at present cannot claim, as they now are claiming, that their opinion is totally unheard.\n i want to refer to another important clause, clause 6. i am surprised that the secretary of state should have pleaded in his letters—on the basis that he has recently announced an indirect system of control, which was one of the early select committee recommendations—that legislation is not necessary. it was his own department that stressed repeatedly under questioning before the select committee that: the main gap in our powers which was identified by the lane committee is in relation to pregnancy advisory bureaux and the referral agencies". that is the area in which the department said that it would welcome legislation.\n what has caused my right hon. friend to change his mind? i know his personal view. i know that he opposed the reappointment of the select committee. naturally, he is entitled to his personal view, but it was disgraceful to overrule and override the evidence of his own department and try—without any courtesy to the chairman of the select committee—to pre-empt this debate by writing to the leader of the liberal party in defiance of what his own department had said was an absolute necessity. that is almost unforgivable.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.216', 47, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Secretary of State for Social Services', 'government', "i hope that my hon. friend accepts that it is the secretary of state who determines the department's policy and that in my statement i indicated the action that had already been taken by my department and that, i should have thought, would satisfy the select committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.217', 22, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "my right hon. friend's department made it clear that it was not satisfactory. of course, i accept that the secretary of state—\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.218', 57, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. as one who has sat here silently all day, may i bring to your attention a serious matter and ask for your guidance? there is a clause—clause 10—that has not yet been discussed at all and that, i believe, can have the effect, whether intended or not, of changing—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.219', 8, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. that is not a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.220', 3, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is clear—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.221', 4, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. wise rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.222', 11, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '—that an attempt is being made by spurious points of order—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.223', 4, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mrs. wise rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.224', 45, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. unless the house is a little calmer, i shall not even be able to hear what the hon. lady is saying. i am not sure whether the hon. lady is on a point of order or is going on with the non-point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.225', 23, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it not a genuine point of order, mr. deputy speaker, that an item in the bill may change the definition of abortion—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.226', 15, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it is not possible for the chair to arrange what is discussed on second reading.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.227', 16, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' mr. benyon rose in his place, and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.228', 3, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the question is—\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.229', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.230', 27, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. it is within your knowledge that a few minutes ago—[ interruption. ] i have the floor. [ interruption. ]\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.231', 20, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. it is impossible for any business to be done if i cannot hear what the hon. gentleman is saying.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.232', 25, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think, mr. deputy speaker, that you gave me the floor. let the house listen to the advice of the chair as well as others.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.234', 1, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.236', 5, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.237', 13, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'you gave me the floor, mr. deputy speaker, on a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.239', 69, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "(seated and covered): on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. you gave me the floor on a point of order to raise a matter of some importance to those who have been here since 11 o'clock. you then allowed that point of order to be interrupted and allowed a decision to be taken, when you yourself had said that there were 21 more hon. members waiting to speak.\n ", datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.240', 36, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i have accepted the motion, "that the question be now put". it is the custom that it is put at the time at which it was put. i accepted it in accordance with the custom.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4.1.241', 42, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '(seated and covered): further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. only half an hour ago you said that 21 hon. members still wished to speak, and only recently the chair refused to accept the closure after 10 hours of debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1977, 2, 25, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1977-02-25.4']]
['Abortion Statistics']
[['uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3.1.2', 1415, 'uk.m.24857', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move,\n that leave be given to bring in a bill to require the secretary of state to compile statistics on gender ratios of foetuses aborted in the united kingdom, and where available overseas; and for connected purposes.\n it is a tragedy that, in some countries, the words “it’s a girl” are not always a source of joy but sometimes of danger. the abortion of baby girls occurs in huge numbers simply because of their gender. the un states that it is a problem of “genocide proportions”, with one expert estimating that gendercide has cost the lives of about 200 million women and girls worldwide over the past 30 years.\n the practice is pervasive in china. the country’s one-child policy and its traditional preference for boys have led to widespread abandonment, infanticide and forced abortions. china now has 37 million more young males than females. we hear of towns and villages where young men outnumber young women by up to 30:1. quoting china’s official figures, the financial times stated recently that there have been 330 million abortions since the one-child policy was introduced—a policy tragically indirectly aided and abetted for many years by funds provided by successive british governments.\n similarly, there are markedly more males than females in india, with various regions facing serious and growing gender imbalances. the murder of a student who was gang-raped on a delhi bus at the end of last year sparked outrage across india and shone a spotlight on the place of women in indian society. that and the country’s long history of expensive dowry gifts on the marriage of a daughter are among the factors that are resulting in the illegal but widespread practice of female gendercide.\n female gendercide in such countries is fuelling human trafficking and sexual slavery. it is resulting in tragic practices such as the kidnapping, sale and imprisonment of young girls in places far from their home towns to act as so-called “wives”. such avoidance of female births is gender discrimination in its worst form. it constitutes violence against women even before they have a chance to live.\n why am i relating these tragic situations in this place today, when so many members are well aware of them and condemn them? the reason is that if we are to condemn gendercide in countries such as china and india, we must be ready to condemn and challenge any suggestion that gendercide is taking place in the uk. i acknowledge and respect the wide range of sincerely held views on abortion, but such wider discussions are not the subject of this ten-minute rule motion. the motion seeks to draw the house’s attention to indications that illegal gendercide appears to be taking place in this country. i hope that the house can unite in registering profound shock at even the possibility that that it is happening, in whatever proportion.\n the house will have seen early-day motion 936, an all-party motion that i tabled on this topic. it has attracted more than 50 supportive signatures. i am\n therefore confident that the concerns about this issue are shared by a number of members from all parties in the house.\n on 8 january , the department of health confirmed in a written answer to my noble friend lord alton of liverpool that there are discrepancies in the balance between the number of boys and girls born in the uk to some groups of women that\n “potentially fall outside of the range considered possible without intervention.”—[ official report, house of lords, 8 january 2013; vol. 742, c. wa2 .]\n that indicates that there may be evidence that a significant number of abortions are taking place on the grounds of gender or sex selection, a practice that is wholly illegal in this country. any doctor who performed a termination on that basis would potentially be committing a criminal offence.\n i welcome the decision of ranjit bikhu and other british asian women to establish a campaign to challenge anti-girl and anti-life attitudes and practices. it must never be a matter of choice to end the life of a girl merely because of her gender.\n an investigation by the daily telegraph in 2012 uncovered strong evidence, including filmed evidence, that doctors at some british clinics are agreeing to terminate pregnancies by arranging abortions on the grounds of gender and to produce the relevant paperwork. the investigation also exposed a practice termed “family balancing”, with boys being aborted too, thus stretching the possibility of gendercide taking place in the uk well beyond certain cultural groups. one doctor, highly experienced in this field, said he believes the practice is “fairly widespread”.\n technological advancements in prenatal diagnostic tests now enable the gender of a fetus to be determined at 10 weeks’ gestation. as that technology continues to develop and becomes widely available, there is much concern that it will increase requests for abortions when the gender of an unborn child is not what a mother or father were hoping for.\n my bill reminds the police and the crown prosecution service that abortion on the grounds of gender is illegal in this country, and it calls on the department of health to put in place procedures to record the gender of babies aborted under the provisions of the abortion act 1967, once the sex can be determined. the bill would also impose tougher penalties on anyone found to have facilitated the abortion of a child because of its gender, or made arrangements to travel overseas for such an outcome. in addition, it calls for further consideration of the practice and implications of the wide, deeply concerning and, in some countries, extensive practice of female gendercide overseas.\n here in the united kingdom, a country that prides itself on striving for gender equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms, any indication of this most fundamental form of gender discrimination and violence against women must surely be investigated further. a key purpose of my bill is to highlight concerns about abortion on the grounds of sex selection taking place in the uk, and to remind us all, whether regulators, prosecuting authorities, doctors, the department of health or, crucially, ministers, that we cannot turn a blind eye to the issue and should be proactive in preventing, challenging and stopping it as something that is wholly unacceptable in the uk, as well as abroad.\n before i say “i commend this bill to the house”, this would until yesterday have been the end of my speech. quite remarkably, however, bearing in mind the fact that my bill is called the abortion statistics bill as set down several weeks ago, just yesterday the department of health announced a consultation on abortion statistics and their publication. i would flatter myself by thinking there was any connection; none the less it gives me the opportunity to mention the issue. i understand that the department of health is seeking the public’s view on the publication of abortion statistics, in order—and i quote from its overview—\n “to ensure that the reports remain relevant and useful.”\n in the light of the causes for concern that i have highlighted today, i trust that the department will consider including in those statistics a record of the gender of babies aborted, if ascertainable. i hope that many responses by the public to the consultation will support that call.\n finally, in further support of my motion, i draw the house’s attention to the recent call by the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe for members states to\n “collect the sex ratio at birth, monitor its development and take prompt action to tackle possible imbalances.”\n i understand that the department of health is currently finalising its response to the assembly on that issue, and i note the comment from the health minister earl howe that\n “this is an important piece of work and demonstrates how seriously this issue is being taken not just in this country but across europe.”\n let us ensure that we lead the way in monitoring, challenging and—most important—preventing this deeply worrying practice. i commend this bill to the house.\n question put and agreed to .\n ordered,\n that fiona bruce, dr thérèse coffey, ms margaret ritchie, mrs mary glindon, jim dobbin, robert flello, pat glass, mr virendra sharma, jim shannon, rosie cooper, daniel kawczynski and jeremy lefroy present the bill.\n fiona bruce accordingly presented the bill.\n bill read the first time; to be read a second time on friday 26 april , and to be printed (bill 158).\n ', datetime.datetime(2013, 4, 16, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3'], ['uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3.1.3', 155, 'uk.m.10594', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr speaker. i seek your guidance and assistance. i tabled a round-robin question on 4 december 2012 , asking how many computers, mobile telephones, blackberrys and other pieces of it equipment had been lost or stolen in 2010-11 and 2011-12. i have received interesting replies from every department except the cabinet office. i chased an answer on 16 january , expecting one on 21 january ; i raised the matter at business questions on 7 february , and the leader of the house kindly endeavoured to get me an answer; and i raised the continuing lack of an answer again on 26 march . i am always grateful when ministers agree to allow themselves to be held to account by the house, but i wonder whether you could give me some guidance on the further steps i might take to return to a state of grace on this particular question.\n ', datetime.datetime(2013, 4, 16, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3'], ['uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3.1.4', 169, 'uk.m.10040', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am bound to say to the hon. gentleman that i should have hoped that it would not have been necessary for him to take further steps, but, as the saying goes, we are where we are. first, i might suggest that he consults the leader of the house, who i know attaches a premium to timely and substantive replies. secondly, he might wish to have another go at business questions. thirdly, he should rest content that his remarks today will be transmitted to the relevant minister without delay. the situation is disappointing, as the minister for the cabinet office and paymaster general is responsible for the co-ordination of government policy, among other matters. fourthly, i advise the hon. gentleman, if he remains disquieted about the matter, to raise it with the procedure committee, whose chairman, the hon. member for broxbourne (mr walker) , will, i am sure, lend a sympathetic ear. i hope my advice is of use to the hon. member for harrow west (mr thomas) .\n ', datetime.datetime(2013, 4, 16, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.2013-04-16.3']]
['Oral Answers to Questions — LAW ON ABORTION']
[['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.1', 24, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'asked the prime minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a royal commission to investigate the facts and law in relation to abortion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.2', 2, 'uk.m.21924', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Prime Minister', 'government', 'no, sir.\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.3', 28, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'naturally, i regret that reply. in view of the abhorrence with which millions of citizens of every faith and of none regard the medical termination of pregnancy bill—\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.4', 15, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. we cannot discuss the medical termination of pregnancy bill. it is before a committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.5', 46, 'uk.m.19173', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i ask the prime minister it he will reconsider that negative decision, in view of the anxieties felt by millions of citizens of all religious faiths and of none, who are deeply concerned about the possibility of having legislation without adequate knowledge of the facts?\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.6', 95, 'uk.m.21924', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Prime Minister', 'government', "as the whole house knows—none more than the hon. gentleman—this is a very important and highly controversial matter, a matter on which the house should be left to come to its own judgment. if, at the end of proceedings which it would clearly be out of order for me to refer to, the house made its views clear in the sense indicated in the hon. gentleman's question, the government would obviously have to give very close consideration to any such expression. but the house must be free to make its own decision on the matter.\n ", datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.7', 24, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'has the prime minister noticed that the demands for a royal commission have come only after the introduction of a bill in this house?\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.8', 15, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the bill is before a committee and the hon. gentleman cannot refer to it now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.9', 35, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the prime minister recall that the birkett committee before the war found its work hampered by lack of information on illegal abortions, and would not any new inquiry be equally frustrated by that lack?\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10.1.10', 61, 'uk.m.21924', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Prime Minister', 'government', 'it is not for me at this time to express a view on whether all the facts required are available. the house, which has facilities for discussing the matter, will form its own view on whether it has all the information required, and perhaps on whether a further inquiry could or could not get more information than is at present available.\n ', datetime.datetime(1967, 3, 23, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1967-03-23.10']]
['Abortion']
[['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.1', 976, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that this house notes with concern the continuing high numbers of abortions in the united kingdom, particularly the number of late abortions highlighted by the recent study group of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists; and calls upon the government to pay attention to the moral and ethical questions raised by abortion. \n a member of parliament may have to wait a considerable number of years before he is fortunate enough to have a motion called for debate. i could have decided to ask the house to debate the economy, which is of central concern to the nation, but the house spends virtually every day of every week discussing such issues.\n abortion is one issue of vital moral and ethical concern to millions of people which has not been discussed in the house for nearly five years. since that issue was last discussed, about 600,000 abortions have been performed. since the passing of the abortion act 1967, 2,234,326 abortions have been carried out — 145 every day of every year. as one person put it, "it seems that the abortion act has got cancer." it has resulted in many more abortions being performed than the original sponsors of the 1967 legislation intended. for those reasons, i believe that it is my duty to give parliament an opportunity to debate this issue.\n the abortion issue raises classic arguments between principle and expediency. i shall deal, first, with the arguments of principle, then go on to the arguments of expediency and finally review the law as it stands.\n two questions are raised in the arguments of principle. first, is human life sacred? secondly, where does human life begin?\n the answer to the first question must be an unequivocal yes. human life is sacred to the christian who believes that every soul has a right to conscience so that it can know god. human life is sacred to the humanist who believes that, because life terminates with death, everyone has a right to life. i believe that human life is sacred because everyone has a right to life. the mentally retarded have as much right to life as the mentally normal. the old, the sick, the weak and the stupid have as much right to life as the young, the healthy, the strong and the clever.\n the second question is: where does human life begin? foetology has made great strides in recent years. ultra-scan techniques allow us to peer into the secret life of the womb. we know that the embryo is genetically complete at conception. we know that at the 25th day following conception the heart beats. we know that the bones are being formed by the sixth week and that by the 10th week all limbs are established. even to the layman\'s eye, the foetus is obviously a human being. we know that at the 16th week the heart pumps about 50 pints of blood a day. we know that at the 20th week eyebrows and eyelashes have already formed. from the knowledge that has been built up during the past 20 years, we know that birth is an incident in a long-established process. a line cannot be drawn at any one stage — whether at six, 12 or 20 weeks, or even birth—at which one can say, "this is where life begins." the only logical conclusion is that life begins at conception.\n another objection to these arguments is that life begins when it is capable of being sustained away from the mother. that begs other serious questions. is life sustainable immediately after birth when a baby is still reliant on outside support? a baby left in the womb would have a chance to survice. most important of all is the question: does dependence deny existence?\n a woman certainly has a right to choose to have, say, her appendix taken out. her appendix is dependent on her and can have no prospect of independent existence. does a woman have a right to choose to terminate the foetus, which is certainly dependent on her but which has the opportunity of independence in the future? those are two very different arguments.\n i should have thought that those arguments show that, if one looks at this issue purely from the point of personal principle, there can be only one answer—that abortion is wrong. however, many would say, "although, speaking for myself, i may think that abortion is wrong, i am not prepared to impose my views on society."\n i do not want to deny the seriousness of the back-street abortion argument or to deny the pain and humiliation suffered under the previous law by many women through back-street abortions. i must, however deal with the moral argument put forward by the anti-abortionists who say, "because burglaries will always take place, is that an argument for making them legal?"\n one need not take the moral point of view alone. there is evidence that the 1967 abortion laws created a new clientele for abortion. society today is very different from society in 1967. birth control is universally available. society hopes to care and counsel women faced with unplanned pregnancies rather than to censure them.\n an interesting report published by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists in 1966 showed that, based on hospital admissions and deaths, there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in 1966. that compares with 128,000 abortions a year now. it is said by those in favour of abortion that the official statistics camouflage the real state of affairs. if that were the case, one would have expected the deaths to figure somewhere in the official statistics. in fact, the figures show that, although the number of deaths among women of child-bearing age was decreasing by 300 a year before 1967, in the first full year of the operation of the 1967 act the number increased.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.2', 38, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that britain has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world—a rate that has changed little during the past 10 years — contrary to the impression that he is trying to give?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.3', 37, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i said that there had been about 128,000 abortions a year. the abortion rate has been fairly steady in recent years, as the hon. lady said. that is a matter of interest and concern to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.4', 20, 'uk.m.22587', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'since the passing of the 1967 legislation, there have been about 2,333,000 abortions. that is a substantial and damaging figure.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.5', 17, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i said that at the beginning of my speech. my hon. friend has made a fair point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.6', 69, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has cited the number of abortions since the 1967 legislation was passed. he seems to be motivated by the increased numbers. have we any means of finding out the number of back-street abortions? does the hon. gentleman assume that the number is less since the 1967 act and that more abortions are now carried out in a proper way because that is the more sensible approach?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.7', 82, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i said that the report by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists suggested that there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in 1966. there is no doubt that, although the act has resulted in fewer backstreet abortions, it has created a considerably enlarged clientele for abortions, and that is a matter of anxiety. they have increased. there have been 2 million abortions since 1967. there is no doubt that the act has resulted in a considerable increase in abortions in this country.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.8', 2, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.9', 256, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that the hon. lady will wish to speak. i want to go on to other points. if she wishes to intervene on them, i shall give way.\n i shall deal with the difficult arguments about rape. i do not deny the existence of the serious and heartfelt anxiety about that issue. the churches take a moral line which i must mention briefly. it is that one act of violence can never justify another, but the figures show that only about 2 per cent. of abortions are for genuine medical reasons, including rape. many people who are worried about the abortion legislation as it now operates would be prepared to provide for rape, but that would not affect the 108,000 abortions carried out last year under section 2.\n the main argument pursued by pro-abortionists is: better no child than an unwanted child. in modern britain there is and need be no such thing as an unwanted child. for every child there are 10 childless couples desperate to adopt. our want is not a reliable judgment as to whether a human life should be allowed to exist. there is no evidence to show that wanted children are not maltreated. dr. edward lenoski calculated that 91 per cent. of child abuse took place with wanted children. since the passing of the act, there have been 317,000 more children in care. the arguments about wanted or unwanted children are the same as those used in the pagan world about infanticide and exposure of children on the hillside.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.10', 78, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend agree that the statistics show that in 1968—the year that the abortion act came into effect—there were about 24,000 adoptions in this country, and that in 1983 there were about 9,000 adoptions, of which only about 3,000 were for truly illegitimate children and were non-parental applications? does not that vast decrease in the number of children available for adoption since 1968 say a great deal in favour of the point that he is making?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.11', 524, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "my hon. friend makes a fair point. there is the argument that, as a man, i have no right to discuss this issue. it is not my business to apportion blame. i do not underestimate the considerable pressures caused by unwanted pregnancy. society has no right to censure unplanned pregnancy. society has a duty to care and to give unstinting love, guidance and advice on how life can be saved rather than on how it can be destroyed. the house has a duty and a right to speak up for the weak against the strong.\n i said that i would begin by looking at the arguments of principle and then of expediency. i wish briefly to review the law as it stands. the fundamental law on this subject is the offences against the person act 1861, which proscribed abortion. that was amended by the infant life (preservation) act 1929, which introduced the offences of child destruction or causing the death of a child capable of being born alive. that is an important point to which i wish to return later, because it is of significance to late abortions. the act was amended as a result of the case of regina v. bourne which decided that a woman's life depended upon physical and mental health as much as anything else.\n those acts were amended by the abortion act 1967. the abortion act provided four grounds for abortion—life saving, therapeutic, social and engenic. in 1983, out of 127,375 abortions, 108,806 — the vast majority — were performed under section 2, which relates to the risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman; only 538 abortions were perfomed under section 1, which relates to the risk to the life of a pregnant woman; and only 2,019 were carried out under the engenic section, which relates to the risk of birth of a severely abnormal baby.\n apart from the strongly pro-abortion lobby, there is almost universal anxiety about the number of late abortions. i am talking about abortions performed between the 24th and 28th weeks. advances in medical science have ensured that babies of fewer than 24 weeks gestational age can be born alive. as the times put it on 9 january 1984: every advance in obstetric techniques makes the present position less tenable. my reading of the acts, and that of many others, tells me —i hope that my right hon. and learned friend will comment on this point — that the infant life (preservation) act defines child destruction as the killing in utero of a child capable of being born alive regardless of gestational age. a baby aborted alive is covered by the law relating to homicide.\n i ask my right hon. and learned friend to comment on the view that it is unnecessary to have a new upper limit bill. all that the government need do is to circulate and inform area health authorities that, with the advances in medical science, the age of viability stands, according to the department of health and social security, at 20, 22 or 24 weeks and that abortions committed beyond that gestational period are illegal.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.12', 18, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'how many abortions have taken place after 20 weeks of pregnancy during the past five years or so?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.13', 17, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not have the figures in my head, but i have them in my briefing papers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.14', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the case.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.15', 21, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course, the hon. lady is right. the vast majority of abortions are performed within the 10th or 12th week period.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.16', 2, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.17', 44, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "may i just answer the hon. lady's point? as i said, the vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy, but that does not deny the argument about principle that i put forward earlier. abortions are still carried out beyond the 20th week.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.18', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'how many?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.19', 8, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wish to deal with that point now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.20', 50, 'uk.m.21695', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in the interest of accuracy, will my hon. friend accept from me that in 1983 —the latest year for which figures are available—the number of abortions carried out later than 20 weeks was 1·38 per cent. of the total and that the reasons for those abortions were good and strong?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.21', 144, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'to answer that point, i wish to deal with the confidential study carried out by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, which was worried about late abortions, and some interesting facts emerged from that study. the number of late abortions was six to one in the private sector as against the national health service; 54 per cent. were carried out on women from abroad; 87 per cent. were under section 2, which, i think, answers the point made by my hon. friend the member for devizes (mr. morrison); and only 0·16 per cent. were carried out under section 1—risk to life of the pregnant woman.\n there is anxiety about late abortions and the financial link between referral agencies and abortion clinics, which are not allowed to advertise, and how people are persuaded to go to abortion clinics on the advice of referral agencies.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.22', 88, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before the hon. gentleman leaves the issue of late abortions—i sympathise and agree with much of what he is saying—does he accept that it is not as easy as he says to pinpoint the exact time when an abortion is late? he says that 26 weeks is accepted, but it is not accepted. there is no consensus that viability is certain at 26 weeks, for the simple reason that the exact moment of conception is never known. there can be differences of one, two, three or four weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.23', 435, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is right, but i think that most people accept that 28 weeks as the age of viability is far too late, given the advances that have taken place in medical science. there have been cases of babies being born alive, even though their gestational age is less than 24 weeks.\n i do not believe that the sponsors of the original act wanted to see a close financial link between referral agencies and abortion clinics.\n on the conscience question, under english law, a person is innocent until proved guilty, but under the abortion legislation doctors are required to prove conscience. recently nurses have been sacked for refusing to insert instruments prior to an abortion, for refusing to fill in forms or for refusing to make appointments. there should be an absolute right for doctors and nurses with conscientious objections not to be involved in abortions.\n one of the most difficult areas considered in the recent amending bill was the tightening up of the sections of the 1967 act. in december 1979, during proceedings in standing committee c on the abortion (amendment) bill, the then solicitor-general dealt with the statistical argument. the act in general gives the right to carry out abortions if the risk of childbirth to a mother\'s health is greater than the risk of her having an abortion. abolitionists claim that the figures prove that fewer women die from abortion than used to die from childbirth. that is true, but the figures are not comparable, because women who die during childbirth tend to be suffering from some gross abnormality, whereas those who die from abortion tend to be healthy young women who would have had a normal pregnancy.\n in 1979, the solicitor-general stressed the lack of yardsticks in determining relative risks. i believe that the statistical argument could be overcome by including in the 1967 act the words "serious or substantial". it is interesting to note that sir john peel, the queen\'s gynaecologist, told the standing committee in 1979 that between 5 and 10 per cent. of women having abortions suffered sterility; that figure did not include abnormalities.\n in my review of the law, i have refrained from taking the absolutist line that all abortions are wrong. i have simply tried to review the law as it stands. politics being the art of the possible, i do not believe that one can take an absolutist line. there is a case for a step-by-step approach in this immensely important issue. parliament has a right to discuss it, and i hope that hon. members will support me for having given parliament that opportunity.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.24', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.25', 27, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. i remind the house that the debate must end at 7 o'clock, so we have less than two hours left. many hon. members wish to speak.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.26', 365, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that the house would have preferred not to have this debate. in the past 16 to 18 years, some of us have sat through numerous debates following the passing of the 1967 act, which provided relief for women, and we remember hearing similar arguments to those presented today by the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh).\n it is disappointing that so many years after the passing of an act that has been endorsed by the medical profession an hon. member should present ad nauseam the same old jejune arguments that the 1967 act rendered out of date. i shall not bother to respond to those old arguments, though the minister for health may feel the need to do so.\n as regards the new points raised in the motion of the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle, there are legal restrictions on late abortions. the clinics where terminations are carried out are controlled and inspected; an inspectorate was set up under the 1967 act.\n in 1975, the department of health and social security laid down that terminations in non-nhs premises should be performed after 20 weeks only if resuscitation equipment was available and staff were present on the premises to use it, thus obviating the danger to the mother. in 1980, the dhss wrote to all places that are approved to perform terminations saying that in cases of terminations where the stage of gestation was believed to be over 20 weeks or there was a reasonable possibility that it may become 20 weeks and the period of gestation was in doubt, an ultrasound scan should be performed. in the same year, the department also recommended that scans should be carried out on all women who were 16 weeks to 20 weeks pregnant, in the hope that the additional assurance of an ultrasound scan will serve both as a safeguard to patients and prove also to be in the best interests of both the operating doctors and the nursing home proprietors against the possibility of subsequent allegations being made that a foetus was viable at the time of termination. so strong regulations are laid down to control doctors working in private nursing homes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.27', 25, 'uk.m.16827', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. lady aware that in 1983 there were 1,747 abortions after the 20th week? is that not still a matter of great concern?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.28', 983, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall present figures later, but i wish to go through my argument in sequence.\n the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle must have regard to what the bma says, and the association's handbook of ethics states: the doctor should recommend or perform termination after 20 weeks only if he is convinced that the health of the woman is seriously threatened or if the child will be seriously handicapped. that is a clear instruction to doctors.\n the latest figures from the department—for 1983—were published last year. they show that only 1·19 per cent. of terminations were performed at 20 to 23 weeks, and that only 0·19 per cent. were performed at 24 weeks or later. that puts the matter in perspective.\n we should congratulate all those involved and thank the dhss for what it is doing to control nursing homes. we should also congratulate the medical profession on ensuring that so few terminations take place after 20 weeks. we should be celebrating those facts instead of discussing this sort of motion. contrary to what the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle seems to think, the medical profession is carrying out its responsibilities.\n the other serious ground for late abortion is that there is likely to be permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. it is a serious decision, whatever the hon. member and some of his supporters say, for both the woman and her doctor to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks or later. one of the great benefits of the act is that it has encouraged terminations to take place by a much simpler process and much earlier, so there is much less risk to the mother.\n what does the hon. gentleman suggest should he done when lateness is the responsibility of the nhs and not the patient? the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, whom the hon. gentleman quoted twice in his speech, said that only last year—perhaps these are more up-to-date figures than the hon. gentleman has —over 20 per cent. of women who had terminations between 20 and 23 weeks had been medically referred for termination before the end of the 12th week. it is clear where the delay occurs—in the nhs machinery. had their terminations been carried out as soon as possible after the end of the 12th week, when they were referred, or as soon as is acceptable or desirable, they would have been terminated before the 14th week instead of at 20 to 23 weeks.\n therefore, i hope that the minister for health will discover why the delay occurs between consultation and operation in a small number of cases, which is obviously serious. it does not happen in the private sector where terminations are carried out very early. there is a considerable impetus for the private nursing homes to get their patients in as early as possible, and many of them are run precisely for carrying out that procedure alone. therefore, i must conclude that either there is poor organisation in the nhs or perhaps some consultants hope that the patients will be diverted into the private sector, where they have an interest in performing terminations in private nursing homes. there could be that profit motive for some of the less scrupulous members of the medical profession. i am certain that they are only a minority, but they exist and delays are caused.\n does the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle give any thought to the problem of the menopausal woman who does not always realise when she is pregnant, or the young girl who is similarly unaware? the latter perhaps does not want to accept the fact that she is pregnant and hopes that if she does nothing about it, it will go away. what about the mentally handicapped woman who becomes pregnant, perhaps because of rape, and who does not realise that she is pregnant? there are many such cases. they can lead to late terminations which, i emphasise, are a tiny proportion of the total number of terminations carried out.\n i hope that the minister will also examine this point. one of the most serious problems that is the responsibility of the nhs is the delay in carrying out amniocentesis. there is a problem for the older woman who is pregnant. amniocentesis is carried out to establish whether the child is likely to be handicapped. that is crucial to the older woman, who is at greater risk of producing a handicapped child. does the hon. gentleman wish to deny her the relief that the law allows?\n professor eva alberman, who is well known to the select committee because she was our epidemiologist specialist adviser when the select committee carried out an inquiry into perinatal mortality, recently published a report in the lancet which revealed that, in the absence of any other change in medical practice, a reduction in the legal age of foetal viability to 24 weeks would have meant that during 1982 a total of 26 abortions for seriously handicapping conditions could not have been carried out. a reduction to 22 weeks would have stopped 77 such abortions from being performed. professor alberman also referred to the importance of early diagnosis of foetal abnormality and yet found that in at least a proportion of the late abortions studied there were delays, some of which, she and others suggest, might have been avoidable both before and after the tests for abnormality.\n therefore, it is clear that the weight of medical opinion supports early terminations. the figures show that over 90 per cent. of terminations are carried out within the time limit prescribed by the act, and only a tiny proportion—less than 2 per cent. during the past four or five years—have been carried out later than the legal time limit provided for in the act. they are for serious cases where there is a late discovery of a suspected abnormality.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.29', 74, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has not answered the point made by my hon. friend the member for leicester, east (mr. bruinvels). according to the official statistics for 1983, the figure was 1,509, which is a considerable number. it may be only 2 per cent. but some of us on this side of the argument realise that it is only 2 per cent. because the total number of abortions is so large anyway—and far too large.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.30', 290, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if one takes the number of terminations that were carried out at that stage of pregnancy and thinks of the enormous number of deaths that occurred when women had terminations before the act was passed, one finds that there is no comparison. the act has brought enormous relief to women, and i am only sorry that so few terminations, certainly in my region, are carried out under the nhs. nearly 5,000 legal abortions were carried out in the west midlands in three months up to december. of the 4,919 total, the vast majority — that is, 4,225 — were carried out privately in private nursing homes, where the operation is carried out for private profit and gain. only 694 were carried out under the health service in the whole of the west midlands region. therefore, there can be no argument that terminations, certainly in the west midlands region, are preventing other gynaecological cases from having the treatment that they require. it is much to be regretted that the private nursing homes can make so much money out of carrying out those operations, but the act provides for that.\n the overwhelming majority of terminations should be carried out early, well before the 20th week, many before the 12th and 14th week. there should be proper inspection of the private nursing homes. the house and the country as a whole should be satisfied that the provisions of the act can be carried out correctly and that there is no need for the present motion, which does not take account of the improvements in technique, in inspection and, above all, of the overwhelming number of cases where terminations are carried out so much earlier even than the limit that the act now provides.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.31', 435, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should like to begin by congratulating my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh) on his good fortune in the ballot and his personal decision to choose what is to all of us a difficult, emotive and distressing subject. he argued his case with good sense and moderation. he is right to ask for a fresh look to be taken at the whole subject.\n i should make it clear that i am not—and was not in 1966—opposed to abortion where there is a serious risk—i am using my words carefully—to the life of the pregnant woman, or a risk of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there is substantial risk that the child, when born, would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities which would deprive it of any reasonable enjoyment of life.\n that, incidentally, was the view of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists in 1966. if that advice had been taken by the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), the act, which i admit was necessary in the circumstances, might not have led to so much criticism and we should not have needed to debate the subject again today. i agree entirely with the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) that in 1966 the law needed to be cleaned up. there is no dispute about that, although i do not think that it is possible to sustain the argument advanced by those who favoured abortion virtually on demand that the figures for criminal abortions were horrendous because, as the royal college pointed out at the time, the figures it gave were without any secure factual foundation". they were guesstimates. nevertheless, i do not think that any one of us would deny that there was a serious situation in regard to criminal abortions and therefore an urgent need for legislation. the pity of it was that too little attention was paid to the wording of that measure.\n i was involved in those early debates and many moments stand out clearly in my mind. on 22 july 1966 the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale told the house that he simply wanted to get rid of back-street abortion. he added that it is not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request."—[ official report, 22 july 1966; vol. 732, c. 1075.] i believe that the right hon. gentleman\'s intention was indeed as he stated it. that was also the intention of the standing committee and indeed of the whole house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.32', 62, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman is widening the scope of the debate, but he must remember that the inclusion of words such as "serious" or "substantial" lead to problems. the legal profession said that such definitions were impossible to make, and the medical profession was not prepared to be put in jeopardy because the circumstances in which abortion was permissible were not clear.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.33', 496, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is quite correct. the medical profession was divided, but the leading bodies concerned were not. the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists gave us very clear guidance, but that guidance was ignored. in addition, i recall that the british medical association had carried out an inquiry into the subject. i believe that the present director, dr. havard, was a member of that working group, as was dr. gullick. they, too, gave clear guidance. but it is the business of parliament to make up its mind on these matters and nothing that the hon. gentleman has said weakens my argument that parliament\'s failure to realise what was at stake led to serious difficulties.\n in those early debates i repeatedly warned that the legislation would lead to abortion on demand, and i was quite right. [hon. member: "no."] i was indeed right, because the law has allowed abortion on demand. that is how it has been interpreted by a great many doctors. [interruption.] we shall not make much progress if there is a running commentary on every speech. i listened in silence to the speech of the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east because i respect her greatly and wished to hear what she had to say. constant interruptions merely show a lack of conviction that one knows what it is all about; such chatter does not help parliamentary debate.\n week after week following the enactment of the bill, anxiety increased at the practices developing. for example, there were taxi touts at london airport picking up foreign women who wished to take advantage of the new law. those women were driven to abortion clinics which were able to pay the drivers generously out of the fat earnings which they were making from frightened women. i agree entirely that the whole matter should have been under the proper direction of the national health service from the start, and i said so at the time. it was not, and racket after racket developed. taxi touts were even stealing girls from other clinics. one driver took girls to a clinic in bournemouth although they had been booked for operations at a clinic in london.\n such was the public outrage and the ensuing row in parliament that the government were forced to set up the lane committee. that committee consisted entirely of people who had originally favoured abortion on request, just as the more recent warnock committee was made up of people who favoured the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. such was the weight of evidence, however, that the lane committee was forced to admit that some doctors were practising abortion on demand. the fact that its members advocated no steps to prevent such practices was simply a measure of their views. they were also forced to admit that there was disappointingly little evidence to suggest that the legislation had stopped criminal abortions. [interruption.] the report is in the library if any hon. member wishes to consult it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.34', 7, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.35', 25, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i wish to develop my argument. i am dealing with matters that arose in the house long before the hon. lady became a member.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.36', 46, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman will accept that i was here at that time. i hope that he intends to quote the main finding of the lane committee, which was that the advantage gained from the legislation far outweighed any criticisms that could be levelled against it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.37', 107, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the right hon. gentleman had been here earlier he would have heard me say that in my view his bill was necessary and that certain advantages flowed from it for that very reason. the lane committee said that. interestingly, however, increasing public disquiet led the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) to introduce the abortion (amendment) bill which led in turn to the establishment of the select committee on abortion, of which i was a member. that select committee, chaired by a distinguished labour member, exposed the fact that abortion on demand was virtually the order of the day. the evidence clearly established the fact.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.38', 7, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.39', 743, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am telling the house what the select committee recommended. when i have done that i shall give way, although i know that many of my hon. friends wish to speak. [interruption.] this method of conducting the debate does not help us to make progress.\n the select committee not only exposed the fact that abortion on demand was the order of the day, but suggested a number of amendments to the act to ease the situation. one involved the severing of financial links between abortion clinics and referral agencies. the committee also advocated strengthening the conscience clause and urged that parliament be given ample time to debate and vote on the criteria for abortion to establish whether we wished the law to be changed.\n it is to the everlasting shame of the government of the day that they failed to implement the main recommendations of the select committee. moreover, it is dishonest of the pro-abortion lobby to claim that repeated efforts to change the law in parliament have failed. they have failed for one reason alone — the perpetual and successful attempts to talk out every private member's bill.\n we must not declare that the abortion act has achieved nothing. however, one of its achievements is nothing to be proud of. it has resulted in the denial of life to some 2 million unborn children. in fact, while this debate is taking place, some 60 babies will be deprived of the right to life.\n ironically, the warnock committee was set up to deal with the problem of infertility. infertility has always been with us, but the problem has been thrust into the foreground because the natural and laudable desire of childless couples to adopt has been frustrated as there are no more babies available because, under the law, we are killing them in increasing numbers.\n there is another tragedy associated with infertility. it must be a very bitter thing for some women to have to bear. few of us can claim to have done nothing in life to cause us regrets. i know that i cannot. but comparatively few of us have to live with the fruits of our misdemeanours. what must make infertility hard to bear is the fact that in many cases it is avoidable. many cases of blockage to the tubes, for example, are avoidable. it is often caused by infection, which can result from previous abortion or sexually transmitted disease. secondly, while i believe in contraception, i wonder how many women fitted with the coil realise that it can make them barren.\n one of the most appalling aspects of women's right to choose, as it is often expressed, is the fact that they are not properly informed about what they are choosing. that is why i have always argued that there should be no connection whatever between abortion referral agencies and abortion clinics, because the one has a financial interest in the other.\n the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east put her finger on the point long ago. if we are to have proper, therapeutic abortion in this country, it should have been controlled from the beginning under the nhs.\n people complain about the way things are going, but refuse to see what is happening under their very eyes. they refuse to see that the cheap and shoddy rarely supplies the answer.\n i refer again to the original abortion debates. one of the reasons put forward by the abortionists for liberalising the law was that by doing so they would reduce the number of unwanted children and level off—that was an often-used phrase—the rate of illegitimacy. in vain we said that killing babies in the womb would hardly lead to a more responsible society in which children would receive more love. we were right to say that. the numbers of children in care were not reduced after the abortion law came into operation. on the contrary, the numbers have risen by leaps and bounds. between 1951 and 1967 the numbers rose by fewer than 7,000, from 62,700 to 69,300. in the 10 years after the act came into operation, the numbers rose at an unprecedented rate and hit the 100,000 mark, where they remain today.\n pro-abortionists give every possible reason for this rise — and i would agree that our liberal divorce law has something to do with it—but the fact is that every other country which has liberalised its abortion laws has witnessed a similar increase in child tragedies.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.40', 7, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.41', 62, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in so short a debate, i shall not enter into an argument on the causes. however, there is no scrap of evidence from anywhere in the world to support the claim by the pro-abortionists that their policies result in greater love and care for born children and that we are overcoming the tragedy of unwanted children. all the evidence suggests the reverse.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.42', 7, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.43', 25, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wish to be brief, to give others a chance to speak. i end by asking a simple question: where should we go from here?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.44', 115, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman said earlier that he would give way when he had developed his argument. if he is interested in evidence, he might like to know that i was a member of the royal commission on the national health service. we gave evidence to his government and pointed out that far from abortion being available on demand the reverse was true. it is now more difficult to get an abortion under the nhs. according to the latest figures available, those for 1983, only 49 per cent. of women in this country who had abortions had an abortion on the nhs. how can the right hon. gentleman say that we have abortion on demand?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.45', 158, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am talking about abortion not on the nhs, but in the private sector. the hon. lady has been so anxious to intervene that she has not listened to what i have been saying.\n we started off on the wrong foot. from the beginning, therapeutic abortion based on clear-cut criteria—and the criteria were certainly not as clear-cut as they should have been— should have been performed within the nhs. the whole matter could then have been properly controlled. it was not, and, overnight, abortion clinics sprang up by the score. the racket was so great that the lane committee had to be set up. even then the racket failed to disappear. there was then the bill of the hon. member for pollok. there followed the setting-up of the select committee. the hon. lady was not a member of the house at the time and cannot remember what intense anxiety there was both in the house and the country.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.46', 54, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. gentleman keeps referring to abortion on demand and the need for better services under the nhs. i cannot recall whether, when i introduced a ten-minute bill in 1981 appealing for an extension of nhs facilities, the right hon. gentleman voted for it. can he tell me whether he did or not?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.47', 663, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i would not like to give an answer off the cuff. however, i once served in the ministry of health and have always been a strong supporter of the concept of the national health service. in 1966 the leaders of the medical profession were concerned about two things: first, to whom the task was to be entrusted; and, secondly, where it was to be done. they said that there was no need for complicated legislation. if strict rules were laid down on those two points the matter could be left to the medical profession. by that they meant that at least one of the two doctors concerned should be a consultant and also that there should be the strictest possible control over where the operation was done.\n if that had been our aim from the outset, we would probably not have been discussing the subject today. however, the decision was made not to entrust the task to two medical practitioners, one of whom would have to be a consultant. and so, presumably because of the fear of strain upon the nhs, the greater part of the demand was met by the mushroom growth of clinics, with all the abuses that i have mentioned.\n i should like to recommend a number of courses of action. at the appropriate time the government should give the house adequate time to debate an amending bill. that is unlikely to be in the present session, but the government should be prepared to help an amending bill through, so that it cannot be talked out by its opponents. only in that way shall we see whether or not parliament wishes to retain the present law unamended.\n in my view, the grounds for abortion in the present act should be more carefully defined to stop abortion on demand. i believe that that result could be achieved by the addition of two words to the act. we should also put an end to the hypocrisy of allowing the referral agencies to advertise so that they can refer women to clinics in which they have a financial interest. all financial links between referral agencies and clinics should be severed. that should apply equally to those clinics described as charities, from which doctors take home the bulk of the large fees of patients who have abortions.\n the conscience clause should be strengthened. in addition, something should be done to help those genuine charities and agencies which offer positive assistance to girls with problem pregnancies. it is scandalous that abortion clinics should be receiving help from local authorities, while agencies which look after girls who wish to keep their babies receive no government grants.\n the government should also take a positive stand to ensure that under-age girls are not aborted without parental consent. a dentist in this country is not allowed to extract a tooth from a young patient without parental consent, yet the entrepreneurs of the abortion business are allowed to carry out an operation on a young girl which could blight her entire life and leave her sterile. indeed, if we look at the abortion figures, we cannot fail to realise that those most in need of protection—the young—have become more and more vulnerable. abortions on girls under 16 increased from 2,619 in 1969 to 10,555 in 1983–8 per cent. of all abortions in england and wales.\n great play has been made of the fluctuations in the number of abortions on girls in this group since 1978. frankly, this means nothing at all as the total number of girls aged 13 to 15 has declined, while the number of abortions has remained constant at about four per 1,000 girls in this age bracket. that is a very sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country.\n during the last election some of the leaders and spokesmen of my own party made great play of the importance that we attach to the family unit and our concern for the young and unborn—\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.48', 9, 'uk.m.22023', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman said that he would be brief.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.49', 59, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'indeed, but i assure the hon. gentleman that many opposition members share my view.\n if, in fact, the government are concerned about the family, children and the unborn, and intend to keep faith on this, they should give parliament the time fully to debate the abortion law so that any amendments have the opportunity of reaching the statute book.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.50', 540, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is no point in my disguising my sincerely held belief on this issue, and i hope that the house will bear with me as i attempt to make a number of brief points. i am opposed to abortion and always have been. there is no point in saying that had i been in the house in 1967 i would have supported the legislation of my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), because i would have been in the opposite lobby. he and i have had many disagreements on this issue, although i respect his sincerity.\n the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) spoke of my right hon. friend\'s intention when he introduced the bill. it was to turn the tide of human misery. i know that my right hon. friend intended to address himself to the question of back-street abortions. i have no simple, easy answer to that problem and am well aware that because of my position i am open to the argument that without an abortion provision on the statute book there could well be a return to the back-street abortion.\n the right hon. member for castle point also referred to the lane commission. that led me to recall that in 1980 i introduced a ten-minute bill on the termination of pregnancies and whether, as the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh) pointed out, termination should be allowed to occur beyond 24 weeks.\n during that debate i quoted mrs. justice lane\'s committee, which said: informed opinion is, and the committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of 28 weeks for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born infants". elsewhere in the committee\'s recommendations it stated that the abortion act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and not thereafter". in fact, the guardian commented that two out of every 1,000 abortions which take place do so on developing children between the ages of 24 and 28 weeks. that goes some way towards answering the interjection made in the speech of the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle.\n i believe that this is something on which the house could agree, and i know that my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale is very much of a view that at the very minimum there ought to be a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. it is something on which he and i agree. indeed, my right hon. friend was a sponsor of my bill. the world health organisation takes a similar view.\n i am conscious that we are going over arguments that have been rehearsed before, but that is inevitable. the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) said that she had heard these arguments before, but when 162,000 abortions take place each year it is inevitable that this house should want to continue to discuss the legislation and the way in which it is working. it would be surprising if it did not, given the sincerely held views of hon. members and their constituents, apart from the fact that our constituents would require us, as their representatives, to raise these important issues.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.51', 43, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does not the hon. gentleman accept that many operations are performed in this country, yet he is distinguishing between this one and the others? however, the act has given some consideration to the 162,000 women who would otherwise have been placed in difficulty.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.52', 638, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i shall come to the hon. gentleman's latter point in a moment. like him, if i were concerned that insufficient was being done to help people who needed kidney transplants or those with cardiac complaints, and if i felt that the nhs was not helping them or that the system was not operating as it should, i would want to raise such matters in this house. however, when discussing a sincerely-held view among many people outside this house that too many abortions are taking place, it is legitimate for hon. members to return to this issue. i hope that the hon. gentleman will accept the sincerity of those who seek to raise the matter in this way.\n last week, a group of liverpool women came to see me about the general problems that women face. i accept that society does not treat women in the dignified way that it should, and that many of the prejudices and taboos about women and their place in society have placed women at a lower level than men. that is something to which we must address our minds.\n those women told me of a recent survey of women at liverpool university who had undergone abortions. it showed that had a creche been available for under two-year-olds, 14 per cent. of the women would have been happy to go ahead with their pregnancies. perhaps we can do something about that. if some people genuinely have abortions for such simple reasons, we ought to make adequate provision for women in that position.\n to some of my fellow roman catholic churchmen i say that attitudes on birth control, which sometimes seem to have more to do with the middle ages than with life in contemporary britain and the centre of places such as liverpool, are undoubtedly one of the reasons why people have abortions. i hope that they will address themselves to that problem.\n like the right hon. member for castle point, i also believe that there is a desperate need for more counselling facilities. there is also a need for more tolerance among families who reject their pregnant daughters and cast them on to the streets. up to 30 per cent. of people living in parts of my constituency are single parents with one child, then two, who find themselves on the rackety road to ruin as they get lured into things such as prostitution.\n we have already heard about a woman's right to choose, and women will ultimately make that decision whether they come within the system or are forced to use the back-street abortionist. however, many of us also believe that the developing child has rights. for purely philosophical and ideological reasons rather than reasons of religious conviction, i believe that the liberty of the individual is paramount. it is because i place such a high price on the rights of the individual that i take the view that i have just expressed.\n there is a strange contrast between this debate and the one which will take place on friday. that contrast concerns the premium that we place on life, the reflections of the warnock committee, which has examined the whole question of in vitro fertilisation, and the bill to be introduced by the right hon. member for south down (mr. powell).\n a few weeks ago, a child psychologist and a doctor addressed a group of hon. members at a forum held in one of the committee rooms. the right hon. member for castle point, who was present, will recall that during that discussion we were told that in london medical students were now paid £12 for sperm which is used to father up to six different children. that is £2 per child. the problems that they may cause to those children later in terms of a possible identity crisis over parentage—\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.53', 10, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is out of order. why not wait until friday?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.54', 19, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is not out of order. i shall come to the point when i relate it to today's debate.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.55', 11, 'uk.m.10260', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman's local newspaper probably comes out tomorrow, not saturday.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.56', 192, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is mistaken. i assure her that there are as many people in my constituency who take the same view as she does, whom it would be easier for me to placate by not speaking, as there are those who maintain my view. it is wrong to try to ascribe such motives to hon. members who have sincerely held views.\n in the discussions that took place last week, many hon. members listened to remarks, which concerned us all, about what would happen as a result of the in vitro fertilisation methods that are to be introduced. on friday, we shall be having a debate about people bringing children into the world scientifically, as a result of methods that we shall place on the statute book. today, we are talking about ways in which to remove the rights of children to be born. there is an odd and stark contrast. it is right that the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle has given us a chance to discuss the other side of the equation, and it helps to put into some perspective the debate that we shall be having on friday.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.57', 305, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i declare an interest, in that i am president of the brook advisory centre, which counsels not only on birth control but on whether pregnancy should be terminated. as i did medicine and set up birth control clinics at about the time that the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) was wrecking the law of scotland in this respect, i have always had a particular interest in these matters. without attempting to upset him —beautifully groomed as he ever is—i shall tell the house how the abortion act 1967 came about.\n in scotland there was a perfectly satisfactory law, the common law. it was exactly the same as the common law that governs every other medical condition. in other words, if i go to my doctor and ask him to cut off my ears, he will advise me that he does not think that it is in my interest to do so if i do not have leprosy, but it is if i do. the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy was, in scotland, a matter of common law.\n until the week of the wretched 1967 act, passed for england and wales and extended to scotland, there had never been a prosecution of a doctor or medical person in scotland. i acted for the only person who ever was prosecuted, until he did not turn up for trial. it was quite proper that this person was prosecuted and pled guilty, because he did an unprofessional operation without anaesthetic on a woman to terminate her pregnancy, and sent her home on a tram, and in a condition in which she was still subject to the likelihood of septicaemia. therefore, it was proper that he should have been prosecuted. however, that was the only prosecution for the termination of a pregnancy in scotland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.58', 32, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. and learned gentleman implying that no illegal abortions were carried out in scotland? does he not realise that there were quite a number of deaths from abortions in scotland?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.59', 289, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry if i did not make myself clear, and i am glad to be able to be able to do so now. that was the only prosecution of a medically trained person for the termination of a pregnancy. many people were prosecuted in scotland for improper, non-medical abortions, just as someone would be prosecuted in scotland if a person came along and asked him to pull out his teeth and he proceeded to do so with a pair of pliers. that would be an assault.\n at that time there was a desire for change in england because, under the infant life (preservation) act 1929, quite a large number of medically trained people had been prosecuted in england and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. it was to get over that difficulty that, when the then newly born foetus from roxburgh, selkirk and peebles arrived in the house, the midwife stuffed into his hand, when he won the ballot, the abortion bill that became the abortion act 1967.\n having done that, and realising that it would look a little odd if this new tartan fairy were to cure the law of england, having been elected for a scottish seat, he applied it to scotland and ruined a perfectly satisfactory law. interestingly enough, although scotland has a much bigger proportion of roman catholics than any other part of the united kingdom, there was never any complaint about the common law of scotland and its application. if i were to ask my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh) to say anything, it would be to say that he would have the words, "this act does not apply to scotland" put at the end of the 1967 act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.60', 132, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as always, the hon. and learned gentleman is entertaining and inaccurate. he may recall that in 1966–67 professor sir dugald baird, who was the chief exponent of a liberal abortion law in scotland, was in the aberdeen health area, the only one to which the law which the hon. and learned gentleman is describing applied. professor sir dugald baird told me that the reason for this was that a lord advocate of a few years before had sent round a circular to consultants in scotland saying that they were liable for prosecution for carrying out abortions. it was because of that threat, arising out of the uncertainty of the common law hanging over doctors, that sir dugald baird was one of those who advised me strongly to include scotland in the act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.61', 65, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is a strange recollection. i remember trying to persuade the right hon. gentleman not to extend the act to scotland, and i personally addressed the royal college of physicians, with professor sir dugald baird in the chair, on the law of scotland and on abortion. he did not take that view then or in any of the correspondence that i had with him afterwards.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.62', 57, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my experience in general practice in the years before the abortion act was passed totally conflicts with the views expressed by the hon. and learned gentleman. i was never able to have an abortion terminated for a patient by referring her to any hospital. no gynaecologist in glasgow would perform abortions except in the most serious circumstances.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.63', 315, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that may be the hon. gentleman\'s recollection of his private practice in glasgow, and practice varied throughout the country, but, as professor sir dugald baird demonstrated, the law was satisfactory.\n i introduced birth control clinics into scotland and i am anxious about this matter because of what i have come across in my legal practice. i spent part of my time divorcing people who had married in the first place only because there was an unintentional pregnancy. i spent a great deal of my time in the high court with children who had been unintentionally conceived and whose parents were not emotionally capable of looking after them. it was never the last child, but always the one in the middle. my practice involving this catalogue of misfortunes arose out of unintended pregnancies.\n the difficulty which my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle gets into when he starts talking about the limitation of time period is that of the consistency of those who say that the correction of a mistake is forbidden, that the mistake is hidden or denied until later and later in the pregnancy. people say, "perhaps i have missed my period, but it may be natural," and they say that about the next one as well, and so on. unintended conception is a mistake. the parties may have used a contraceptive method which did not work, or they may have made a miscalculation. if a woman becomes pregnant unintentionally, is it right for this house to say that that is a mistake which she is not allowed to correct? that seems to me to be a strange moral judgment.\n people talk about the right to life of the unintended foetus. the unintended foetus did not have a choice whether it should be unintendedly conceived in the first place, so why should it have a right not to be intendedly disconceived thereafter?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.64', 51, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no hon. members have yet said in the debate that they would ban abortion entirely in all circumstances. it is simply that, for a combination of practical politics and personal morality, they are saying that there should be fewer circumstances in which abortion should be allowed—not that it should be abolished.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.65', 218, 'uk.m.16393', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i appreciate that, but what i am trying to stress—it is very important and rarely understood—is the psychological barrier facing a woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally. the barrier is such that she tends to defer the taking of any action. if she were able legitimately, and with public approval, to correct the mistake when it was made, she would not face the difficulty later of getting into the period of gestation before any operation was performed.\n i agree with the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) that it is disgraceful that a woman who is referred to a consultant under the national health service can be held responsible for the lateness of the proposed abortion. i agree that the later the termination, the more difficult it becomes. i am in favour of very early abortion, but that can be achieved only if the moral climate alters and we move away from the idea that abortion, even if it is permitted by the 1967 act, is wrong.\n in looking round the chamber—not, of course, this evening—one may well feel that from time to time a good many mistaken conceptions have taken place. there is no other mistake in human activity which we do not think it right to try to correct. what is wrong with correcting that one?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.66', 115, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before commenting on the speech of the hon. and learned member for perth and kinross (mr. fairbairn), i should like first to refer to one or two of the points made by the mover of the motion, the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh). there seemed to be one or two contradictions in his speech.\n the hon. member referred to the sacredness of all human life. in looking round the chamber, i noted that most of the conservative members who accept that view are in favour of capital punishmment. either human life is sacred or it is not. it cannot be said that it is sacred in some circumstances and not in others.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.67', 6, 'uk.m.21745', 'uk.p.SNP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. member give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.68', 747, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "in view of the limited time available, i hope that the right hon. gentleman will understand if i do not give way to him.\n another point that the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle made has been mentioned frequently in all the debates on legislation dealing with abortion—that nurses and other people have been persecuted and even dismissed because of the exercise of their conscience. whenever that has been alleged, we have asked for one such case to be produced. no one, in any circumstances whatever, has been able to produce a case of a nurse or anyone else in the medical profession who has been dismissed for the exercise of conscience under the 1967 act.\n the hon. gentleman asserted that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. i wish that were so, but we live in the real world and we know that there are unwanted children. there are many women throughout britain and throughout the world who find that they are pregnant and who, for whatever reason, do not want to bear the child for very good reasons. the ultimate test must be the consultation between the patient and her general practitioner, and the law should be at a minimum in dealing with that relationship.\n the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) laid rather more stress than did the mover of the motion on the development of private clinics. i think that we are all agreed on the undesirability of such a development, but the only possible acceptable alternative is the improvement of facilities within the national health service. the answer is not to abolish all such clinics but to improve nhs facilities. i hope that the minister will give the house some assurance in that respect.\n throughout the country public opinion, no matter what people's political or religious persuasion may be, is massively in support of the way that the 1967 act is operating. there may be a case for considering a time limit for abortion. i served on standing committees which dealt with two abortion bills. the right hon. member for castle point will remember them vividly. those bills were talked out of existence. i think we were right to do that, because public opinion was massively on our side.\n it is right that minorities should express their opinion. i understand that a petition containing 1·5 million signatures is to be presented by a conservative member. there are another 55 million signatures that are not on the petition. let us not be under any illusion as to the strength of feeling on abortion. minorities have a right to be heard but the majority have the right to prevail.\n the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle was right not to lay too much emphasis on the grounds for abortion. i do not think that there is an authoritative body, in the medical profession or anywhere else, in support of any tightening up of that part of the 1967 act. the main argument relates to a time limit. there may be a case for that. however, even if it is set at 24 weeks, there will always be cases where, for one reason or another, exceptions will have to be made. for that reason, the greater the flexibility in the legislation the better.\n the 1967 act does not lay down a period of 28 weeks or any other period, and that is for a good reason. there is a degree of flexibility to enable the medical profession to examine and treat each case on its merits. the less we do about changing that the better.\n we are all against late abortions; indeed, we are all against all abortions. it is a horrible operation. at the weekend i was talking to a doctor who does abortions and he said that there is not a more undesirable operation, because it is an expression of failure. but if we can do anything in this house to eliminate that failure, it will bring happiness to many women and many families who would not otherwise have it. we legislate in this place for the sake of humanity. we legislate to make practices more humane than they would otherwise be. whatever this house does, women will have abortions. they have had them over the centuries. it is up to us to make the operation more humane by putting on the statute book legislation which is flexible and which recognises the human problems that lie behind abortion.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.69', 259, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not take up too much time by going over points that have already been made, especially as some of my comments may be almost identical to those made by my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh).\n i should make it clear that i am not against abortion per se. in whatever proposals i might make, i am not working towards a day when abortion will be completely abolished. whatever my private and personal views may be, other people will hold different views, and on this subject—perhaps more than on any other—one tries to achieve a consensus.\n two points need to be made. first, it concerns me that the word "abortion" seems to be caught up with the concept of contraception and birth control. that is extremely dangerous. hardly anyone would now argue against contraception, but in talking about abortion we are not talking about contraception. contraception ensures that human life or conception does not occur. despite the argument that the spermatozoa and ova are alive, there is no human life until they are fused at conception. thus, even a hard-line roman catholic — if i can use that phrase in a non-pejorative sense — who might be opposed to both abortion and contraception, would probably admit that one of them is much worse than the other.\n it must be recognised that abortion is ultimately a form of population control. whatever the motives may be, it terminates human life. that is not the same as preventing that life from forming in the first place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.70', 30, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman argues that human life begins at the moment of conception. but what are sperm and ova if they are not human life? what does he call them?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.71', 257, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i call them on the one hand sperm and on the other ova, but they are not human life. the hon. gentleman has asked a question so he must listen to the answer. until they are fused, they are not human life which, unless it is interrupted by nature or some other physical event, will inexorably lead to a birth — [interruption.] the hon. gentleman goes on heckling from a sedentary position, but if he does not like the answer to his question he could at least have the courtesy to listen to it in relative silence.\n secondly, we are used to referring to the 1967 act and to the fact that it liberalised abortion or allowed it in certain circumstances, as though that act was the complete source of our abortion law. but it is not. it has to be read in conjunction with the infant life (preservation) act 1929. subsections (1) and (2) of that act say that if the gestation period is more than 28 weeks, it is assumed that the child is capable of being born alive. in combination, those two acts form the basis of our abortion law. when the 1929 act spoke of 28 weeks, it did so because at that time it was not expected that a child could be born alive before then. in law, capable of being born alive was not even taken to mean capable of surviving. i hope that the one common ground uniting us all is that 28 weeks can no longer be considered appropriate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.72', 76, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has touched on a crucial point that is frequently misunderstood. it is not the case that it would be legal to abort a foetus that was capable of life, even if it was less than 28 weeks old. it is illegal to kill any foetus that is capable of being born alive. that is the law. therefore, many of the arguments for reducing the 28-week period represent a misunderstanding of the present law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.73', 845, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i suspect that this will be the first and last time, even in this parliament, that i say that the hon. lady and i are in total agreement on a point.\n the essence of that act was the capability of being born alive and not the period of 28 weeks. the difficulty is that in practice the exception becomes the norm. it would be a brave, optimistic and, probably, well-heeled man, who would tell a doctor, who had gone through the procedures under the act and who had aborted a foetus at 23 weeks, that he was to be subjected to a private prosecution claiming that at that age the child was capable of being born alive. that is the difficulty.\n i think that i have correctly identified the source of the abortion law. we have moved a long way since 1929, and it is now obvious that a child is capable of being born alive at 28 weeks. it is not just a question of making a slight advance involving a week here or there. it is now possible for a child to be born alive at 23 weeks and, moreover, for it to survive. in such debates, the evidence inevitably tends to become anecdotal, and is sometimes no worse for that. but here the evidence is better than that.\n on 10 march 1984 an article appeared in the lancet entitled, "capable of being born alive". mr. dunn and mr. stirrat of the bristol maternity hospital reviewed the state of the law as we all understand it to be. a footnote to that article read: at the time of writing two infants of 23 weeks gestation are in our care, one now being 2½ weeks old the other 1 week old. i do not know whether those two children even survived the date of publication, but if they did, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the child who survived two and half weeks was capable not only of being born alive but of surviving.\n i hope that my right hon. and learned friend the minister will make a statement along the following lines. if those two statutes taken in combination are properly the foundation of our abortion law, it cannot be right that that 28-week guideline — i hestitate to use that word for reasons that the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short) would correct me for — with all the implications that it has, should still be valid. if we are concerned to get our abortion laws right, something must be done, sooner rather than later, to ensure that that time limit is reduced.\n the hon. member for fife, central, (mr. hamilton) spoke about the sacredness of human life, and that is right. he might have correctly identified me as being one of those who are in favour of capital punishment and in favour of strengthening or, as he might have it, of deliberalising our abortion laws. we could both argue until we were blue in the face, but neither of us would be convinced that the other was right. but i would argue that a person can forfeit his right to life by a crime so heinous that he should be subject to a capital penalty. but ingenious though the mind of a lawyer is, i cannot begin to conceive of how a foetus that has yet to be born can have committed some crime that requires its extinction. therefore, the hon. gentleman\'s point was no good.\n the hon. member for fife, central also spoke about the elimination of unhappiness. again, that unites us. i am not arguing in favour of the abolition of abortion. with all due respect, however, the hon. gentleman will have to do better than talk about the elimination of unhappiness. in talking about eliminating unhappiness, we are talking about eliminating human life. to consider the woman\'s happiness does not mean to say that one can simply ignore the fact that the child will be subject not just to unhappiness but to death.\n where do we go from here? we are entitled to say that the legislaion under which abortions are performed should be tightened up in view of what we now know about foetology. there is also a job to be done in terms of educating the public, and especially the child-bearing public, about exactly what is involved in an abortion. it is not just a question of going into hospital and having an anonymous collection of cells removed. if a woman has an abortion by vacuum aspiration, she is committing herself to allowing the child within her to be dismembered. if that is the sort of thing that abortion involves, the public should know about it. if a woman, knowing that, still goes ahead with an abortion, she has at least done so with her eyes open. i hope that a film such as "the silent scream" will be broadcast on itv and bbc with all the counterbalancing propaganda that i am sure that the hon. member for ladywood will be able to provide.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.74', 5, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that film is completely fabricated.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.75', 150, 'uk.m.10456', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady howls that the film is fabricated. the death of the child certainly is fabricated, but if it is such a monstrous fabrication, i can see no reason why it should not be given air space so that the hon. lady can produce her arguments to prove that it is fabricated.\n since 1967, 2¼ million babies have been killed before being born but after conception. in only 2 per cent. of the cases were the mothers' lives at risk or the babies seriously deformed. in 98 per cent. of the cases, therefore, the babies were killed because under the abortion act 1967 one can have one's child killed for what amounts to little more than the fact that one finds it inconvenient to bear it or because it might be inconvenient to its existing brothers and sisters. in a civilised society, we cannot allow that to continue indefinitely.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.76', 1299, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for teignbridge (mr. nicholls) has just made the most unbelievably, incredibly patronising speech. he talked about educating the child-bearing population. it is about time that he and some of his hon. friends were educated. the trouble with this house is that it is dominated by males who think that they know what is best for women.\n the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh) is one of a string of hon. members who have said that the abortion act brings to the country an air of permissiveness, a lowering of moral standards and a diminution in the sanctity of the family. he and others suggest that the act allows abortion on demand. that is not true. they say that women frivolously use abortion as a contraceptive. that is not true either. they say that the tightening up of this already limited legislation will ensure a rosy picture of happier and more stable parents and children. nothing is further from the truth.\n as everyone in the house knows, abortion has existed since the beginning of time. throughout history, wealthy women have always been able to have abortions without problems or questions; they simply had to provide the money. no comfortable place in a private clinic was open to those without money. poorer women had two options. their first was to continue the pregnancy and have an unwanted child. it is not true that children are always wanted when they arrive. their second option was to have a back-street abortion—a messy and dangerous practice which i am glad to say has almost disappeared. however, i fear that it may be on the way back if some conservative members have their way.\n many figures have been quoted, and i want to put mine on the record. the number of abortions on residents in england and wales fell each year between 1980 and 1983. however, in the first half of 1984 the number increased by 3,052–5 per cent.—compared with the first half of 1983. that rise occurred in the 16 to 29 age group. the office of population censuses and surveys has pointed out that this took place about three to five months after the publication in the previous october of papers associating certain malignant diseases with the long-term use of oral contraceptives. it is obvious that many women were frightened by the pill scares and changed to less reliable means of contraception. the result was more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.\n it is more important to consider the rate of abortions rather than the numbers, because the rate takes account of the increases and decreases in the numbers of women in the fertile age group.\n the abortion rate has remained at or under 12 women per thousand for the past 13 years. that is one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, as my hon. friend the member for cynon valley (mrs. clwyd) said. it is remarkable that it has remained so steady. it shows that women are using contraception in the most effective way possible. there is no foolproof method of contraception. women are not using abortion as a method of contraception. abortion is used only in the most dire circumstances — when contraception has failed or when conception is the result of an unplanned act.\n much has been made of the number of abortions performed on young women between the ages of 16 and 29 who are not married and have no children. the implication is that all such women are fit and healthy and that they should have babies or, if they do not want babies, that they should bear them and offer them for adoption. many hon. members have said that. it is an odd argument, because many of those who use it are now holding up their hands in horror at the idea of surrogacy. they suggest that everyone should go through with an unplanned pregnancy to term and then offer the child for adoption, but when it comes to surrogacy they say, "no, we cannot have that." i do not understand their argument.\n the house should take account of the trends. women are no longer prepared to put up with a pregnancy that they do not want and with which they cannot cope. many women want to plan a family. they want to develop their talents, to work and to earn a living before having a family. few women now feel compelled to marry if they become pregnant. in 1969, about 44·5 per cent. of pregnant women married before the child was born. in most cases, they were shotgun marriages. in 1981 the figure was 19 per cent.—a much healthier figure.\n society no longer condemns a woman for having an illegitimate child. that is another reason why women do not feel that it is necessary to marry. many women categorised as single live with their partner in a stable relationship. they simply do not think it important to marry. in 1982, 59 per cent. of illegitimate births were jointly registered. parliament must take account of changes in attitudes and values and in the way in which people live.\n births and abortions to under 16-year-olds since 1974, when contraceptives were made freely available to all, regardless of age, have remained static. at least, they have up to now. abortions for women in that age group have remained at under 10 in 1,000 since 1974. the rate of live births in that age group has been at or under three in 1,000 since 1974. the number of illegitimate births has risen as young girls have decided to keep their children, because they believe that society will tolerate that decision.\n an acute danger to that stable position now hangs over young girls and their doctors. i refer to the recent judgment by the appeal court which stops girls under 16 from getting help from their doctors without the express consent of their parents. lord justice parker, one of the appeal court judges, said that that might lead to pregnancy, backstreet abortion or even death.\n on 8 february, the times reported that the british medical association had received information that two young girls were alleged to have committed suicide as a result of not receiving the contraceptive advice that they sought. one was a girl who was sexually assaulted by her father, and who learnt that she could not obtain contraceptive advice without her mother knowing of it. the other was a 12-year-old girl who sought advice, but her parents objected. they are reported to have taken their lives. is that really what conservative members want?\n perhaps hon. members with teenage daughters have a close and understanding relationship with them. i hope so. if so, they are fortunate, because many do not have that relationship. many daughters do not feel that they can discuss sex with their parents. family situations vary enormously, and there is often conflict in the home which creates a tense atmosphere in which young girls find it difficult to talk about matters at that time in their development. therefore, they need access to their doctors.\n under-16s are badly frightened and feel abandoned. i suppose that that fear and sense of isolation is viewed by the moralists on the conservative benches as a healthy deterrent to young girls under the age of 16 having sex. goodness knows how many girls have become pregnant since the court of appeal judgment. the moralists have tabled an early-day motion against abortion for girls under 16. i am afraid that that will not stop pregnancies. i hope that the court of appeal judgment is changed. do hon. members really want no advice, no counselling, no contraception and, if the worst comes to the worst, no abortion, other than illegal or back-street abortion, for girls under 16?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.77', 41, 'uk.m.16827', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i want girls under 16 to take advice from their parents and not to obtain contraceptive advice that is not officially allowed because it is against the law. that would help to bring about a decent family life for those girls.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.78', 838, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman is mistaken. contraceptive advice for under-16s is not against the law. he overlooks the fact that many girls cannot and will not discuss it with their parents. they feel that they cannot talk to them. of course, it would be preferable if they could, and that is what the counselling service and the doctors advise. if we follow the advice of conservative members, the clock will be turned back.\n almost every day during question time we urge girls to make the most of education and employment opportunities. we tell them to stay at school, get on with their education and grasp the chances to make something of themselves, yet we deny them the understanding advice and help that would enable them to view sex in a sensible manner at a difficult time in their lives.\n there is little support among the public or the medical profession for restricting the grounds for abortion. in 1983, the gallup poll found that 74 per cent. of the public thought that the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. support for that view has been high since 1979 —never lower than 74 per cent., which is three quarters of those sampled. the support is high regardless of the age, sex, political opinion or religion of those polled. there is growing support for a more liberal abortion law that would allow women to make their own decisions on abortion. in 1979, the national opinion poll found that 56 per cent. of people thought that abortion should be available legally to those who wanted it. that was confirmed in a later nop survey in the sun. \n people tend to think that it is easy to obtain an abortion. it is not. many of my hon. friends have pointed out the difficulties that face women and girls seeking abortion. we know of the widespread concern about the unevenness of nits provision—from the disgraceful figures in the west midlands where only 3 to 4 per cent. of women can obtain abortions on the nhs to the 97 per cent. who can do so in the north of england. it would have become the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle more and earned him my respect if part of his motion had referred to the inadequacies of nhs provision for abortion. that would have been a good point to debate, and preferable to the high moral tone that the hon. gentleman chose to take.\n a number of different organisations and bodies have taken a similar view about nhs facilities—for example, the royal commission and the select committee which considered abortion in 1981, on which both the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) and the minister's predecessor served. indeed, the minister's predecessor expressed his concern that nhs abortion facilities should be improved. however, those facilities are still not good enough. only last month the women's national commission working group on health, chaired by dame ann springman of the conservative women's national committee, said that where an abortion is permissible, nhs facilities should be made available at the earliest possible stage and that day care facilities should be extended. the labour party's programme gives priority to improving nhs facilities, including day care, so that choice can be effective wherever the woman lives.\n during all the agitation, the pontificating, the attacks on the existing abortion laws and the moralising that we have heard this evening, nothing has been said about the role of the man. women are blamed for needing abortions. it is represented as their fault if they become pregnant —they have not taken precautions; the precautions have gone wrong so it is bad luck on them; they must bear the agony and the fear of not finding a doctor willing to help; they must bear the main brunt of an abortion and all the difficulties that go with it. nowhere in the argument is the role and the responsibility of the man pointed out. that was most noticeable in the speech of the hon. member for teignbridge. the women are made to feel blameworthy and guilty. if they cannot cope, people look down on them. they are talked about as though they did not exist or work in this place. they are continually put down by less than half the population—the men—who want to decide for them what they should do with their bodies.\n even in the argument about the under-16s and the recent court of appeal judgment, it is the daughters' difficulties that are exposed and it is their lives that are being endangered. the law actually protects boys of 14, but they have not been mentioned in our discussion. the house should remember that in our moralising we must understand that women will not for ever be prepared to go on being unable to control their fertility and their bodies. they will continue to demand more rights and more of a say in how they shape their lives.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.79', 2325, 'uk.m.10115', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i begin by congratulating my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh), first, on his good fortune in obtaining this allocation of parliamentary time and, secondly, on giving the house the opportunity to consider this subject again. since the abortion act 1967 was passed the house has considered its provisions on several occasions and several attempts have been made to introduce amending legislation, although none has been successful. but it is surprising — it has surprised me during my time as minister for health—that the house has not considered the subject since 1981. the previous occasion on which the house considered it was when the hon. member for barking (ms. richardson) introduced a ten-minute bill, which did not reach the statute book.\n although some hon. members criticised my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle, and although i do not agree with all of his views on this subject, the way in which he put them forward commanded respect, and i am sure that his reasonable proposition will be supported by many inside and outside the house.\n i must make it clear that the government, like all their predecessors, are neutral on the great issues of principle that are raised by abortion. the government believe that it is for parliament to decide the law and to take any opportunity that the majority wishes to change the law. since parliament has decided that abortions may lawfully be carried out in the circumstances specified in the act, the government have a duty to ensure that the provisions of the law are properly applied. that must remain our view. i have always been a supporter of the 1967 act and believed that the way in which it has been applied has, on balance, been beneficial to society. but as i speak in this debate, because i happen to be the minister for health, i shall not take advantage of the time to discuss at length some of the issues that have been raised, which i might have done were i not on the front bench.\n following the examination of the working of the act by the lane committee and later by the select committee on abortion, we now have a strict system of control over the application of the act. i assure the house that my department takes seriously its duties of inspection and control of private clinics. we monitor closely the operation of the act, and i assure hon. members that our monitoring machinery does not reveal any abuse of it. the government are satisfied that they are ensuring, to the best of their ability, that the wishes of parliament are respected. that means that abortions are being carried out in proper circumstances and only when the provisions of the act are satisfied. obviously, we must strive to ensure that that continues to be the case.\n i and the government share my hon. friend\'s concern that many abortions are still considered necessary, for the reasons that were expounded by the hon. member for barking. the background to most abortions is at least error, but often it is severe emotional crisis. abortion is often the cause of considerable distress and difficulty. the figures for 1981, 1982 and 1983 showed a slight decrease in the number of abortions. from the best test that can be applied, which is the number of abortions per thousand women between the ages of 15 and 44, we discover that the rate fell from 12·62 in 1980 to 11·94 in 1983.\n it is regrettable that the 1984 figures that we have so far show a slight increase in abortions. no one knows what caused that, but i share the theory of the hon. member for barking that it almost certainly resulted from the scare that followed last year\'s reports of possible dangers from the contraceptive pill. when those stories emerged, we did our best to give proper advice to women, which included asking them to ensure that they finished the course of contraceptive treatment upon which they had embarked, and that they took advice about alternative methods of contraception. but it seems likely that some women, in panic, stopped the course of pills that they were taking or made a mistake in changing to other methods. everyone who has spoken in the debate, with whatever views, must hope that the downward trend which we previously witnessed will soon return and continue.\n i agree with my hon. and learned friend the member for perth and kinross (mr. fairbairn), who put his views in his usual colourful way, that one of the best things that we can do to reduce the large number of abortions is to encourage the sensible use of family planning. we do that by the provision of a free family planning service, which we believe is an essential preventive measure which contributes to the avoidance of unwanted pregnancy, to the proper spacing and timing of children and, therefore, to better maternal and child health and to a secure and stable family life. for that reason, we support financially those voluntary bodies that work in this area and the family planning information service.\n the hon. member for barking felt free to express her views about the case that has been brought against the department by mrs. gillick. she will understand that, as the matter is still waiting to go to the house of lords, i would rather not be drawn into that discussion. but it is important that that court of appeal decision is appealed, if only to clarify some of the doubts left unanswered by the way in which the judgment was expressed. this is an important matter for our society, and the highest court in the land must give a clear ruling on whether the guidance issued by the department was lawful.\n in the brief time that i propose to take in the debate, i shall say a few words about the matter which most concerned my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle. he was worried, as were many hon. members, about the late stage at which some abortions are performed, especially having regard to the advances in medical techniques of helping premature babies to survive. this matter has caused anxiety for many years, and it has been considered from time to time since the lane committee produced its report. several hon. members have accurately described the legal and statistical position, so i shall not repeat everything that has been said about the infant life (preservation) act 1929, which was described by my hon. friend the member for teignbridge (mr. nicholls), and its relationship to the present law. as he said, the act requires prima facie proof that a foetus is capable of being born alive if a pregnancy is of more than 28 weeks\' duration.\n as the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short) made clear, the infant life (preservation) act protects the life of any foetus capable of being born alive, but in practice the 28-week period has been taken as the usual guideline for the application of that act. the lane committee recommended that it should be made illegal for an abortion to be carried out after 24 weeks, but, after repeated attempts, the house has not yet been able to resolve that matter, and the law stands as it was in 1929 and in 1967.\n the government have become concerned about the state of the law because of the changes in medical techniques. in march 1980, my predecessor—my hon. friend the member for reading, east (sir g. vaughan) — asked the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists to undertake a review of late abortion practice. its report was published early in 1984, and i commend it to those hon. members who have not read it. the government have been considering how best to follow the eight major recommendations in the report, which examined the causes for late abortions and the way in which unnecessary delays and, therefore, the number of late abortions might be reduced. the report has been helpful in drawing attention to the factors which cause abortion to be carried out later than need otherwise happen. we hope that those who provide abortion services, whether it be the national health service or the private sector, will consider its findings carefully.\n the government propose to act in several ways. first, to take the point made by the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) among others, we propose to discuss with nhs representatives the report\'s findings about delays between referrals and operations in the nhs. we shall be having serious discussions with national health service representatives to ascertain whether improvements can be made in practice in areas where delays seem to be inexplicably longer than in other parts of the country. we shall try to disseminate the best practice so that the lessons learnt in one place can be applied by authorities elsewhere. i understand that there is a good scheme which appears to be working well in newcastle. if it is proved that newcastle has a better method of handling these matters, we shall do our best to commend it to other health authorities and so spread it through the service.\n secondly, the recommendations of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists point to a need for more education, especially for younger women, to make them appreciate the urgency of early consultation and decision making when pregnancy occurs. we shall be consulting our colleagues in the department of education and science about the prospects for more health education and counselling facilities for young people in this sensitive area.\n thirdly, we shall be seeking to reinforce in every other way the importance of early recognition of pregnancy and recourse to advice when anyone faces a crisis of the sort that we are discussing. that message has already been highlighted by the maternity services advisory committee, which the government set up and whose report we have already commended to health authorities.\n the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, together with other medical bodies, is considering actively whether to recommend that the 1929 act should be amended to change the definition of "foetal viability" from 28 to fewer weeks. the hon. member for east kilbride (dr. miller), the only member with a medical qualification to speak in the debate, told us that there is not unanimity within the medical profession on this matter. however, i feel that most doctors consider that 28 weeks is too long a period. this important matter needs to be considered at the level at which the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists is now examining it. when the medical bodies produce their advice, i am sure that it will be widely debated and that the house, as well as the government, will want to consider it and decide what implications it has for abortion law. i suggest that until we have had time to consider the views of the royal college it will be foolish for the government to take a view about any alternative to the 28-week provision. it is probably a little premature for anyone to try to introduce a proposal to make changes in the law.\n i think that we all expect the royal college to come out with a shorter period than 28 weeks. long ago the lane committee said that 24 weeks should be the maximum for a legal abortion. practically everyone who has contributed to the debate has suggested that perhaps 28 weeks is too long a period and that it should be reduced.\n my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir b. braine) and others reminisced about previous bills. i remember the issues which have been discussed this evening being canvassed when the house considered the bill that was introduced by my hon. friend the member for cunninghame, north (mr. corrie). my hon. friend tried to introduce a substantial amendment to the 1967 act. in this debate those with views as opposite as the hon. members for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) and for fife, central (mr. hamilton) have supported a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. i remember that i did when the cowie bill was passing through the house. i think that i voted to that effect, although i have not checked to ensure that i was present when the division took place. however, i recall that i supported a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks.\n the majority of the house voted in favour of the reduction when the division took place in the course of our consideration of the corrie bill.\n it is my recollection that the sponsors of the corrie bill insisted on adding many other drastic amendments, with the result that those like the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), for fife, central and for barking and myself, who would otherwise have been happy to see a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks placed on the statute book, found that everyone\'s wishes were frustrated because the bill was eventually talked out.\n if the royal college returns with some clear advice, i think that the house will have a duty to recognise that there is an amazingly wide spread of opinion. i hope that i shall be forgiven for referring to the opinions of my right hon. friend the member for castle point and of the hon. member for barking. probably 28 weeks is too long a period, and the house must concentrate on making progress on that issue, if on nothing else, if that proves to be the recommendation of the royal college. it will be for my right hon. friend the leader of the house to decide whether the government will provide time for these matters to be considered by the introduction of a bill, if and when this hypothetical situation ever arises. that is not a matter to be decided before the royal college reports to us.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.80', 42, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. and learned gentleman aware that only 0·6 per cent. of terminations take place at 28 weeks or later? it is still a tiny percentage and we should not get it out of all proportion when considering this matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.81', 86, 'uk.m.10115', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i accept that the number is tiny, but it is not insignificant. if the royal college says that 28 weeks is now an unrealistically long period for "foetal viability", to use the jargon, and that medical practice has been transformed during the period from 1929 to 1985, i think that the house will wish to address itself to modern practice and, perhaps, to insert a more realistic limit in the statute book. however, i accept that we must not get this issue out of all proportion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.82', 90, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that earlier the minister said that he did not think that this would be the right moment for any hon. member to introduce amending legislation to reduce the time limit when abortions can be carried out from 28 to 24 weeks. the lane committee, a long time ago, said that that should be done, the world health organisation said that that should be done and the sponsors of earlier legislation took the same view. when does the right hon. and learned gentleman think will be the right time?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.83', 213, 'uk.m.10115', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'the government will not produce any legislation of that sort. i was expressing a personal view. as the royal college is considering the issue at this moment, i take the view that we might as well await its report. it may be that the royal college will not say that 24 weeks is the right time. it is possible that it will opt for some other period. as i have said, i do not think that it will be long before it reports.\n my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle addressed himself to nurses and whether the so-called conscience clause needed to be strengthened. when the bill introduced by my hon. friend the member for cunninghame, north was being considered, it received a great deal of support from all sections of the house as it contained provisions that suggested that the conscience clause might be rewritten. i have no evidence that the clause is not being applied properly now. i am not aware that any nurses have been dismissed for refusing to take part in abortion operations. i can assure my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle that we would wish to intervene to ensure that something was done if we found that any nurse had been so ill-treated.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.84', 37, 'uk.m.10230', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have been told that when doctors have applied for posts in certain hospitals they have been denied appointments because they said that they would refuse to terminate pregnancies. will the minister corroborate or reject that allegation?\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.85', 57, 'uk.m.10115', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am not aware of any such cases. we have no evidence that such cases have arisen. the allegation has been made repeatedly, but no cases of that sort have been brought to me as minister. that applies to nurses and to doctors seeking appointments. if anything of that sort has happened, it should not have done.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.86', 70, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'let us suppose that there are two gynaecologists at a hospital, one of whom performs abortions and the other does not because of his conscience. let us suppose also that the one who performs the abortions leaves. the post would have to be filled, and the board would be within its rights to insist that at least one gynaecologist at the hospital should fulfil his obligations to the health service.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.87', 147, 'uk.m.10115', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "i cannot say what considerations a hypothetical board might take into account in the hypothetical situation that the hon. gentleman has postulated. however, nurses are protected. we insist that they have a conscience clause. a doctor's prospects should not be adversely affected if, for some religious scruple, he does not want to take part in abortions.\n i have considerable sympathy with the two basic issues that my hon. friend the member for gainsborough and horncastle raised. i do not believe that he had a fierce opponent or critic on the proposal to shorten the period during which abortions can take place or on his remarks about a conscience clause. i am grateful to him for raising these matters. i assure him that the government will maintain their neutrality while seeking to ensure that all the safeguards in the present act are applied in practice from now on.\n ", datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13'], ['uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13.1.88', 185, 'uk.m.10260', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'to pregnant women, especially those in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the decision whether to have an abortion is agonising. i do not believe that abortions are lightly entered into. i am convinced that the decision whether to have a late abortion is not taken without a great deal of heart searching. because it is a difficult decision, i very much deplore the attitude of those who talk about abortion in terms of numbers or as though it were entered into flippantly. that attitude is particularly deplorable when it comes from men.\n the hon. member for gainsborough and horncastle (mr. leigh) will never have to struggle with the problems of contraception which, despite recent advances, can not only make a person ill, but be painful and unreliable. he will never have to face the shock of a pregnancy that has not been diagnosed until it is well advanced. the hon. gentleman will never have to face the agony of deciding whether to carry to term an abnormal foetus and bring into the world to lead a short life a child who might be severely handicapped.\n ', datetime.datetime(1985, 2, 11, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1985-02-11.13']]
['PROHIBITION OF ABORTION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.2005-10-21.4.1.2', 12, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n to be read a second time on friday 10 march .\n ', datetime.datetime(2005, 10, 21, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.2005-10-21.4']]
['Orders of the Day — Late Abortions']
[['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.1', 1059, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am immensely grateful for this opportunity to raise the recent historic ruling of mr. justice brooke. i understand that my hon. friend the under-secretary of state for health will be joining the debate shortly, and i should like to put on record my gratitude to him, as he has answered a number of debates on abortion, usually at unseasonal hours. he also answered an earlier debate during the night. indeed, i am usually accompanied on these occasions by my hon. friends the members for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) and for basildon (mr. amess). the last time that my hon. friend the minister answered a debate of ours, on 27 july, he asked, "when shall we three meet again?" i am afraid that on this occasion, there are only the two of us, but the others join me in the remarks that i intend to make.\n the ruling by mr. justice brooke was in the case of a mother who had sued a health authority because she bore a handicapped son. she had asked the health authority, or at least the doctors, to abort the son at 27½ weeks. to their credit, the doctors refused. they said that, even though handicap was present, under the infant life (preservation) act 1929, the pregnancy had advanced too far and they refused the abortion.\n in ruling in favour of the doctors and the health authority and against the mother who had claimed damages, mr. justice brooke took the opportunity to give a long overdue and much-needed clarification of the infant life (preservation) act, which states that it is an offence of child destruction to destroy a child capable of being born alive. it goes on to say that there is a presumption that the child will be born alive at 28 weeks, but if a child is capable of being born alive before that time, it is still protected under the act. the act says that, after 28 weeks, there is prima facie proof that the child could be born alive. the burden of proof would be on the doctor performing an abortion after that time to show that the child could not have been born alive. before the 28th week, the burden of proof lies on those who would prosecute the doctor.\n the words capable of being born alive have been construed in different ways. i am glad to see my hon. friend the minister in his place. i refer him back to the debate on the carlisle baby on 8 june last year. i asked several questions in that debate. i asked why, when the child had been born alive as a result of an abortion which had gone wrong, and had survived gasping and with a pulse rate for three hours, resuscitation was not provided. my hon. friend the minister replied that the doctors had decided that this was not a viable birth. i asked why the child was not registered for birth or for death. i obtained the same answer in each case. the doctors had decided that it was not a viable birth.\n mr. justice brooke ruled that the meaning of the words capable of being born alive was that a child was capable of surviving independently of its mother even if only for a short time". those are the crucial words, and that is the crucial clarification. many of my hon. friends and i have claimed over a long period that that was the correct interpretation of the infant life (preservation) act 1929. the carlisle baby, who survived for three hours—a short time, but nevertheless it survived—was therefore born alive.\n the medical profession and, i regret to say, the department of health, however, have tended to define life in terms of long-term viability. that does not stand up in logic. if i were terminally ill, i might have no long-term viability but no one would suggest that i was not alive. we do not say that our hospices are full of unviable beings. they are full of current living people. the carlisle baby was a living child.\n if mr. justice brooke\'s interpretation of the infant life (preservation) act 1929 is true—at present, that is the ruling that we have in law and the only recent judicial clarification that i know of on the matter—it follows that all those children who are aborted in national health service or private clinics at an age when they are capable of surviving, if only for a short time, are protected by the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and that those who destroy them commit the offence of child destruction.\n does the minister agree that, under the terms of mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, at least 2,000 illegal abortions are carried out every year in national health service and private clinics? the medical profession says that, at 22 weeks, there is a 5 per cent. chance of long-term survival, yet 2,000 abortions are carried out after 22 weeks. how is that compatible with mr. justice brooke\'s ruling on the infant life (preservation) act? the medical profession tells us that, after 24 weeks, there is a 15 per cent. chance of survival. we know that children of 24 weeks are regularly horn breathing and with a pulse rate. every year, however, there are some 20 abortions after 24 weeks. how are those abortions compatible with mr. justice brooke\'s ruling that, if a child is capable of surviving for even a short time, that child is covered and protected by the infant life (preservation) act? does my hon. friend the minister agree that in all those cases the act has been violated?\n we must remember that mr. justice brooke gave his ruling in the case of handicap. he did not say that there were exemptions to the infant life (preservation) act. he said in a straightforward manner that, if a child is capable of surviving, albeit for a very short time, it is protected. what is a very short time? let us consider abortions at 20 weeks. we must remember that the carlisle baby was 21 weeks, but it survived for three hours. surely there must be cases of earlier survivals for shorter periods. let us take the 20th week as the guide, which surely must be logical, given that the nhs has clear guidelines that, after the 20th week, resuscitation equipment shall be available.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.2', 211, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady is talking about being logical, but could she make it clear where she stands on the issue?\n as i understand it, 1 million women are at risk from an unplanned pregnancy. during the course of a year, a third of them become pregnant—half of them have an unplanned child and the others have an unplanned abortion, which is much to be regretted. the hon. lady's solution to the problem is to lock up the doctors, but does she accept that she is approaching the problem from the wrong direction? we are all sorry about any abortions, particularly late ones, but why does the hon. lady approach the matter from the legal angle, when we should be approaching it from the opposite direction? why does she believe that there is a hard and fast point at which the law can decide whether a child is viable? surely those matters should be left largely to the medical profession.\n i believe that the hon. lady is wrong to think that the law can be used as some kind of a weapon in her campaign against abortion. she should consider the practice in holland, where, the number of abortions is half that carried out here, although the laws are much more liberal.\n ", datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.3', 3852, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has already spoken once today. i gave way to him out of courtesy, expecting an intervention, but i got another speech. i shall not give way to the hon. gentleman again, no matter how pressing the points that he wants to raise.\n the hon. gentleman has totally misunderstood the nature of the debate. i am willing to engage with him on the general principles of abortion at a time that will come shortly. i am not talking about what i think is the right line, what i want to do with the doctors or where i want to define women\'s rights, but about mr. justice brooke\'s legal ruling. i want to know what the department of health is doing about complying with that legal ruling. as mr. justice brooke has talked about survival which lasts for only a short, unspecified period, as the basis of the infant life (preservation) act, is the minister satisfied that abortions which are carried out when a child can survive, albeit for a short time, are within the law?\n when he replied to my debates on the carlisle baby case and to the administration of the abortion act 1967, last june and july respectively, the minister said that he accepted that his department had to work within the confines of the infant life (preservation) act. in view of the recent judicial ruling, does he think that his department is doing that?\n another case has recently made headlines—that of ashley gardiner, a child of eight months gestation, who died when an allegedly reckless and drunken driver killed his mother. in that case, the crown prosecution service decided that it would not prosecute for death caused by dangerous driving. i appreciate that my hon. friend the minister cannot answer for the attorney-general\'s decisions, but there is a similarity of language in the replies to those two cases.\n my hon. friend the minister gave a thorough reply to the carlisle baby case debate, for which we were all most grateful. he said that it was a distressing and sad case, but nothing would be done about it. the attorney-general said exactly the same. he said that it was sad that an eight-month-old child had been killed in the womb, but he was not actually going to do anything about it.\n we have had mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, and at eight months that child was clearly capable of being born alive. therefore, it was capable of being destroyed under the infant life (preservation) act, so it was capable of being killed. i do not understand why the man alleged to have caused the incident is not being prosecuted for causing death.\n does my hon. friend the minister accept that viability in the long term is not an accurate interpretation of the infant life (preservation) act? what investigations will he demand into the alleged king\'s college baby case, the facts of which emerged in sunday newspapers two weeks ago after a member of staff was so distressed by what had happened that she wrote to the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) setting out the facts. that incident has shades of the carlisle baby case.\n the alleged facts in the king\'s college baby case are that a child of 27 weeks, clearly more than capable of being born alive, suffering from a relatively minor but certainly not a serious and incapacitating handicap, was killed in the womb while its healthy and fit twin was allowed to go on living. that was described as a selective reduction, in which a pair of children are growing in the womb and the doctors decide which one shall be allowed to live and which one shall die. can the minister honestly say that such a policy complies with the infant life (preservation) act? if it does, why is that so? if it does not, what steps does he intend to take?\n i return to some of the questions that i raised in july about the administration of the 1967 act. the minister is familiar with the questions. mr. justice brooke\'s ruling has changed the answers that i was given then, or certainly should do. my question was this. if a child is not capable of being born alive, what is the point of the lethal injection of urea or saline that is given in the administration of the prostaglandin method of late abortions? that method is widely used in the national health service, as opposed to the dismemberment method which is so grotesquely used in the private clinics and which the minister continues to allow. the prostaglandin method involves inducing an early birth and administering a lethal injection which, in the words of the medical text books, ensures that the child is born dead.\n if the child is not capable of being born alive in the first place, what is the purpose of an injection to ensure that it is born dead? if a doctor is giving an injection deliberately to kill a child which he believes to be capable of being born alive, surely he is violating the infant life (preservation) act 1929. under mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, which has nothing to do with long-term viability but everything to do with short-term survival and short-term independent breathing—he talked not about existence but about independent breathing—how can lethal injections be compatible with observation by the health service of the infant life (preservation) act? surely that is illogical and wrong.\n does the minister accept that there is a lack of will throughout the health service, and certainly within the department, to ensure that the abortion act 1967 is policed in its own right? surely the effect of mr. justice brooke\'s ruling is that the amendments to be tabled to the embryology bill by the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir b. braine) and myself will be unnecessary. if the act was properly policed and if the infant life (preservation) act was properly enforced, the abortions that we wish to outlaw would be outlawed already. is it not the case that, under mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, those abortions which are already outlawed are greater in number than those which we would outlaw?\n we have been obliged, reluctantly but of necessity, to exempt all cases of severe handicap. mr. justice brooke has not made that exemption. indeed, his ruling was based on a case of handicap. mr. justice brooke is saying that, if the law were properly administered, no changes would be necessary to the 1967 act to bring about the limitation on late abortions that is desired by the majority of members in this place.\n surely there is a clear responsibility on the minister, first, to outlaw the use of lethal injections and, secondly, to outlaw all abortions for whatever reason except saving the life of the mother after the 22nd week at the latest, and probably after the 20th week if we take the judge\'s views as they stand. if my hon. friend does not accept that, how does he interpret mr. justice brooke\'s ruling? what will he do to ensure that the health service and private clinics observe the ruling? what has already been done to observe the ruling, which is several weeks old?\n i turn to the dismemberment method. surely there must be a clear case for saying that if a child that is capable of being born alive is protected by the infant life (preservation) act, what goes on in the private clinics—live dismemberment of babies after the 18th week of gestation without anaesthetic—is a violation of the act and a gross atrocity under the act. we have been claiming that for some time, and the minister\'s standard response has been to say that the method of abortion chosen has to be down to clinical judgment.\n i ask my hon. friend this question. we know that the eight-month-old baby in the womb who died as a result of a road accident is claimed not to have died. if that baby had already been born and was being transported in an incubator when it met with the accident, the death of a live person would have been recorded. there is no doubt that the law would have said that that was a death. yet because the child was in the womb he was deemed not to have died.\n does the minister accept that we would not countenance or even dream in our worst nightmares of the live dismemberment, for whatever reason, of a child in an incubator? we would not even dream of creeping up and giving that child a lethal injection, and live dismemberment would be utterly repugnant, so why is it acceptable when practised on a child of identical age and development in the womb? is it because we see the one and not the other? is it the fact that we can see the pain and the reaction of the child in the incubator that makes such an act unthinkable?\n it is very convenient that we do not see the pain of the child in the womb—it is hidden from us. is that the reasoning—that we can do wrong so long as we cannot see that we are doing wrong? is it really down to medical judgment whether a child shall be dismembered alive? now that there is no longer a shred of doubt that such children are protected under the infant life (preservation) act, will my friend consider outlawing that method?\n perhaps the fact that that method is permissible does not come down to whether its effects are seen or not seen. perhaps we now define life in terms of our perception of life. if a child is wanted it is a person. if it is not wanted—even if it is an identical twin, as in the case of the king\'s college baby—it is not a person. that is the slippery slope. if we start to define humanity in terms of our perception of humanity we shall be doing what was done by a regime in the 1930s which defined an entire race as sub-human. that is what is done—if not in theory, in practice—by racially repressive regimes everywhere. if we start to define humanity according to our wants and perceptions rather than on objective criteria, we are heading for a very dark age indeed.\n i said earlier that mr. justice brooke had protected even the handicapped, and mr. justice brooke is to be congratulated. during the passage of the bill unsuccessfully introduced by the hon. member for mossley hill, any handicapped person could switch on the television or radio at any hour of the day or evening and hear politicians such as myself glibly discussing whether they had the right to be born. that is not an insult that we would offer to any racial or religious group. how dare we single out the handicapped for such an insult and treat them as a race apart? will the minister now accept that, as a result of mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, handicapped children capable of being born alive are as well protected under the infant life (preservation) act 1929—and under the abortion act 1967, which must comply with the terms of that act—as fit and healthy children, who account for 92 per cent. of all abortions after the 18th week? if the minister does not accept that, can he tell us how he squares mr. justice brooke\'s ruling with that refusal?\n mr. justice brooke has done something that we have been requiring for a long time, but it should not have been down to mr. justice brooke to make that decision. the terms of the infant life (preservation) act have always been abundantly clear. a child does not have to be born alive or to survive long term—it merely has to be capable of being born alive. what we have been given by mr. justice brooke is a definition of "born alive"—breathing independently for only a short time.\n perhaps the minister will be able to tell us what is the earliest recorded birth or abortion in which the child breathed for only a short time. with regard to the carlisle baby case, is it not true that there were precedents, that other children had been born breathing, at earlier stages of gestation? they may not have been capable of surviving, but clearly they were capable of being born breathing. i suggest the test that i mentioned earlier. if a doctor really believes that a child is not capable of being born alive, there is no point in a lethal injection. i suspect that if a lethal injection were not given, and if the nhs guidance were that the child must be given every possible chance, there would be many fewer abortions because doctors would not be willing to take the risk.\n the other point about which i am concerned is the lack of will to enforce the acts in their own right—long before the passage of any amendment in this parliamentary session. how many doctors have been prosecuted for aborting children who were capable of being born alive? i think that my hon. friend the minister will be able to tell me that over a very long period there has been only one. yet there is clear evidence, as in the carlisle case and in the king\'s college case, that this abuse is going on all the time. any child who is aborted after a certain stage of gestation would have had a chance, however slim, of being born alive. for that reason, there should be more prosecutions. it is as simple as that.\n those of us who have worked to have the legislation amended have been channeling our energies in the right direction, but there is another way—mere enforcement of the law as it stands. as i have said, mr. justice brooke has made it abundantly clear that the law is already adequate to do all the things for which the hon. member for mossley hill, my right hon. friend the member for castle point and my hon. friends the members for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) and for basildon (mr. amess) and i have been calling. the legislative changes for which we have been asking would be unnecessary if only the law were applied.\n will the minister please look again at the guidelines on resuscitation? during the debate on the carlisle baby case, on 8 june, he told me that resuscitation equipment had to be available from the 20th week. but "available" means simply "on the premises". the equipment does not actually have to be used; it merely has to be there. the mere presence of equipment does not mean that any effort will be made to save a live baby.\n to qualify for a licence, a private clinic must have resuscitation equipment if it is to abort after the 20th week. but even if that equipment remained unused, uncleaned, unmaintained, its mere presence would enable the clinic to comply with the guidelines issued by the minister. should there not be a very clear requirement that if a child is born alive, resuscitation equipment must be used? if the child is not capable of long-term existence, the resuscitation equipment will ultimately be unsuccessful, but at least we should know that efforts had been made to save the child.\n the carlisle case, to which i keep referring, is the clearest demonstration largely because it was the result of a coroner\'s inquiry and we have sworn affidavits and do not have to rely on rumour or newspaper reports. we have a clear legal guidance as to what went on.\n the carlisle case epitomises what i suspect goes on a great deal. i doubt whether there are children gasping for three hours on kidney dishes in wards up and down the country—i do not wish to paint such a horrible picture—but in a lesser sense, i suspect that there are many carlisle babies born alive who breathe for just a short time and who are treated as though they had never breathed at all, as though they were the foetuses which the pro-abortion lobby claims them to be.\n that is the problem. it is one of misuse of language. if a baby is wanted, it is a baby. it is referred to as a baby from the moment of its conception. if it is not wanted it is a foetus, even while its identical twin, in the king\'s college case, is a baby. what sort of doublespeak, dual standards and misuse of language is that?\n will the minister seriously consider investigating fully the allegations surrounding the king\'s college baby and give an absolute undertaking that he will consider referring that case for prosecution on the facts as they are alleged, because there almost certainly should be such a prosecution?\n we are told that that case caused great distress to members of staff, but, as so often, as the select committee on social services has been hearing while it considers the conscience clause, a member of staff writes and says what happened but asks not to be identified. is there an atmosphere of fear in the health service? has the minister considered whether that conscience clause is being adequately upheld? if, in horrifying cases such as the carlisle case and the alleged king\'s cross case, staff are afraid to speak out, how much less ready must they be to speak out over smaller, routine—if i may put it that way—violations of the abortion act 1967 and the infant life (preservation) act 1929?\n the pressure of fear should be removed. no member of staff, either of an nhs department or of a private clinic, should ever have to write to any member of parliament, as they do in droves, and ask not to be named. one of the most difficult features of the investigation now going on in the select committee is not the lack of evidence but the utter unwillingness of people who believe that they have been discriminated against because they do not believe in assisting at abortions, to be named for fear of their careers, their future progress, and sometimes of jeopardising their jobs.\n we heard, oh so eloquently, from one consultant that he was prepared to come forward and give his name because he was now a consultant, but a few weeks earlier, when he sent his initial letter to the committee, he did not want his name made public. what sort of atmosphere are conscientious objectors working in in the health service—i assume that they would not be in a private clinic because they are dedicated clinics—that even in the worst hospital cases and the worst excesses of abuse they do not want their names to be given?\n i sum up by putting some questions to my hon. friend the minister which i would be grateful if he could attempt to answer in the time left for the debate. he has always answered debates on this subject thoroughly. we are grateful for his careful explanations and for his almost invariable follow-up in writing. i know that he will answer my questions to the best of his ability.\n does my hon. friend accept that mr. justice brooke\'s ruling must be observed in the health service and in the private clinics? if he does, and if he accepts mr. justice brooke\'s decision that they are capable of being born alive, does he also accept that, already, without any changes to the 1967 act, thousands of illegal abortions are being carried out in this country by the nhs and by private clinics?\n does he accept that the ruling given by mr. justice brooke now protects the handicapped child in exactly the same way as it protects the fit and healthy child? does he accept that the use of lethal injections means that a doctor must believe that there is a chance that the child is capable of being born alive and, therefore, under mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, such injections should not be given? does he accept that long-term viability can no longer be used as a criterion for assessing whether a birth is live, because his answers in the carlisle baby case about the birth and death registrations were not that it was not a live birth, but that it was not a viable birth? will he accept that there is now a clear contradiction between mr. justice brooke\'s ruling and assuming long-term viability to be the criterion?\n will the under-secretary consider revised guidelines specifying not only that resuscitation equipment must be available, but that it must be used if a child is born breathing? once again, i ask the under-secretary to accept that there has to be a case in humanity, never mind in law, for reconsidering the social, legal and moral acceptability of live dismemberment without anaesthetic? will he undertake to investigate thoroughly the allegations surrounding the king\'s college baby case? will he state clearly that there is no case in law, as it stands, particularly under mr. justice brooke\'s ruling, for saying that a handicapped twin can be "selectively reduced", as they delightfully described it—i would call it by a stronger term, but i will not use it because i have tried to avoid emotive terms such as murder—in the womb at 27 weeks, while its twin is allowed to live? will he say that, if that did happen, it is illegal?\n will the under-secretary of state say whether he believes that there is an atmosphere of fear in the nhs among people with conscientious objections? although i understand that he will wish to await the report of the select committee before responding to any courses of action that might be recommended, will he at least state his concern that those with conscientious objections should be fully protected under the act?\n will the under-secretary of state say that, if the act were properly policed and enforced, there would be no need for legislative changes and that those changes are needed because the act is not properly policed and not properly enforced?\n will the minister say what revised guidance he has issued in the light of mr. justice brook\'s ruling? if he has not issued any revised guidance, why not?\n in short, will my hon. friend state what effect that historic ruling has on the conduct of late abortions in this country, and will he guarantee that if there are clear violations of either the abortion act 1967 or the infant life (preservation) act 1929, it is his department\'s view that those violations should be referred for prosecution? in other words, will he guarantee that the acts are vigorously enforced, rather than loosely conducted? i should be grateful if he could answer those few queries.\n as i said earlier, i understand that he cannot comment on the case of the child who died in the accident, but he may perhaps like to reflect on what would have happened if it had been a child in an incubator, and whether there is need for further clarification.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.4', 12, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'with the leave of the house, i call the under-secretary of state.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.5', 784, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', "i was going to seek your leave, mr. deputy speaker. thank you for giving me the chance to speak twice in this debate.\n i believe that both i and my hon. friend the member for maidstone (miss ann widdecombe) are somewhat surprised at her good fortune in being called at what is likely to be the conclusion of this debate.\n i pay tribute to my hon. friend's undoubted energies. to be as fresh and as lucid as she has been at this hour of the morning is no mean feat, but to maintain the enthusiasm and dedication to the causes which she holds so dear is a most remarkable quality. i pay tribute to her: to speak so eloquently for nearly 40 minutes without notes is an incredible achievement, and one of which the whole house should be proud.\n my hon. friend has raised a number of important issues. i think that she will understand if i am reluctant to comment either on case law or on matters that are really for my right hon. and learned friend the attorney-general. she will not expect a health minister charged with administering the present law to venture too far down the path of commenting on recent cases, but i shall do my level best.\n let me say at the outset that abortion is not a convenience but a tragedy, in each and every case. those are my personal feelings, but i am sure that they are shared throughout the house. we sometimes fall into the trap of believing that abortion, at whatever stage of gestation, is a medical convenience rather like minor surgery, but it is always a tragedy for the mother—indeed, for both parents of the life that is involved.\n the scale of abortion is significant, not only in britain but in other western european countries. earlier in this consolidated fund bill debate we talked at some length about the pressures on the national health service. it should be noted that some of the demands are created by ourselves, and not by the natural misfortunes of life—the afflictions that we, as human beings, may not be capable of controlling.\n there are substantial pressures on the obstetric and gynaecological departments of nhs hospitals arising from the demand for abortions. i make no moral judgment, as a minister of the crown, about the need for such abortions, because the law provides for such services under the 1967 act; i merely comment that we should not dismiss the pressure for them lightly, as some minor convenience that is provided for all who seek it.\n it may be helpful if i review briefly the legislative background to abortion issues. as my hon. friend said, it is an offence under the infant life (preservation) act 1929 to destroy the life of a child that is capable of being born alive, except when that is done in good faith for the sole purpose of saving the mother's life. although she did not refer to it specifically, i think that my hon. friend has always accepted that that exemption clause exists, allowing abortion regardless of gestation period to save the mother's life.\n the 1929 act contains a rebuttable presumption that a foetus of 28 weeks' gestation or more is capable of being born alive. in the event of a prosecution under the act in respect of the death of a child of 28 weeks' gestation or more, the onus would be on the defence to prove that the foetus was not capable of being born alive. in the case of the death of a child before the lapse of 28 weeks, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the child was capable of being born alive.\n let me make two observations. first, i am sure that my hon. friend would accept that, even with the advance in medical science, it is still difficult to date precisely the gestation period involved in a particular case. we are making best estimates. our understanding of the gestation process and of the date at which fertilisation occurred and, therefore, of the age of the foetus is improving, but it is still imperfect.\n i sense, too, that that there is a growing consensus among hon. members, based in part on medical advice, that the 28-week period could and should be reduced. i believe that that is a relatively uncontroversial statement, but this is a matter not for the government but for the house. i merely comment that to reduce the gestation period from 28 to 24 weeks would be a move that the house might find convenient. it would reflect a consensus among the medical profession, due, i suspect, to significant advances in medical technology.\n ", datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.6', 97, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i believe that the minister has just made an extremely dangerous statement. many members of the medical profession believe that the limit should be very much lower than 24 weeks. we have also been assured throughout that there is no government and department position on the precise number of weeks. there is a danger that the minister's statement, although uttered in good faith, will be taken as a pre-emptive statement. i should be grateful if he would state specifically that there are plenty of doctors, consultants, obstetricians and gynaecologists who believe that 24 weeks is too high.\n ", datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.7', 11, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', 'my hon. friend is right. i was choosing my words carefully.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.8', 4, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'but not carefully enough.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.9', 1010, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', 'i am grateful for my hon. friend\'s intervention. it allows me to make it plain that the government do not have a view and that i was merely reflecting what seemed to me to be a consensus, based upon advances in medical technology. of course she is right that the difference between 23, 24 or 25 weeks is a matter of judgment. i am merely reflecting the advice received from medical circles: that a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks might be based upon advances in medical technology. however, i fully understand my hon. friend\'s position.\n the main thrust of my hon. friend\'s speech was directed towards the ruling of 5 february. it is a recent ruling. my hon. friend is very quick off the mark—quicker, perhaps, than the department of health, in the sense that we are talking about a judgment that is only six weeks old. she would not expect me at this stage to gibe a definitive answer as to our view of mr. justice brooke\'s ruling. that is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned friend the attorney-general.\n my hon. friend\'s main comment was that the definition capable of being born alive as commented upon in mr. justice brooke\'s judgment could have a different interpretation from the one that some people have put upon it. in other words, it is not just long-term viability: it is the ability to survive, if only for a few hours. i shall seek to deal with my hon friend\'s comments, but may i preface my remarks by underlining once again that medical technology has advanced considerably since 1929 and that it is advancing all the time. in a clinical sense, therefore, the definition of "viability" is not immutable and fixed for all time. it is changing.\n when i visited st. helier hospital last week—a major london hospital in the constituency of my hon. friend the member for carshalton and wallington (mr. forman)— i saw the excellent efforts of the staff there to keep alive premature babies of very small birth weight by means of techniques that were undreamed of five or 10 years ago. another great pressure on resources in the health service—i referred earlier to abortions—and one to which we are happy to respond is the pressure to provide the technology, equipment and staff to keep alive premature babies, some born after a gestation period that would not even have been contemplated a few years ago.\n the case involving the judgment given by mr. justice brooke has only just been fully reported and its implications will have to be carefully considered. i assure my hon. friend that we will take great care to interpret the judgment. that is primarily a matter for the law officers, but i assure her—prompted by this debate, which has been helfpul—that we shall, with all speed, ensure that the implications of that judgment are properly considered.\n matters relating to the infant life (preservation) act 1929 are for the home secretary, as his department is responsible for the administration of that act. it is widely known that the consensus of the main medical and professional bodies is that, with the advances in medical and scientific development in neonatal medicine, it is now possible for some babies born after 24 weeks to survive. i accept my hon. friend\'s comment that, while she does not dispute that fact, she would perhaps extend it to include infants born after a shorter gestation period. my department took steps to draw that view, shared by the relevant royal colleges, to the attention of members of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists.\n administratively, the 24-week limit has been imposed on those private facilities approved under the abortion act 1967. under that, as my hon. friend will know, they are authorised to carry out terminations after 20 weeks, and we have taken the step already of imposing the new lower limit administratively. there is of course the exception, to which i referred, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.\n in 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, in great britain there were 23 abortions after 24 weeks. i cannot give my hon. friend the number within that 23 where it could be said that the abortion was necessary to preserve the life of the mother, but when i respond more fully to her in writing i will give her that analysis.\n my hon. friend referred to a case allegedly involving selective termination of pregnancy at king\'s college hospital. as she said, the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has written to the minister for health drawing attention to that and asking a number of questions. details of that distressing case were reported recently in the sunday express. my department\'s regional liaison division is conducting inquiries into the circumstances of that case and will shortly be reporting, not only to ministers at the department of health but to the law officers. i look forward to those inquiries being completed quickly.\n i share my hon. friend\'s view that the ashley gardiner case, which involved reckless driving, was unfortunate. i well understand her anxiety and distress about the outcome of the case. as she rightly said, those are matters for the law officers, and she will not expect me to comment further.\n my hon. friend implied that there was a loss of will by the department of health in monitoring the 1967 act. i assure her that that is not the case. she argued that there were imperfections in the act, and that she wished to see parliament change the 1967 act and the infant life (preservation) act. given the law as it stands, it is emphatically not the case that there is a lack of will in the department of health. my department maintains a team of investigating officers, including doctors, nurses and administrative staff, and i assure my hon. friend that any complaints about specific cases, raised from whatever source, are properly and fully investigated and that, where necessary, appropriate action is taken.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.10', 57, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can my hon. friend honestly say that the carlisle baby case would have been referred to a coroner and properly investigated if, after several months during which the department and medical services did absolutely nothing, a member of staff had not finally gone to a catholic priest? did that show that the act was being monitored properly?\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.11', 215, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', "i understand my hon. friend's anxieties and strong feelings, but we must operate in the real world. my hon. friend is right to say that we rely on the good will and co-operation of staff, whether consultants, nursing staff or midwives, for advice and information. ministers in the department and the law officers are not all-knowing and all-seeing, so to that extent my hon. friend's remarks are accepted. ministers in successive governments have seen as highly important the administration of abortion legislation to ensure that no one, whether in nhs of private hospitals, is above the law. a proper implementation of observance of legislation is also important to protect the women who choose to have abortions, and we must not forget the health of the women involved. i resist my hon. friend's implication that there is a lack of will and determination to enforce the law by the government and the department.\n my hon. friend referred to lethal injections. i realise that she finds these techniques repugnant. whatever one's personal views about abortion, it is always a tragedy when an abortion occurs. the method adopted is, of course, a matter for clinical judgment. it is neither sensible nor practical to define in legislation the method used to terminate pregnancies.\n my hon. friend referred to prosecutions.\n ", datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.12', 87, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend has not missed the point, but he has not answered the point on injections. if a doctor believes that a child is incapable of being born alive, what is the point of giving it a lethal injection to ensure that it is born dead? is there not a straight contradiction there? is not the doctor saying, by administering a lethal injection, that the child could be born alive? if he is saying that, is that not an infringement of the infant life (preservation) act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.13', 508, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', 'there are two issues here. the first is my hon. friend\'s key argument, which is the interpretation of the infant life (preservation) act-is the child capable of being born alive? i have said clearly that the recent judgment by mr. justice brooke, which appears to interpret the 1929 act in terms of the ability of the child to survive for only a few hours, is receiving careful attention. i shall not give my hon. friend a definitive answer this morning and she would not expect me to. the judgment that has to be made by the clinician involved is separate from the techniques, however repulsive and repugnant, used by the clinician to render the medical services necessary to the woman in a particular case. i hope that my hon. friend will agree that it is not sensible to enshrine in legislation or regulation a precise medical technique.\n on the conscience clause, i am aware that officials from my department have given evidence to the select committee on social services. we await its report with interest and i assure my hon. friend, who serves on that committee and through her the chairman and members of that committee that the recommendations and observations of the committee will be given very careful consideration and attention. i am given to understand that that report is expected shortly, and i know that the whole house will be interested in it.\n in conclusion, i repeat and sum up the answers that i have given to the nine points that my hon. friend made at the end of her speech. i am unable to answer the questions dealing with the legalities. she would not expect me to comment on those; that is not a matter for me or for the department. of health. she asked whether mr. justice brooke\'s ruling should be observed: we are carefully studying that recent judgment, which has great significance for abortion procedures. she asked whether handicapped children are covered: all children are covered. i will take further advice on that matter, but that is my initial response.\n i hope that i have dealt with the issue of lethal injections. my hon. friend referred to lives being "dismembered": the use of medical techniques is a matter for the clinicians involved. she asked whether we will issue revised guidelines on procedures: once we have considered mr. justice brooke\'s ruling and taken further advice, if revised guidelines are needed we will certainly issue them. she asked whether the king\'s college baby case will be investigated: i have already given my hon. friend some assurances on that score.\n regarding the conscience clause and the select committee\'s report, we await that with interest, and any recommendations that may be made will be followed very carefully.\n my hon. friend asked whether the law will be enforced: yes, with diligence. it is a matter for the house to make a judgment on amendment to the abortion law. each hon. member will have his or her vote on that most important matter when it comes before the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25'], ['uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25.1.14', 9, 'uk.m.22346', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1990, 3, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1990-03-27.25']]
['Orders of the Day — Abortion Act 1967']
[['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.1', 2914, 'uk.m.17677', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'at the end of a parliamentary session which has seen the pro-life movement inside and outside parliament at its most active, it is appropriate that we should debate the administration of the abortion act 1967, although some of us would have preferred the debate to take place at a more civilised time.\n i am grateful to the minister for being with us at this late hour and i welcome the support of my hon. friends the members for basildon (mr. amess) and for maidstone (miss widdecombe), who applied for similar debates.\n during the passage of the abortion act in 1967, the then hon. member for maidstone was reprimanded by mr. deputy speaker for reading a newspaper in the chamber. he defended himself by saying that he was briefing himself for taking part in the debate. i have a feeling that the present hon. member for maidstone will need no such aid tonight, and i look forward to hearing her contribution.\n when the abortion act was passed in 1967 it was claimed that it would be the answer to many problems, and few could be found to oppose it. indeed, only 29 hon. members voted against it on second reading. it was said at that time that the act would reduce the rate of illegitimacy. now, over 21 years later, it is running at 15 per cent. and rising. we were assured in 1967 that the act would mean that every child would be a wanted child. today, every time we pick up a newspaper we read of yet more cases of sexual or physical child abuse. in 1967 women were assured that the abortion act would make them free. today, there is a dramatic increase in requests for post-abortion counselling, so damaged are many women by the abortions that they have had.\n far from solving society\'s ills, easier abortion has resulted in more problems and i believe that many people are coming to accept that no problem is so big or serious that only the death of a helpless, unborn child will solve it. the right to life is the most basic of all human rights and we in the pro-life movement will continue to speak up for the small, naked, nameless and voiceless being which is the unborn child.\n this morning i wish to concentrate my remarks not on the major victims of abortion—the mother and child—but on those who are victims of discrimination because they wish to have nothing to do with abortion.\n section 4 of the abortion act 1967 provides that except where it is necessary to save life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, no person shall be under any duty … to participate in any treatment authorised by this act to which he has a conscientious objection. that conscience clause protects all those who are expected to play a part in the team effort leading to an abortion once the decision to perform an abortion has been reached. it therefore protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists, ancillary staff and clerical workers who play a necessary part in carrying out an abortion.\n those with conscientious objections to abortion are protected in the following ways. staff may not be asked to make appointments for patients to have abortions. nurses or paramedics may not be asked to help undress a patient admitted to hospital to have an abortion; and they may not be required to prepare the patient for the operation. operating theatre staff may not be required to prepare the theatre or sterilise instruments for abortion. if a theatre is used exclusively or almost exclusively for abortions, a conscientious objector may not be required to take part in the work of swabbing down either before or after an operating session; neither shall he or she be required to clean instruments or tubes used in abortion procedures.\n unfortunately, however, there are many different ways in which the present conscience clause of the abortion act does not work effectively. management can indicate that promotion prospects will be damaged if medical personnel do not take part in abortions. candidates for interview for medical appointments will not be successful in some cases unless they agree in advance that they will take part in abortions. peer group pressure—the burden falling upon other overworked medical personnel—can persuade individuals to become involved in abortions about which they are unhappy. ancillary workers, such as medical secretaries, may be dismissed if they refuse to become involved. unless an individual has been informed of his or her rights to object to becoming involved in abortions, when confronted with a problem, that person is unlikely to know how to opt out. for all those reasons and for many more, it is clear that the conscience clause does not work in practice and that it should be reviewed.\n the case of the carlisle baby is an example of the fear under which some doctors and nurses work. i need hardly remind the house that the case involved a baby who was aborted at 21 weeks and survived for almost four hours. through the protests of nurses, who appealed to the local catholic chaplain, the case came to light. however, they were terrified of losing their jobs. i stress that the young doctor who was called to see the baby when it continued to struggle to breathe was opposed to the abortion act and had refused to become involved in performing abortions. the gynaecologist who was responsible for the abortion had gone off duty and when he was asked to return, he refused.\n thus, nurses who disliked the operation and a conscientious young man who had opted not to carry out abortions were left to cope with the results of somebody else\'s work. apart from the baby\'s horrifying death, the carlisle case epitomises the total ineffectiveness of the conscience clause. nurses who were too frightened to opt out became involved in abortions on their wards. when there was an inquiry, they were too frightened to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. a young doctor was made to appear the villain of the piece and left to cope with the remains of someone else\'s botched-up piece of butchery.\n i was recently told of a matron who said at a meeting: the conscience clause works in theory … but it most certainly does not work in practice. i have to run a hospital and i cater for shifts, holidays, staff illness, ensuring that patients are looked after throughout their treatment. obviously this is bound to create problems and it is hardly surprising that in some hospitals—although not all—nurses are made to feel that by opting out they are creating problems or being anti-social.\n in others the pressures go further than that. perhaps one of the most extreme cases about which i have been told is that involving a young african nurse who, on being appointed a staff nurse at a london hospital, made it absolutely clear that she was opposed to abortion and that she would take part in abortion operations only to save the mother\'s life. for a year she was left in peace. however, she began working at nights and her duties involved her with patients in the hospital who were having abortions. at night, the number of staff was limited and the technique most commonly used in this hospital, which carried out private abortions, was to insert at some time during the night, prostaglandin pessaries in the vagina to soften the cervix before surgical intervention. the nurse refused to insert such a pessary.\n at first, one senior, presume taking advantage of the fact that the nurse was foreign, told her that she could be charged for refusing to obey the law. far from cowering, i am delighted to say, this outraged the young woman, and she made it clear that she would go to prison rather than become involved in an abortion. her senior then became rather more devious, bringing all manner of pressure to bear on her, and picking on her work. finally, in a great attempt to be persuasive and reasonable, the senior urged the nurse that she was not asking her to do anything unreasonable, and that all she had to do was to put the prostaglandin pessary on the patient\'s bedside table, instructing her how to insert it. the nurse was told that that would not involve her in an abortion and was the least required of her under the law.\n at that point, the nurse, who was an evangelical christian, went to her church minister, who put her in touch with the society for the protection of unborn children, which sent her a solicitor\'s letter and guaranteed all her legal fees if the hospital persisted in its conduct. the girl sent the letter to the hospital authorities and was left in peace.\n how many other young women have similar experiences but are not put in touch with people who can counsel them? the case involving trent regional health authority came to light as a result of the work of care and the spuc, but i wonder what would have happened if they had not learnt what was going on.\n the lane report referred to complaints that chances of promotion in the disciplines of obstetrics and gynaecology may be lost by those with a conscientious objection to the termination of pregnancy, but believed that it was probable that that affected only those departments where there were few staff or where the workload was heavy. complaints and allegations of discrimination have been received, especially about fully qualified doctors who are debarred from appointments. nurses are also affected, and their general position is difficult.\n the lane report said that, in the national health service, the abortion act 1967 has brought unhappiness to hospital nurses. the royal college of nursing has said that some nurses are reluctant to exercise their right to contract out under section 4 because to do so would create problems for their colleagues.\n i shall let some of those who have suffered speak for themselves by reading out their letters. the first says: dear sir, i shall be most grateful if you will give me some advice re: abortion for i am having problems at work. the position is that i am a midwife working on the labour ward at a large london hospital. we do a lot of scans, for we have an excellent scan department, so patients are referred from all over the country. also they do fetoscopies on patients not only referred from around the country but from abroad. many of our patients are found to have abnormal foetuses more so than from a normal catchment area, so this causes problems, for although many of the referrals go back to their home area for abortions, lots are aborted here (for they want the foetus for research purposes). three years ago when i applied for the post in london i made my position regarding abortions clear—that is that i would not wish to be involved in abortions at all. the then senior midwife assured me that this was not a problem for they rarely did abortions. however, while this was true three years ago, it certainly is not the case now. the senior midwife has changed three times since then and at present we have no direct person in charge on labour ward so all the sisters have a share of power. as far as i can see they all agree with abortions, and while some don\'t like them being done on labour ward, none can accept my objections to caring for these patients. so at least once a week there is trouble and i find myself having to argue my point. this has happened before, the pattern seems to recur every few months. i have up to this been reluctant to go to the chief nursing officer for i know what will happen: i will simply be moved off labour ward. also i know it will not go well in my records, and seeking references in the future is a consideration. i do feel very unhappy about this, apart from religious views, on an emotional level i find it difficult to cope and would find it absolutely impossible to give advice and support to a woman having an abortion while i feel so strongly that it is wrong. just before christmas they aborted an abnormal foetus, but at delivery it was perfect, it nearly broke my heart. the abortion act 1967 does have a conscience clause, but no one pays attention to it. i asked the student nurses about the position on the \'gynaecology\' ward where all the social abortions are done. they said they are not allowed to opt out. if they were catholics then they could object and would not be sent to the gynaecology ward at all, so missing this experience, but also making themselves unpopular. a doctor whom i asked about this issue … said they fare even worse than midwives, for they are all but told if you don\'t want to do abortions don\'t bother coming into obs and gynaecology. i should be interested to hear your view and would appreciate any advice you can offer. a second letter said: i work in an operating theatre in a london hospital as a trainee o.d.a. we work as scrubbed assistants to assist the surgeon and also as anaesthetic assistants. we have operations for women when they have had a miscarriage and they are called e.r.p.c. (evacuation of retained products at conception). however, it has come to my attention that some of these are actually \'clean-ups\' after hormonally induced abortions. there is no way they indicate these women have been having a miscarriage as the result of a dose of hormones. i feel extremely compassionate for women who have had a genuine miscarriage, but i am worried and upset about those miscarriages that aren\'t really miscarriages. at work i was told that any miscarriage is a miscarriage, and that since it isn\'t an abortion they have not got to tell us that it is a hormonally induced miscarriage and that i have no right to refuse them. i want your point of view on this. a third letter sent to the spuc said: i am employed as a staff nurse at my local hospital to work in the general operating department. occasionally i am put down on the duty rota to assist in the day care theatre during the gynaecological lists which often include as many as ten abortions. i have stated my objection to assisting in abortions to the senior sister who will only assure me that i would not have to be the instrument (or scrub) nurse. however she does expect me to be present in the theatre to assist setting up the theatre, tying gowns, opening packs and clearing away, believing that this role cannot be described as \'being involved\'. on wednesday 16th september i attended a meeting at bideford parish church where a speaker from s.p.u.c. showed us your video on abortion. since then i feel very strongly that i must make a committed stand against the abortions taking place in my hospital and … have absolutely nothing to do with them. before i go and see the senior sister again i would appreciate your advice on how far i can take the clause in the 1967 abortion act in making a conscientious objection to assisting in abortion. can i refuse to be present in the theatre during an abortion? the letters that i have read out give some indication of the problems faced by many members of the medical profession since the 1967 act came into force. clearly we are putting an unfair burden on the consciences of many people. some can be helped—as they have been—by pro-life organisations like the spuc and its conscience code, but many others are unaware of their rights and afraid to exercise them.\n others—as in the case of mrs. barbara janaway—do not appear to have rights under the act. mrs. janaway, a medical receptionist, was dismissed after refusing to type abortion documents, and it was held that she was not entitled to the protection of the "conscientious objection" clause because she was not participating in a termination of pregnancy in the meaning of the act.\n earlier this year, my hon. friend the member for basildon introduced the abortion (right of conscience) (amendment) bill, while i introduced a similar bill to cover ancillary workers. the bills were based on a simple principle: doctors, nurses and ancillary workers should not be expected or required to be involved in any way in the performing of abortions unless they had first made it clear that they had no conscientious objections to being so involved.\n this reverses the current impractical position in which doctors and nurses are required to take part in abortions unless they declare that they have conscientious objections to such involvement. the bill took the sensible approach of requiring those involved to opt in rather than to opt out of abortion. the bill\'s purpose was to prevent medical and ancillary personnel from being cajoled or pressurised into taking part in abortions when they did not wish to do so. that suggestion has merit and would help to resolve what is undoubtedly worrying many medical staff. i hope that if a similar bill is introduced next year the government will look favourably on it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.2', 2662, 'uk.m.10009', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'despite the late hour, i welcome the opportunity that my hon. friend the member for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) has given the house to debate the administration of the abortion act 1967. i pay a warm tribute to my hon. friends the members for hyndburn and for maidstone (miss widdecombe) for the magnificent job that they have done in the past year to make sure that the fundamental issue of abortion is raised in the house on every conceivable opportunity so that it does not move far from the minds of hon. members.\n i also pay tribute to my hon. friend the under-secretary of state for health for the courtesy that he has shown in responding to all our debates and in providing us quickly with the information that we have sought. our hon. friend the member for chipping barnet (mr. chapman) has a close interest in these matters and i am pleased to see him here for the debate. it would be extremely churlish of me not to mention the hon. member for barking (ms. richardson), because, although we fundamentally disagree with her view on the subject, at least she recognises the great importance of the matter and is here to take part in the debate.\n i hope that when the minister responds he will tell us about the government\'s intentions on the warnock report. i note that only this week his department issued a strict new code of practice governing the use of the foetus and foetal material in treatment and research. i trust that he will take this opportunity to enlarge on the issue. perhaps he will also give some detail about how the government intend to handle the warnock report.\n will there be an opportunity to vote on the time at which an abortion can be obtained? i hope that every party in the house will allow a free vote on the time limit. it would be conceived nationally as an outrage if any political party imposed a whip on that issue. there is little point in being a member of parliament if the house cannot meet and decide that protection is needed in respect of the time at which life begins. a recent newspaper story carried the headline: tiny thomas wins brave battle for life". the story says: tiny thomas johnson shouldn\'t even have been born until the end of next month. but already he is 10 weeks old and doing very nicely, thank you. doctors even refused to speculate on his chances of surviving after he was born 16 weeks premature and weighing just 11b 15oz in may. `they just said we would have to take it hour by hour, day by day,\' said proud mum christine johnson of wood street, elton, bury. that is what we are debating. my hon. friend the member for hyndburn spoke about the bill that i sought to introduce on the conscience clause, but i shall direct my remarks to the financial involvement of private clinics. i am proud to be a conservative. i have no trouble dealing with the profit motive that we enjoy in this country. however, i am outraged that anyone should make a profit out of the abortion industry. when abortion act was being debated in 1967, a press conference was held by pro-life gynaecologists, and it attracted much abuse because one of the doctors described what was then the abortion bill as a licence to print money for the shady end of the medical profession. doctors pleading for the law to be passed immediately protested that money was the last thing to be included on their agenda. they simply wanted to help poor women in need of support. yet, when the law came into effect, in the words of sir john peel, at that time the queen\'s gynaecologist as well as president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, they all removed themselves from the back streets to the front streets". once there, they increased their fees and the number of patients beyond belief.\n it was hardly surprising that within only a few months, london became known as the abortion capital of the world—and once the united states supreme court had made its famous and disastrous decision to allow abortion on demand up to birth, we saw london reduced to the abortion capital of europe. i need hardly say that abortionists made a large amount of money as a result of the passage of the act.\n however, life was not as easy as the abortionist believed that it would be. as we know, doctors and clinics cannot advertise. thus, in order to reach the public, they needed some way in which to promote their service. without the ability to advertise, they were held back. then somebody had the brilliant idea of opening an agency, called the pregnancy advisory service. there was no law to stop it from advertising. in turn, it would refer the girls who responded to its posters on stations, in tubes, at bus stops and in newspapers to the abortionists and, overnight, a considerable amount of money was made.\n such is the way of the media that these agencies were presented as some kind of guardian angels, looking after the well-being of girls in need. in fact, they were abortion referral agencies that got round the existing law and touted for clients through advertising. shortly after they first came into being, two of them succeeded in getting themselves registered as charities. i would not suggest that they have broken any charity laws, but i would add that whereas most of us think of charities as made up of people acting from love, there is little doubt that doctors and others in the service of charitable pregnancy advisory services have been provided with incomes from their labours.\n in the case of the british pregnancy advisory service—for example—its total income in the year 1986 was £4,383,000. of that, £2,176,000 went on staff salaries and wages and a further £750,000 went on medical and doctors\' fees—meaning that about 67 per cent. went on salaries and fees. in comparison, only £536,000–12 per cent.—was spent on medical and other supplies. even more surprising—considering that we are talking about a charity—is the fact that the minute sum of £32,000 was given in grants to "indigent patients" and a further £51,000 was "written off" in loans to patients. in other words this charity gave only 1·9 per cent. of its income to patients in comparison with over 66 per cent. in payments to doctors, nurses and others.\n over the years many of us have had cause to become increasingly worried about the quality of the counselling that is given to girls through the so-called pregnancy advisory services. is the advice given more to the benefit of the doctors and others than to the girls?\n bernadette thompson, to name one girl, runs british victims of abortion. it is an organisation which helps women who are experiencing trauma. bernadette had an abortion about 16 years ago through the services of a pregnancy advisory counsellor, and a charitable pregnancy advisory service at that, but she would say that she received no counselling. she was merely referred for an abortion, an operation which she has regretted ever since. there are many thousands of women suffering as bernadette thompson did.\n about six weeks ago there was an article about bernadette and her experience and the work of british victims of abortion in the women\'s magazine bella. within one week bernadette received over 150 calls from women asking for help, and some of them had been grieving for a number of years. she is still receiving calls. this shows the sort of feeling that there must be throughout the country among women who have gone through similar experiences and have since regretted it. many of the women had been aborted through so-called charities and they did not want to return to them for support and help during their grieving.\n there are many who do not agree with me on the principle of abortion. i know that the hon. member for barking is one of them. i make no secret of my opposition to the killing of unborn children, which is shared by my hon. friend the member for macclesfield (mr. winterton). yet when he introduced the abortion (financial benefit) bill, he was amazed by the amount of support he received. the aim of the bill was to hit directly at profiteers in the private sector. it aimed to sever the links between abortion agencies and private clinics, and called on medical practitioners referring women for abortion to make a declaration that they had no financial interest in the place where the abortions were performed and derived no benefit from it.\n as most hon. members will be aware, the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists opposed any amendment to the abortion act 1967 yet even the college wrote to my hon. friend the member for macclesfield: we have seen in the press that you intend to introduce a private members\' bill to implement the recommendations of the 1976 select committee on abortion, so that there should be no financial links between doctors and agencies who refer women for abortions, and the institutions in which abortions are carried out. we at the royal college would like to support the spirit in what you are trying to achieve, as we think that this, after all, is only right and proper. among the groups who were threatened by the bill of my hon. friend the member for macclesfield was a company. i am loth to use parliamentary privilege on this occasion and so i shall call the company miss y. it advertised its pregnancy advisory services. clients—not patients—were referred to a hospital by a mr. x, who was not a medical doctor. he was a business man who ran a private clinic.\n the matter becomes much more worrying when we realise that miss y, who runs the agency, is none other than mr. x\'s wife. not surprisingly, they have become extremely wealthy. their business covers abortions and cosmetic surgery, as a result of which they were exposed on the "that\'s life" programme in january 1985. that programme revealed that medical services offered in connection with cosmetic surgery through certain advisory agencies had led to tragic results. the same programme also exposed other abortionists. it apparently takes a certain kind of mentality to exploit unhappiness, whether it be caused by an unplanned pregnancy or dissatisfaction with one\'s appearance.\n mr. x responded to that broadcast by threatening to sue the bbc—a tactic he apparently uses to silence anyone who attacks his methods. when a newspaper announced mr. x\'s intention to open a hospital to perform abortions, he threatened legal action against a group that leafleted the area in an attempt to arouse public opposition to his plans. he claimed that the newspaper story was incorrect, but seemed to make no attempt to have a correction published.\n late in 1987, my hon. friend the member for macclesfield was informed that eight referral agencies had financial links with clinics providing abortions. the number rose to 32 when he asked about individuals who were directors or trustees both of companies or charities providing abortions and counselling and of clinics offering abortions.\n there is no doubt that immense fortunes are made from abortion clinics. the answer to a parliamentary question tabled at the end of 1987 revealed that a total of 594 beds in private clinics were licensed for abortions, and that 114,621 abortions were performed that year. that meant that each bed was used an average of 193 times a year.\n at that time, the cost of a private abortion, including the referral agency\'s charges, was, at a conservative estimate, £200—thus producing an income of £38,592 per licensed bed. the total turnover realised from that barbaric industry reached £22,923,648 annually. as a conservative, i am absolutely ashamed at the profit that is made from destroying lives. returning to mr. x, the income of the private nursing home of which he is a director, and which is provided with clients by his wife, totalled £810,600. that is not a bad income from a clinic with only 21 beds.\n earlier i spoke of a "barbaric industry." when the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) introduced his bill, a video showing a d and e abortion was introduced to this country. in the earliest stages of abortion, a technique known as d and c—dilation and curettage—is used, whereby the mouth of the womb is dilated and a curette is used to scrape the inside, in the process of which the foetus is cut to pieces.\n after about the 12th week of pregnancy, a curette is not sufficiently strong enough to tear apart the bone structure and limbs of the unborn baby, so the instruments used are decidedly stronger. they are rather like those used in carpentry and other forms of building work. a different title is given to that technique. it is known as dilation and extraction. that sounds harmless enough, but the video "eclipse of reason" proved otherwise, and showed precisely what an abortion of that type involves.\n one aspect of pro-abortionists that worries me most is the way that they distort the truth, while pro-lifers are told by politicians of all shades of opinion that dilation and extraction is not a form of abortion that is performed in britain. the pro-abortionists plant newspaper stories claiming that pro-lifers arouse public feeling in an emotive fashion, with stories of outdated abortion techniques not used in this country.\n the office of population censuses and surveys monitors show that those claims are untrue. far from d and e being used less, it is on the increase, particularly in private clinics. there are several reasons for that. it can be upsetting for nurses, to whom my hon. friend the member for hyndburn referred, caring for a patient having an abortion by the use of prostaglandin to see a whole baby emerge when the abortion takes place. in contrast, d and e ensures that nothing but mangled pieces, often crushed and battered beyond recognition, emerges.\n a second reason is that the d and e takes far less time than a prostaglandin abortion. when money has to be made and the whole procedure has to be completed as speedily and efficiently as possible, why not use the technique which takes the least amount of time?\n i was sickened when i met a doctor who had just visited a private abortion clinic in london which specialises in late abortions. there the pieces torn from the baby were so large that huge pieces of arm and leg of spine were put through one of those large mincing machines that we see in butchers\' shops to enable them to pass through the sluice.\n i conclude with the latest figures. in 1987 in the private sector 12,222 abortions were carried out at 13 weeks or more and of those 3,698—nearly one third—were carried out by d and e. those tiny humans, whom we know feel pain, are being destroyed for money. that is the kind of barbarity which i and my hon. friends are determined to stop.\n i shall never cease to be amazed at the manner in which some of those involved in the abortion industry seek to deceive themselves. the chairman of the trustees of the british pregnancy advisory service wrote to doctors saying that abortion does not typically require them to diagnose and treat a morbid condition, but rather to consider the wishes, wonders and worries of normal people in normal health.\n is that really the way in which they bemuse themselves when they tear a child limb from limb, having to put the larger pieces through a mincing machine in order to get them down the sluice?\n i and my hon. friends who have spoken tonight are appalled by that, and the british nation will join us in our abhorrence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.3', 1587, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and i congratulate my hon. friend the member for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) on securing a debate for which several hon. members applied, because it is an issue, which has dominated the last two parliamentary years. frequently, attempts to resolve some of the worries that have been voiced tonight have been defeated, not because a body of opinion in the house resented what was being done but because we were not allowed to have a free and fair vote.\n i hope that my hon. friend the minister can confirm our hope that when the warnock proposals come up for discussion next year we can have a free and fair vote on issues other than those strictly raised in the warnock report.\n the debate is on the abortion act 1967, which is administered far more in the breach than in the observance. in particular, there are several areas of concern where specific questions can be asked which i hope that my hon. friend will answer.\n in the first case, i am concerned about the administration of the act and the way in which it takes on board the infant life (preservation) act 1929. in an adjournment debate on 8 june, my hon. friend the minister accepted that it was necessary to observe the infant life (preservation) act in the administration of the 1967 act. in response to a point that i made in that debate, which was principally about the carlisle baby, he said: doctors are properly mindful of the requirements of the act and do not carry out an abortion, by any method, when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive."—[ official report, 8 june 1989; vol. 154, c. 465.] my question to the minister is this: if they do not carry out abortions when they consider that a child is capable of being born alive, what is the purpose of the injection of urea or saline, which is commonly used in the prostaglandin treatment to ensure that the child is born dead? what is the point of ensuring that a child is born dead if the doctor does not believe that it is capable of being born alive in the first place? the act is not administered to take account of the infant life (preservation) act.\n we now know that children are capable of surviving independently from the 24th week. yet in a parliamentary answer the minister told us that last year there were 17 cases of abortions after the 24th week, six of which were not even for handicap or to save the life of the mother; they were done under the social clauses. will the minister explain how he can reconcile the statement that doctors do not abort children capable of being born alive with the fact that they abort children of a gestational age in excess of that at which children do survive, and at which such survivals are fully documented?\n in the light of the recent spate of survivals at 22 weeks, how can doctors abort after that age and seriously believe that the child is not capable of being born alive? in the carlisle baby case, in which the abortion took place at 21 weeks, the child was not just capable of being born alive; she was actually born alive.\n will the minister consider outlawing completely the d and e method? there is no good reason for dismembering alive in the womb, without anaesthetic, a child which in different circumstances would be in an incubator, loved and cherished, with everyone desperately fighting for his or her survival. can the minister imagine circumstances in which a child in an incubator could be dismembered alive? can he imagine a national health service or a ministry that was responsible for licensing private clinics allowing that? if it cannot be done to a child in an incubator, why should he allow it to be done to a child in the womb? it is not just a question of medical or clinical judgment—the panacea behind which so many of these issues disappear. it is not down to clinical judgment whether we dismember alive babies in the womb. it is a clear moral issue for society. there is an optional method. i do not particularly like that either, but at least it does not involve cruelty. that is the prostaglandin method.\n will the minister bring into general conformity with the rest of operations abortions involving children under the age of 16? if a child needs its tonsils out, it must have parental consent for the general anaesthetic that will be applied. yet in response to my hon. friend the member for bury, north (mr. burt), the minister said that young girls under the age of 16 do not require their parents\' consent to have an abortion performed under general anaesthetic. why is abortion singled out for exemption? why is a child not allowed to decide to have her tonsils out when she is allowed to decide to kill an unborn child—at an age when she cannot possibly have a concept of the consequences and of all the moral issues involved, for which, surely, she requires parental guidance?\n then there is the question of the unperson, to use an orwellian phrase. when i asked the minister about the case of the carlisle baby, and asked why the child was allowed to stay for three hours, breathing, with a pulse rate, fully alive—so much so that the nurses saw fit to baptise her—he replied that resuscitation equipment was not provided, and she was not registered for birth, and she was not registered for death, all for the same reason: the doctor in the case had decided that it was not a live birth.\n if a living, breathing human being can survive for three hours, how can a doctor say that that is not a live birth and that none of the rights of life follows? if a small premature baby as a result of a normal premature birth is alive, then a small premature baby as a result of an abortion is alive. the abortion act 1967 is not administered fairly or equitably. anything goes when it comes to an abortion. there is no way that a child born normally could be declared a non-person.\n there is also the nonsense of piecemeal legislation for the foetus at all stages of development. the warnock report proposes experiments up to 14 days. in the same breath, the polkinghorne report states that foetal tissue may be used in the second trimester, which is from the 12th to the 24th week. those two reports are not taken in conjunction with the abortion act 1967 and considered comprehensively. they are being taken piecemeal.\n when it discusses warnock the house will probably be deceived into believing that nothing will happen after the 14th day. but polkinghorne states that experiments can occur at horrendously late stages. will the minister admit that we need one comprehensive abortion bill which reviews the working of the abortion act 1967, considers the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and the financial administration—a matter raised so ably by my hon. friend the member for basildon (mr. amess)—examines the workings of the conscience clause, and considers foetal tissue and embryology research. one bill should do all that to clarify those issues and sort them out once and for all. we do not need a long series of attempts to amend each and every working of the gross abortion act 1967.\n is the minister convinced that the abortion act 1967, in its own terms, is adhered to? the carlisle baby was aborted under the terms of a clause which states that if there is a substantial risk, not just some sort of risk, of serious—and not any old sort—of handicap, that is grounds for an abortion. the carlisle baby had a 50 per cent. chance of inheriting a very rare disease of which her father had only a mild form. where does a substantial risk of serious handicap occur there? will the minister admit that abortions have been carried out for club foot, hare lips and all sorts of minor handicaps? the abortion act 1967 is not even policed properly in its own terms and there is no will to police it. does the minister believe that new advice should be issued, if not a comprehensive inquiry launched, into how well the 1967 act is implemented even in its own terms and even before we have seen the abuses that result from it?\n to sum up, i put these questions to the minister. how can he equate the use of injections to kill a child with a statement that doctors would not abort where they thought that there was a possibility of a child being born alive? will he consider outlawing the d and e operation altogether? will he re-examine the requirements for permission for anaesthetics for young girls under 16? in what circumstances is a child declared a non-person when it has existed? we know that the carlisle case caused horror, but there are probably other cases where children are born and live for only a very brief time. are they also regarded as non-live births? will he investigate the financial regulation of private abortion clinics and consider issuing advice on the interpretation of "substantial risk"? will he overhaul the policing of the abortion act 1967 and will he consider the case for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, reform?\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.4', 319, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "hon. members have heard, as i rather suspected that we would, three highly contentious speeches in yet another debate designed to undermine the abortion act 1967. as usual, the speeches have been laced with many smears and much lurid language. i remind the house that there have been 14 commons attempts by anti-abortion people to try to change the abortion act 1967, and two lords bills on the subject. all 16 attempts were introduced over the past 20 years. i have not been involved in all of them, but i have been involved in a good many—i am not an unfeeling person, contrary to what some hon. members might think—and i have watched carefully and i have heard the same arguments, and i am not at all convinced that there is any need to do more than improve the abortion act 1967 by going a little further.\n i have added up the time that has been spent over the past few years on debating abortion bills and private members' bills and added on the time spent on private members' motions about private members' bills on abortion, and ten-minute bills and adjournment debates. parliament has spent more than 350 hours on the issue. those 350 hours could have been more practically spent.\n attacks on the act have been mounted from every quarter. the three hon. members who have spoken in this debate have referred to a number of bills that have been proposed during this session. if my memory is correct, six bills—they will not get anywhere now—have been put forward by conservative members. over the years, particularly in the past two years, as the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) said, there has been a concentration on this issue. not a trick or an opportunity has been missed by those who, if they were honest with the house and with the public, would like to see abortion outlawed altogether.\n ", datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.5', 5, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have never denied it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.6', 15, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad to hear the hon. lady say that. she does not deny it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.7', 5, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have never denied it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.8', 42, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i know that she has never denied it, but several people in her camp say that they are not against abortion in certain circumstances. i applaud the hon. lady for being honest enough to say out loud, albeit from a sedentary position——\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.9', 13, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am happy to rise and say that i have never denied it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.10', 1070, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady has stood up to say that she is anti-abortion. when hon. members read the debate, they should take note of that.\n while all those attempts have been going on, i have been at pains to point out to the house that public opinion has been going in a counter direction. the 1988 marplan poll asked a sample of 1,552 people in 103 constituents do you think that women should have the right to choose an abortion in the first few months of pregnancy? eighty per cent. of the women and men who were polled agreed that they should. eighty one per cent. of women were in favour. when the sample was analysed, it was found that 86 per cent. of those who said that they were church of england were in favour, and, surprisingly, 67 per cent. of roman catholics were also in favour. the fifth report on british social attitudes in 1988 showed that 54 per cent. of men and 54 per cent. of women supported the idea that only the woman should decide whether to have a child.\n although no one likes the idea of abortion—contrary to what has been said here this morning—the sample shows that a substantial majority of the population believes that it is the woman who is important. i have been quite taken back during the debate by the lack of reference to the women who have to make agonising decisions and who do not like having an abortion, but who have one for various reasons which are personal to them, either medical or social. when we say "social", we mean things that are connected with their personal lives and their families. the public obviously recognise that those women are the ones who are important and who should make the choice.\n a relatively small group of hon. members, who are against abortion, have been trying to convince the house that women should have no say at all, and that public opinion should be treated with contempt, in favour of their narrow and, in my opinion, cruel, moral judgment. so far, thank goodness, they have been unsuccessful.\n the hon. members for basildon (mr. amess) and for maidstone have both asked the minister directly—i, too, will be interested in his reply—whether the forthcoming bill on embryo research and other matters that appeared in the warnock report will contain some opportunity for the house to make a decision on abortion. my personal view is that i hope very much that that bill will not contain any reference to abortion. as i understand it, the government are proposing to give the house an option of voting for or against pre-embryo research, which is probably the right way to deal with it. however, to mix the whole argument up with abortion would be wrong and would, in fact, obscure many of the other parts of warnock that need to be fully explored and fully debated. i hope that the minister will resist any blandishments to include a clause on abortion.\n the hon. member for basildon really went over the top when he talked about the millions that are being made, as he alleges, out of abortion clinics. i do not know very much about the commercial sector, but i know quite a lot about the charitable sector. i am a trustee of the british pregnancy advisory service, and i have seen or heard nothing of which i could be ashamed. i invite the hon. gentleman to come along to see for himself. if he is talking about the commercial sector, which existed long before the 1967 act came in, that is a different matter, and one which he must take up with the minister and on which the department of health must decide. i am sure that the minister will be able to confirm, however, that everything is all right in the charitable sector.\n i shall give as an example some figures that i obtained only this afternoon, when i knew that i would be participating in the debate, and which i have had confirmed by the british pregnancy advisory service, which is one of the biggest charitable organisations. the bpas carries out one third of all the national health service abortions. sixty eight per cent. of bpas\'s total income is spent on fees and salaries, and 77 per cent. of the total nhs expenditure on abortion is spent on fees and salaries. the bpas is not, therefore, paying out lavish money.\n the average cost of a bpas abortion, at 1989 prices, is less than £190, including overheads. the cost of a national health service abortion, at 1988 prices, is £190, excluding overheads. the bpas cannot, therefore, be charging exorbitant fees. national heath service hospitals using bpas services are, therefore, not wasting public money but saving it.\n i wish that the hon. member for basildon and other conservative members would stop making allegations about the charitable sector. i do not deny that it pays wages, because people must be paid for their work and expertise. however, they are not millionaires and they are not trying to make profits in the dreadful way that the hon. member for basildon suggested. all bpas counsellors and general practitioners are paid on a sessional basis. they therefore see however many patients turn up at a session, which includes contraception, infertility advice, pregnancy testing, and counselling on matters other than abortion, as well as abortion counselling and referral.\n the consultant who performs the operation has no link with patients until they visit the clinic. there are therefore no incentives, links or profiteering. there is no department of health information to uphold claims of abuse of misuse. if claims of abuse or misuse had been made, the department would have withdrawn the rights of the pregnancy advisory service or the bpas to act.\n several references were made to the carlisle baby. of course everyone was shocked by what they heard, but i was shocked by the lack of concern shown throughout the saga for the mother. much as been said of the baby, who was allegedly born alive and who breathed for a while before dying, which we regret. i also have feelings for the mother, who had her name, medical records and life history dragged through the courts, but for what? why should she have been so castigated? why should she have had to open up her life in that way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.11', 7, 'uk.m.17677', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the mother took the case to court.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.12', 12, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'she took the case to court after a priest broke a confidence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.13', 1, 'uk.m.17677', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.14', 37, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes. her personal life and medical records were dragged through the public domain.\n i wish that conservative members, in their concern for premature babies—we are all concerned about premature babies—would think of the mother and the father.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.15', 2, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.16', 470, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "if conservative members do, they certainly do not mention it. time and again, conservative members drag up the case of the carlisle baby, but it will not further influence the public.\n i know that the minister wants to ask all the questions asked by the hon. member for maidstone, so i shall make one or two final points. the anti-abortion lobby fails to face up to the fact that the abortion act 1967 was woman-centred legislation. it was enacted because before that women felt forced to go to back streets for abortions.\n the force of the abortion act 1967 was to protect and support women. there is nothing wrong with that. we should now take it a step further and introduce earlier abortions for women who want them. at present they are alowed only in exceptional circumstances. early abortions will be possible only if we amend the legislation to provide for self-referral up to 12 or 14 weeks.\n we must ensure that nhs facilities are evenly spread throughout the country. incidentally, that would deal with the arguments about the charitable sector. women in the west midlands—an area which you, madam deputy speaker, represent—have much more difficulty in getting an abortion than women in the north-east or south-west. wealthy women always have and always will be able to get an abortion, even if the anti-abortionists succeed in repealing the act, which i hope they do not, but ordinary women face great difficulties.\n we are moving into the 1990s. women are being exhorted to train for new technologies, to plan their lives, to enter new industries and fill the gaps in the employment market. how can they do that if restrictions on abortions make it even more difficult for them to plan their family properly? family planning is being cut. i hope that conservative members do not approve of that. i certainly do not. how can women control their bodies if this male-dominated house makes it more difficult for them to plan their lives and keep their family happy?\n only this evening i was talking to a member of staff who told me that when many years ago a local friend of her mother's who had 13 children became pregnant for the 14th time and when she tried to abort the child herself, she died. i do not want those days to return. i want women to be confident that they are not being patronised and that the legislation supports and gives them as much information and as many facilities as possible, and then allows them to make choices about their life, family, partners and children. that is the way to approach this thorny subject. none of us likes abortions or wants people who do not want them to have one. we should improve the 1967 act to give women the choice.\n ", datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.17', 1543, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', 'i congratulate my hon. friend the member for hyndburn (mr. hargreaves) on his success in the ballot and on introducing yet another debate on this extremely important subject. i also pay tribute to the eloquent contributions by my hon. friends the members for basildon (mr. amess) and for maidstone (miss widdecombe) and to the contribution by the hon. member for barking (ms. richardson).\n these are important issues and, from my point of view, any hour of the day or night is appropriate to debate them. my hon. friend the member for maidstone asked a number of questions. although i shall, in the time available to me, answer as many as i can, i hope that she will permit me to write to her in due course so that i may answer them more carefully and comprehensively.\n my hon. friend the member for basildon drew attention to those who were present in the chamber at this early hour, and he was charitable in referring to me, for which i thank him, and to others, including the whip who was on the bench at the time. it should be noted that one of the new members of the whips\' office is now on duty. we congratulate my hon. friend the member for sheffield, hallam (mr. patnick) on his appointment and hope to welcome him to many more debates at these early hours.\n on the order paper earlier in the day was a motion to wish the serjeant at arms well for the future. i am sure that hon. members who are present now and were not in their places earlier will wish to be associated with those good wishes. it must be unusual for a distinguished servant of the house to be thanked and then to have to remain in the chamber for the succeeding 24 hours. in regard to this debate he and i perform the same duties. we are servants of the house. my job as minister is to make sure that the act with which we are concerned is administered properly and to provide information and statistics to the house, but not to make moral judgments or take any initiative in relation to an extension or contraction of the act. therefore, i see my role as being to answer questions of fact and to assist in the deliberations of the house.\n this subject has featured often in our deliberations. the hon. member for barking said that in the present session, for example, the house had debated on 16 december a motion on the rights of the unborn child, introduced by my hon. friend the member for slough (mr. watts), and that six private members\' bills on abortion-related subjects have been introduced, including the abortion (amendment) bill sponsored by my hon. friend the member for maidstone. there have been two adjournment debates, one introduced by my hon. friend who initiated tonight\'s debate, on the united nations convention on the rights of the child, and the other on 8 june on the carlisle baby case initiated by my hon. friend the member for maidstone. in addition, 112 parliamentary questions on abortion topics have been addressed either to the department of health or to the office of population censuses and surveys, for which i have ministerial responsibility.\n there has been reference tonight to the prospect of legislation on the issues dealt with in the warnock report which the government have said will be introduced during the lifetime of this parliament. there has been considerable media speculation in recent weeks about its content and timing. hon. members will understand that i cannot go beyond restating that commitment to bring forward a bill.\n it would not be right for me to comment on the contents of the legislation and in particular on whether, as some hon. members have suggested, it should contain provisions about abortion. i shall, as i have done in the past, draw the attention of the leader of the house to the comments that have been made.\n in 1967 parliament was given the opportunity in a private member\'s bill to build on an existing framework of criminal law which prevented abortions except in a very restrictive set of circumstances. parliament agreed to do so on a free vote. it is, of course, open to parliament to alter that framework. i realise that many hon. members feel sincerely that the law needs radical adjustment. it is against that wide divergence of views that the government must operate. we also have the views of the select committee in another place, which has suggested a framework for amending the abortion law. clearly, the government must take account of all those factors, and of what has been said in this debate, in looking at the legislative position. that we shall carefully do.\n this debate focuses mainly on the administration of the abortion act 1967. as the house knows, my department takes seriously its task of monitoring the operation of the act, which was introduced as a private member\'s bill and was passed by both houses on the basis of a free vote. the act allows abortion where two doctors certify in good faith the the risk to the life, or injury to the physical or mental health, of the pregnant woman or the existing children of her family would be greater if the pregnancy continued than if it were terminated.\n as parliament has decided that abortions may lawfully be carried out in the circumstances set out in the act, the government, like their predecessors, consider that facilities for abortion treatment should be available. the government also have a duty to ensure that the provisions of the act are properly applied until and unless parliament chooses to change that law.\n within the national health service the level of gynaecological provision, including abortion, is, like any other provision, decided by individual health authorities. the government believe that such decisions are best taken locally in the light of authorities\' first-hand knowledge of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources. the private sector adds to the range of options available offering flexibility to both patients and health authorities. it is for health authorities to decide the extent of any arrangements made for treating nhs patients in the private sector. in 1988 some 9,000 abortions were performed under such arrangements.\n the operation of the act is monitored closely by my department, through its control of the private abortion sector and the investigation of specific complaints. all operating medical practitioners are required to notify the chief medical officer of each abortion that they perform. the notification form contains many details, including the grounds for abortion, the estimated gestation and the method of operation. those forms are scrutinised by staff authorised by the chief medical officer to ensure that they do not indicate any contravention of the abortion law.\n it might be helpful to my hon. friends and to the house if i were to say something at this point about the way in which the operation of the abortion act is monitored in the private sector. before we approve a clinic or private hospital for the termination of pregnancy under section 1(3) of the 1967 act, the premises and facilities are inspected by the department\'s medical and nursing officers, and persons connected with the application are interviewed by investigating officers. an important element in the process of approval, and subsequent monitoring, is the system of "assurances"—instituted in the early 1970s after some abuse of the original arrangements had become apparent. the assurances are specific undertakings which proprietors of "approved places" are required to give to the secretary of state on the conduct of their premises and the facilities available. in effect, the assurances form a set of conditions on which initial approval depends and contravention of which could lead to the withdrawal of approval, thus preventing any more abortions from being carried out at that place unless approval is reinstated.\n all private sector nursing homes, clinics and private hospitals approved under the abortion act are subject to periodic, unannounced inspections by the department\'s medical, nursing and investigative officers. a thorough check of business and administrative arrangements is made and patients\' notes and medical records are examined. any irregularities are followed up and the appropriate action taken to obtain future compliance by the proprietors. in an extreme case this could involve the withdrawal of the secretary of state\'s approval or, where there is evidence that a criminal offence may have been committed, a reference to the director of public prosecutions. the machinery that i have described does not reveal any abuse of the act. my hon. friend the member for maidstone asked me to comment specifically on that.\n the carlisle baby case was raised by my hon. friend the member for maidstone. this case was the subject of the adjournment debate on 8 june during which i addressed as fully as possible, and as far as the requirements of confidentiality and possible legal action allowed, the issues that gave rise to the concerns expressed by hon. members. my hon. friend asks again why no attempt was made to resuscitate the baby. as i told the house on 8 june, the doctor concerned made a clinical judgment that this was not a live birth.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.18', 66, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister says that the doctor decided that it was not a live birth. the question that i asked in this debate was how can one accept, when a child has been breathing without the aid of artificial equipment, has a pulse rate and has survived for three hours, that that was not a live birth? under what circumstances do we call a person an unperson?\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18'], ['uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18.1.19', 985, 'uk.m.17459', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health', 'government', 'i am about to deal with that point. the decision was properly, and entirely, for the doctor, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. it was a clinical judgment. i shall deal shortly with the circumstances surrounding it. if he had decided that resuscitation should have been attempted, the appropriate action would have been taken.\n how doctors decide whether a baby has been born alive is a question that should be asked of obstetricians and paediatricians. my understanding is that a doctor\'s main criterion of a live birth before 28 weeks of pregnancy is that, when born, the baby starts to breathe properly. in these circumstances a heartbeat will, of course, be present, but a beating heart on its own would not be regarded as sufficient to label the delivery a live birth since delivered foetuses of 16 weeks or even less may have beating hearts although they have no prospect whatever of surviving. i am making no moral or ethical judgment.\n deciding that a live birth has occurred is only one step towards reaching a decision on the appropriate subsequent management. very few live born babies of less than 28 weeks continue to survive without a great deal of intensive care. even if they do survive, there is a significantly increased risk of their developing substantial handicaps. the doctor responsible for the care of the mother and the baby has to weigh all the relevant considerations and use his or her knowledge and clinical judgment to decide what action is appropriate and in the best interests of the mother and baby in the circumstances of each case.\n my hon. friend the member for maidstone asked me how a doctor could avoid the possibility of a live birth through the application of medical techniques or injections. my hon. friend the member for basildon asked how doctors can use techniques such as dilation and evacuation. i am making no moral judgment, but these are matters for clinical judgment. it is not right for the minister or any politician to make judgments about what are essentially clinical matters. i appreciate that my hon. friends have strong views on this subject. all of us have strong views, but these are matters for clinical judgment.\n the conscience clause has been mentioned. section 4 of the abortion act 1967 provides that no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this act to which he has a conscientious objection". under a longstanding agreement with the medical profession, no reference to termination duties should be included in the advertisement of hospital posts, but it should be included in the job description made available personally to all applicants. this procedure ensures that all practitioners, including those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to undertake such duties, are made aware of the requirements of the post before interview. national guidance about this was sent to regional health authorities in 1975 and 1979 by the former chief medical officer. in view of a recent error on the part of trent regional health authority over the wording of an advertisement for a consultant post in obstetrics and gynaecology, the chief medical officer will remind regional medical officers of the existing guidance.\n for non-medical staff, in a recent ruling in the house of lords—r v. salford health authority—lord keith of kinkel stated that, in its ordinary and neutral meaning, the word "participate" in section 4 of the abortion act referred to taking part in treatment.\n i am of course aware that my hon. friends the members for hyndburn and for basildon have introduced bills proposing amendments to the conscience clause. they fall to be considered by the house in accordance with the procedures governing private members\' legislation.\n my hon. friend the member for hyndburn spoke eloquently about the difficulties experienced by hospital staff who have a religious or ethical objection to abortion. everyone can sympathise with someone who experiences pressure to take part in a form of treatment to which he has a conscientious objection. any such pressures could take a number of forms, but it is very difficult, if not impossible—i am sure that my hon. friend would agree—to legislate to encourage the development of appropriate attitudes. what is clear is that the law explicitly protects those who have conscientious objections to taking part in abortion treatment. the law is crystal clear on this subject, and we expect both the letter and the spirit to he observed. i am sure that the hon. member for barking will join me in that.\n let me conclude by dealing with the issue of financial links. since the passing of the abortion act 1967, several attempts have been made to introduce legislation relating to the links between doctors and agencies who refer women for termination of pregnancy and the institutions in which they are performed. these have led to the existing requirements that all nursing homes must notify the secretary of state of any financial arrangements between the nursing home and any medical practitioner, pregnancy advice bureau or referral agency, and must report any changes in existing financial arrangements. furthermore, all pregnancy advice bureaux referring women for abortion at places approved under the act must identify financial links with other businesses, and doctors must not operate on patients whom they see at a referral agency.\n those requirements are drawn to the attention of administrators of premises when the first visit of inspection is made. checks continue to be made on subsequent visits, and company searches are carried out as necessary. proprietors and administrators are well aware that failure to comply with an assurance could constitute grounds for withdrawal of registration of bureaux or approval of nursing homes.\n i hope that this has been a useful debate, and that it has increased understanding of a very important issue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1989, 7, 27, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1989-07-27.18']]
['Abortion (Amendment)']
[['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.1.1', 1035, 'uk.m.10009', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend section 1(1) of the abortion act 1967 in relation to the grounds on which a pregnancy may be terminated. it is christmas and the whole country seems to be immersed in preparations to celebrate that day. it is not a matter for conjecture—christmas will be celebrated on 25 december and that is the day that the infant jesus was born. there was an interesting editorial in the sunday express this weekend that posed the question of how many people actually think about the real purpose behind the celebration of christmas. in the same newspaper, there was another excellent article by mr. enoch powell about the issues that are debated in parliament these days and the nature of our debates. i had the privilege to be present in the chamber when enoch powell moved a similar bill and i can only lament that, for various reasons, we no longer have such profound debates on fundamental issues. this is the perfect time for the house to spend a little while considering the plight of babies who are never allowed to develop and be born. i refer to abortion.\n the house is familiar with the arguments deployed in support of the abortion act 1967 when it was originally introduced. the intentions of the act were clear at the time. my bill would support that act in spirit and in practice. those who support abortion per se explain their views by saying that a woman has a right to choose and they ask what the state does with unwanted babies. last year, 163,621 abortions were carried out in england and wales. did every one of those women choose not to conceive a child? is it really possible that so many women had abortions because the risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother or existing children was greater than if the pregnancies were terminated? to me, that seems beyond comprehension.\n the current clinical interpretation of the abortion act 1967, in effect, means that any woman can have a termination if she wishes as long as gestation is under 24 weeks. that fact was highlighted in the summer when a healthy twin was aborted for purely social reasons and a senior gynaecologist admitted on bbc radio 4: there is abortion on demand … if a woman wants an abortion, she gets one". aborting any foetus is contrary to the original intentions of the abortion act of some 30 years ago, which was passed to allow abortions only in a restricted number of cases. furthermore, with increasing evidence of the humanity of the foetus, those abortions raise serious moral and ethical issues.\n section 1(1)(a) of the abortion act 1967 provides no yardstick, thus allowing abortion on demand, sometimes quite late in a pregnancy as we saw with the twin who was killed after 16 weeks. in 1979, sir ian percival, then the solicitor-general, told a standing committee that was considering tightening the grounds for abortion that there was bound to be some risk in every continuing pregnancy, which makes nonsense of the law as it stands at present. he was discussing the inclusion of the word "substantially" before the phrase greater than if the pregnancy were terminated in order to make the test more stringent and more than merely a statistical evaluation.\n while the bill would be only a small improvement, we are still left with the words "risk" and "injury", neither of which are quantified. having a stitch or two in the cervix could be regarded by some doctors as an injury, but it would hardly justify the killing of the child in the womb. we therefore need to make it clear that both the risk and the injury must be serious.\n evidence is emerging of the long-term damage caused by abortion, not the least of which is the possibility of breast cancer following abortion. current figures show a 30 per cent. increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women who have had abortions. there is also evidence from all over the world of women suffering years of trauma as a result of abortions that they imagined would be simple procedures and the answer to an immediate problem. only this month, the british medical journal carried a paper on suicide after pregnancy in finland from 1987 to 1994. the general suicide rate in finland for that period was 11.3 per 100,000 and the rate associated with birth was significantly lower at 5.9. however, the suicide rate associated with miscarriage was 18.1 and it soared to 34.7 for induced abortion—significantly higher than in the population at large.\n some years ago, westminster hospital published a research paper about attempted suicides among teenagers in its catchment area. the only significant statistic to emerge was that the suicide rate was seven times greater among girls who had had abortions compared with the control group. that figure increased to nine times greater when compared with teenage girls in the population at large. the research was decried on the ground that it was statistically too small, but i have heard of no follow-up investigation. in 1992, a short-term study published in the british journal of psychiatry found that 10 per cent. of women undergoing abortions suffered from psychological damage or trauma.\n my bill would not alter those sections of the act that allow abortions in order to save the mother\'s life. it would not alter the sections dealing with grave and permanent injury to the mother or with the handicapped. it would tighten that part of the act, section 1(1)(a), under which 97 per cent. of abortions are carried out. it would state quite simply that an abortion would be granted only if there was a significant risk to the mother of serious injury and if that risk was substantially greater than the risks inherent in every pregnancy. it would see an end to abortion on demand—which was never the intention of the 1967 act. it would do what the present laws are meant to do but what they singularly fail to do: protect the woman and the child. i commend the bill to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.1.2', 1074, 'uk.m.10087', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i rise to oppose the bill. abortion is an issue about which many people feel strongly—and it is not difficult to understand why. some hon. members hold particularly strong views on the subject and have declared their intention to use every opportunity to raise the issue on the floor of the house. it is their right to do so, but they should appreciate—and we should remember—that, although they are very vocal, they represent a view that is held by a very small minority.\n when a sunday newspaper commissioned a mori opinion poll following the controversy about abortions that occurred this summer, it found that 81 per cent. of respondents agreed or tended to agree with the statement: it is important for pregnant women to have the right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy". only 10 per cent. disagreed or tended to disagree and 9 per cent. neither agreed nor disagreed or had no opinion on the matter. the great majority of people in this country accept that abortion is regrettable but sometimes necessary.\n perhaps most people feel that way because they are sympathetic to the plight of women with problem pregnancies and they have some sense of what it might mean to force a woman to bear a child when she believes, and her doctors agree, that she could not cope. it is all very well for members of parliament to hold the strong view that abortion should not be allowed when a foetal abnormality is detected. they have the right to propose legislation that would prohibit such abortions. however, when we discuss such measures we should remember that we, personally, would not have to live with the consequences if the law were so amended.\n it is the women denied abortion and their families who would suffer the consequences of such a restriction. their lives—not ours—would be profoundly changed by the need to care for a child with a serious disability. in many cases, the other children in the family would suffer most. organisations such as support around termination for foetal abnormality, which provides counselling and assistance for those whose pregnancies are affected, know how important the option of abortion is. they know that the choice of abortion is valued even by those who choose not to take it.\n most abortions in this country are performed because the pregnancy is unwanted in circumstances where two doctors agree that it would be damaging to the mental wellbeing of the woman if she were forced to continue it. they are the abortions that some hon. members are particularly keen to prohibit. but have they thought about what it would mean in practice? have they thought about what it would really mean for a woman to bear a child that she desperately does not want?\n contraception is not fail-safe. organisations such as the birth control trust remind us frequently that about a third of pregnancies are conceived by women who say that they were using contraception when they became pregnant. about 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned. not all unplanned pregnancies will be unwanted, but many will be and we must think carefully about the consequences for individual women and for the whole of society if such women are forced to have those children against their will.\n motherhood is a great responsibility—it is difficult even for those who embrace it willingly. it is worth stating that no woman ever wants to have an abortion. however, many believe that it is the best solution to a dire problem. we have only to look to northern ireland to see what happens when legal abortion is severely restricted. every year, more than 2,000 desperate women travel to england for the procedure. more than 4,000 women travel to england from eire, where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. those who cannot afford to travel here sometimes try to abort themselves—that is what happened in britain before the abortion act 1967 allowed safe, legal abortion.\n women have consciences and so do their doctors. abortion is not a casual choice by women who cannot be bothered to use contraception: it is the last resort of those who are pregnant and who are convinced that it would be better if the potential child were not born. it would be a tragedy for the women if the abortion law were restricted.\n the abortion act 1967 has served women and their doctors well. those who oppose abortion in principle like to remind us that there have been almost 4 million legal abortions since the act became law. they sometimes claim that that is an abhorrence. it is possible to interpret that figure differently and see it as a measure of the benefit that the act has conferred on women and their existing families: that number of abortions took place because that number was necessary for the well-being of women and their families.\n the debate on the human fertilisation and embryology act 1990 allowed the opportunity for considerable debate about amendments to the abortion law. the issues were discussed in great detail and some changes were made to the law. the bill that the hon. member for basildon (mr. amess) seeks to put before the house is not motivated by new developments or discoveries that require the act to be amended. public opinion is not pressing for a change in the law. the need for abortion on the grounds that it is currently provided in this country remains as pressing today as in 1967.\n it is the responsibility of those who sit in the house to draft and pass legislation that affects the everyday lives of the millions of people who live in this country. it is right that we take into account issues that are perceived to be morally difficult or troublesome, but we would be doing the women of this country a great disservice if we allowed access to safe, clinical procedure to be more restricted than it is at present. i ask the house to oppose the bill.\n question put, pursuant to standing order no. 19 (motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to. \n bill ordered to be brought in by mr. david amess, mr. david alton, mr. joe benton, sir graham bright, mr. edward leigh, mr. thomas mcavoy, mr. john mcfall, mr. robert parry, mrs. elizabeth peacock, rev. martin smyth, dr. robert spink and mrs. ann winterton.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.2', 80, 'uk.m.10352', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. is it not the convention of the house that, if an hon. member speaks against a ten-minute bill, he normally votes against it? this is the second time in two weeks that those who oppose us on abortion issues have not had the nerve or the courage to force a division. the country wants a decision on this matter, but those hon. members have not had the nerve to force a division.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.3', 15, 'uk.m.18146', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it is a convention that hon. members can oppose but are not obliged to vote.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.4', 88, 'uk.m.10647', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i sat through the debate on the ten-minute bill. am i not right in thinking that the hon. member for cambridge (mrs. campbell) asked the house to oppose the excellent bill introduced by my hon. friend the member for basildon (mr. amess)? she made a positive statement to that effect at the end of her speech. it is surely a waste of the house's time to make such a statement and then not carry it through to a vote.\n ", datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.5', 10, 'uk.m.18146', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is not a matter on which i can rule.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.6', 49, 'uk.m.22615', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the original point of order, mr. deputy speaker. for a long time it was a convention of the house—i have heard occupants of the chair say this—that, if hon. members opposed a ten-minute bill, they had to follow their opposition through to a vote. is that correct?\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9.2.7', 45, 'uk.m.18146', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is not correct. [interruption.] i call the hon. member for newham, north-west (mr. banks) to order. in my time in the house and in the chair, hon. members on both sides of the house have opposed such bills, but have not forced a vote.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 17, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-17.9']]
['Abortion (Amendment)']
[['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.2', 1332, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to improve the law governing abortion and the status and rights of the medical profession in relation thereto. the long title of the bill is: a bill to improve the law governing abortion and the status and rights of the medical profession in relation thereto. abortion is a controversial and emotional topic and the house needs to discuss it rationally. emotive or sensational utterances, whatever their source, do not help us. there are widely differing views in the house on the question of abortion. i do not question the good intentions or the sincerity of anyone, least of all the sponsor of the abortion act. i ask, in return, that no one should question mine.\n it is true that i have strong views on the morality of abortion which derive in part, but only in part, from my religion. i realise, more fully than anyone else, that a catholic celibate is not the ideal person to be introducing a bill of this kind. it would be better if i were an agnostic mother of nine, but one has to discharge the duty which falls upon one.\n it would be a slander upon the moral sense of the british people if it were thought that only roman catholics are concerned about the working of the abortion act. i place a very high value upon human life. that is why i am opposed not only to abortion, but also to capital punishment. i believe that all life is worthy of reverence, especially if it is in a defenceless form. i am entitled to give witness to that belief inside and outside this house. what i am not entitled to do is to impose my moral views on this question on other people. indeed, it would be wrong to attempt to do so.\n the law as far as it concerns moral matters should rest on the moral consensus of the community. as i take it on this matter, while the community as a whole does not want a total ban upon abortion neither does it want abortion on demand. what it wants is that abortion should be available where there are serious and genuine needs and that it should be carried out under the best possible medical conditions. that i believe to have been the will of parliament when it passed the abortion act. i do not believe that the act is achieving those ends. that is the actual situation we have to face today.\n "there is no doubt that the way the act is working, in particular, in the private sector, is giving grave alarm even to those who were keen supporters of it". those are not my words, but the words of the secretary of state for social services. my concern is not with the national health service, but with the private sector. we have all read stories about foreign women coming to britain for abortions. this is disturbing, but what is important to britain is the impact which the act is having on the british people and on the medical profession here.\n what is clear, also, is that a minority of doctors are making huge fortunes out of the act and are not observing the normal standards of medical care. i will give the house one figure which was quoted by sir john peel, president of the royal college of gynaecologists, which indicates the way the act is working. during a three-month period, 52 women were treated under the national health service and discharged from hospital in 24 hours. during the same period the number of women discharged after 24 hours in the private sector was over 5,000. sir john peel characterised that as amounting almost to medical negligence. under the cover provided by the section in the act concerning good faith, rackets are being operated which neither the law nor the profession is able to check.\n my right hon. and learned friend the member for st. marylebone (mr. hogg), shadow home secretary, warned the house of this danger during debates on the final stages of the bill. i believe that he has been proved right. anyone with the slightest concern for public morality must be concerned about these abuses under the act. having held detailed consultations with representatives of the medical profession, i put forward this proposal, which has the support of the royal college of gynaecologists, the b.m.a. and the medical defence union. it is the only proposal in my bill, which is limited to it because i believe it to be vital.\n i propose that of two doctors who certify abortion under the law to be legal one should be a consultant gynaecologist holding office under the national health service and that the operation should be carried out under his supervision. as there is a limited number of gynaecologists in britain, and i do not wish to see the act nullified in certain parts of the country, i further suggest that other doctors of equivalent status be approved by the minister from panels submitted by professional medical bodies. this simple step would bring to an end the vast majority of racketeering which is going on. the weakness of the act is that there is no effective check in it. its sponsor hoped that the place where the abortions have to be carried out having to be approved by the minister would act as a check, but the minister has taken the view that, provided certain facilities are available, he has no power in the matter.\n the reporting of abortions has not proved to be a check. what we need is a responsible medical person, highly qualified and highly placed, who will effectively check that the provisions of the act are being followed. it may be objected that this would provide a unique limitation on medical practice. i say two things in answer to that. first, abortion is a unique operation because it involves the lives of two people, not one. it is not the same as having a tooth out, or having a finger or limb amputated. it is in a category of its own. secondly, the official bodies of the profession approve this course.\n it may be objected that the minister would not want to take an invidious decision, but the sifting out process would be done by the profession and the final decision only would be the minister\'s. i am not wedded dogmatically to this particular proposal. if, during later stages of the bill, should it get to committee, an amendment were moved to meet such objections, i would be most willing to consider it.\n one cannot dispose of a complicated subject like this in a 10-minute speech. the house knows as well as i do the purpose of the ten minute rule bill procedure. the house has here an opportunity to register by its vote the opinion that it shares the anxieties of the majority of people in the country, of the press and a large number of members of the medical profession, and encourage the government to take action.\n whatever its decision, it is right that the house of commons, which is the forum of the nation, should register its vote and its voice on this subject. a social policy which makes abortion easy and family planning difficult cannot be a good policy. it is national scandal that out of more than 200 local health authorities only 34 provide a full family planning service.\n i believe that by giving me leave to introduce my bill today the house would give an impetus towards the introduction of more intelligent and rational policies in these matters and that it would be striking a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual mother, for whom we should certainly have concern and compassion, and the demands of the social, moral and medical strength and reputation of the country, with which we should also be equally concerned.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.4', 1294, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not ask the house to refuse the hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas) leave to bring in his bill on the grounds that i regard the abortion act as totally perfect or immutable for the future, nor do i do it on the grounds that i am totally satisfied or complacent about the manner in which it is working today. i do it, rather, because i see in the proposed bill something which would not solve the problems that we are facing in the working of the act, but which would be a thoroughly regressive measure.\n it is worth reviewing the facts at the end of the first year of operation of the act. about 40,000 legal abortions were carried out. this is a substantial increase on the previous number, but an increase was to be expected if the act was to be effective. if there had been no increase, clearly the act would not be achieving its objective.\n the limited evidence we are able to gather—for example, from the london emergency bed centre figures—shows that we are achieving the objective of reducing criminal abortions. the figures given by that centre show that in the first quarter of 1966 there were 1,363 emergency admissions for spontaneous or incomplete abortions, whereas during the first quarter of this year the figure was down to 870. this is a very satisfactory development.\n moreover, it is not true that we have established in britain a high rate of legal abortion. britain has approximately five abortions per 100 live births, whereas in norway, sweden, denmark and finland, all of which have abortion laws roughly comparable with our own, the figures are higher, ranging from 6 to 8 per 100 live births. our figure of 5 per 100 is nowhere near the figure achieved in countries with abortion on demand legislation, such as czechoslovakia with 43 abortions per 100 live births and japan with 38. taking these figures in their context, it is nonsense to claim that london is the abortion capital of the world.\n the present problem which the operation of the act has faced is one which was not mentioned by the hon. gentleman. it is the regional difference within britain of the practice of abortion under the national health service. this was something which was foreseen by the sponsors, and i myself referred to it during the passage of the bill. i believe that it will take many years before we even out the practice and end the present situation, in which it is twice as easy to get an abortion in newcastle as it is in birmingham. this is the type of question which should be the subject of concern in the house rather than the matters referred to by the hon. gentleman, because i believe that it is the restrictive practices in centres like birmingham which in themselves stimulate the growth of the private centre of abortion in london.\n that growth of the private sector has very little to do with foreigners. the amount of hysteria in the press in recent weeks about, for example, 30,000 danish women coming in charter flights to britain has been shown to be complete nonsense. the secretary of state for social services, having made his inquiries, discovered that, in the period of this hysteria during june and the first week of july, only four danish women had abortions in the private clinics in london.\n typical of the stories was one in one newspaper, where a taxi driver who was interviewed was recorded as saying that he had, in fact, been bringing foreign girls on an average of one a week to clinics in london; the enterprising journalist multiplied this figure by the number of taxis available at any given time at heathrow airport and came to the conclusion that 1,000 foreign girls were invading britain each week for abortions. these figures are shown to be false by the number of notifications received, unless it is suggested that cases are not being notified, in which case a criminal offence is taking place under the act and action can be taken.\n having said that, however, i believe—there i share the concern felt by the hon. member for chelmsford—that one or two doctors in one or two clinics are not giving the fullest medical attention to their patients and are primarily motivated by financial considerations. i share that concern with the hon. gentleman, but i say to him that we gave the secretary of state full power in the act to introduce new ministerial regulations. the act empowers the secretary of state under the regulations, to demand such other information relating to the termination as may be so prescribed". therefore, there is still legislative power in the secretary of state\'s hands which he has not yet used and which he could use if he were satisfied that the situation demanded it.\n moreover, i believe that the profession itself has a responsibility. the general medical council, in its rules of discipline, has as one of its definitions of infamous conduct the abuse of financial opportunities offered by medical practice. i should have thought that it should be the general medical council which should take action in cases where abuse is occurring.\n i respect, and always have done, the sincerity of the hon. member for chelmsford, but he must forgive me if i find it difficult to accept that he has come forward today in the spirit of the man wielding the oilcan just to ensure that the machinery works a little better. the fact is that he has come armed with a spanner to throw into the works, whether it is his intention or not.\n i invite the house to consider four points in rejecting the hon. gentleman\'s application to bring in a bill. first, to limit one of the two doctors to a consultant would not check the operation of the private sector. some part-time consultants in the national health service are already operating in the private sector and it would be only a matter of time before one or two consultants had lined up a particular monopoly in this area.\n secondly, and much more seriously, i believe that it would cause delays in patients getting abortions. whatever one\'s view about abortion is, both medically and ethically—i have said this before—i believe that if it has to happen it is desirable that it should happen at the earliest possible time. the experience of sweden has shown that where there is too much red tape and where, as in this country, there are only 600 consultant gynaecologists, it would be disastrous from the point of view of mortality figures and in the effect of driving women again to illegal operations if there were long delays in women obtaining appointments for a legal abortion.\n thirdly, what the country requires is more doctors under the national health service willing to operate the act properly and in a balanced way, not fewer doctors. this proposed amendment would merely create more birminghams, instead of more newcastles. the amendment which the hon. gentleman proposes was discussed twice in the house and twice in the other place in one form or another during the passage of the bill, and i see no reason why w(.; should not stand by our original decision in rejecting this restrictive proposal.\n finally, i welcome what the hon. gentleman said at the beginning of his speech about emotional language, but i cannot end without referring to what i think was the quite disgraceful speech made last night by the hon. lady the member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight). it is, i think, a monstrous slur on the medical profession in britain to suggest that live babies are being burned in incinerators.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.5', 2, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.6', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'sit down.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.7', 23, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. david steel) does not give way, the hon. lady must sit down.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.8', 3, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if it is—\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.9', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.10', 3, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if it is—\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.11', 2, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.12', 1, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if—\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.13', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.14', 19, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if the hon. gentleman does not give way after referring to the hon. lady, it is his business.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.15', 4, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. lady—\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.16', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.17', 5, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.18', 33, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. it is the practice that speeches under the ten minute rule are not interrupted by either debating points or points of order, but i think that there is substance in this one.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.19', 36, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. is it not usual that, when an hon. member has made a direct slighting reference to another hon. member, the member referred to has a right to make reply?\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.20', 17, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the question of right does not come into it. it is still for the hon. gentleman.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.21', 32, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. am i permitted under the rule to give way? if so, i shall gladly give way. i understood that it was not in order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.22', 30, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i would not prevent the hon. gentleman from giving way. it is most unusual under the ten minute rule, but the hon. gentleman has referred critically to another hon member.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.23', 70, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member has made a direct reference to a speech which i made last night in which i spoke nothing but the truth. if he does not happily join with me in being appalled at the incident at stobhill hospital, glasgow, where a live baby was put into a boiler, i am very surprised that i do not have his agreement in saying that it is a montrous procedure.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.24', 114, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was about to refer to the tragic and deplorable incident at stobhill, but i must clarify the facts of the case. a baby was not put into any boiler. what happened was that a mistake was made, by, incidentally, a consultant gynaecologist, and a viable foetus was aborted. it was later found that this foetus was alive, it was brought back, and attempts were made to resuscitate it. the child, unfortunately, died.\n but from this deplorable incident, the papers in which are still being examined by the secretary of state for scotland, to conclude that 108 babies—the wrong figure in any case—may possibly have been burned alive is to make a montrous suggestion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.25', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'disgraceful.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.26', 26, 'uk.m.21885', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the incident is over. we are back to the practice under the ten minute rule, and we are nearly at the end of the time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7.1.27', 44, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have seen references in the press and elsewhere to a "pro-abortion lobby". i wish it to be understood that there is no such thing. i hope that we in this house are all anti-abortion, for share the view of the hon. member for\n ', datetime.datetime(1969, 7, 15, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1969-07-15.7']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE)']
[['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.9', 1268, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'hon. members will recall that in the debate on the second reading of the abortion (amendment) bill on 7th february last year the minister of state. department of health and social security gave a firm undertaking that: should the eventuality arise that the house goes into a different session before the bill is considered, the government give the commitment to the sponsors of the bill that they will re-establish the select committee."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1794.] the motion now before the house honours that undertaking.\n in the event, the select committee was unable to complete consideration of the bill before the end of the session. not that it was dilatory in any way; under the guidance of its chairman, the right hon member for sunderland, north (mr. willey)—i pay a warm tribute to his skilled, tactful, good-humoured but always firm leadership—the committee held 23 meetings, took evidence in public on 14 occasions, and, in its third special report to the house, made nine interim recommendations, which the government accepted in their entirety.\n as the select committee explained in its report, its recommendations were not exhaustive, and they were made without prejudice to any further recommendations that a re-established select committee might wish to make. the committee added that it was its belief that a re-established committee should be able to report without delay in the next session.\n i hope to show, therefore, that there is indeed a pressing need for the select committee to be re-established so that it may complete the work on which it embarked last year, which was interrupted in the way i have just described.\n we are discussing a complex matter, and it may be helpful to the house if i say something about its history. not long after the abortion act became law, it became apparent that, whatever benefits it was conferring, grave abuses were taking place in the private sector. licence to provide abortions in return for money led to large numbers of foreign women flooding here for the purpose of obtaining abortions that were illegal in their own countries. apart from anything else, practices detrimental to the interests of those women were occurring.\n that growing public anxiety was justified, and that the situation was one that cried to heaven for remedy was confirmed by the minister of state when, with re-freshing candour, he said, in the second reading debate a year ago: i deeply regret that such abuses have been allowed to continue for such a long time. i profoundly wish that my own profession had puts its house in order. i wish that, immediately following the passage of the act, when the abuses were at their height, successive governments had used administrative measures to prevent abuse."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1806.] the anxieties in some part of the medical profession and the police service, among the wider public and hon. members had already grown so great by 1971 that the then government set up the lane committee to review the workings of the act. that committee took a great deal of expert evidence, made its recommendations and reported in 1974. i make a brief reference now to the lane report because it is relevant to the motion.\n the lane committee found that while the act had relieved a vast amount of individual suffering it had resulted in a greatly increased number of those seeking legal abortion, had involved a substantial increase in the work load of national health service gynaecological departments, and had led to a marked in-equality, over the country as a whole, in the provision of services, and that this in turn had encouraged the growth of a flourishing private sector. the lane committee also confirmed what we already knew, namely, that in the private sector there had been gross abuse as a result of the opportunity to make money arising from the great number of foreign women who came to this country to have abortions.\n the lane committee was convinced that the official figures of such traffic, which it considered were alarming, were not reliable and that abortions were being performed without any certificate being completed or any notification being made. it found that some doctors were interpreting the abortion act in a way contrary to the intention of parliament and contrary to the intention of the author of the act, the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel). in short, it found that the act was being interpreted in a way contrary to the intention of parliament that it should not be lawful to permit abortion on demand.\n the lane committee considered—in one of those rare references to the fact that abortion is not just another operation but involves the deliberate destruction of an unborn child—that the upper time limit for termination, after which a child is capable of being born alive, should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, and it made a number of other recommendations regarding regulation and control.\n inevitably, since parliament was given no opportunity to discuss the lane report and very little was done to implement any of its recommendations, public anxiety, far from abating, grew even greater. that is the background against which we must view the emergence of the abortion (amendment) bill introduced by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), which led directly to the setting up of the select committee last year. that bill may have had serious defects—i am not arguing about that, because it was a private member\'s bill and one can understand why it might have had drafting defects—but it was an honest attempt by the hon. member to force the issue and to get something done.\n whatever hon. members\' views may be on the subject of abortion, as such—i suggest that that is not really the issue tonight—i think that the whole house and the country should be grateful to the hon. member for pollok for making it possible for parliament at long last to focus attention on the workings of the 1967 act. indeed, the house recognised this when it gave the bill a second reading and accepted the government\'s constructive suggestion that the bill be remitted to a select committee. the minister of state himself told us: the bill\'s essential provision is to prevent the abuses which we all know have existed in the private sector i believe that sensible legislation now for the private sector will strengthen, not weaken, the 1967 act."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885.c. 1806.] the bill certainly had the effect of waking up the department of health and social security. no sooner had the hon. member for pollok announced his intention of introducing his bill—before anyone knew what it contained—than the department started asking for information about abortion in the private sector—information that it should have obtained long before, certainly after the lane report had laid bare what was going on and had said what should be done about it. for example, it was not until mid-january 1975 that parliament learned that the department was sending out a questionnaire to private abortion clinics asking such questions as "what care do you provide? where are your patients referred from? how many foreign patients do you take?"\n it was hardly surprising, therefore, that the house gave the bill a second reading and accepted the minister of state\'s wise advice that such a delicate and complex subject as this was better suited to the procedures of a select committee—which has the power to call for expert witnesses and papers—than for the normal standing committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.10', 50, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "many hon. members on both sides of the house and on both sides of the controversy would have accepted a select committee. if the bill's sponsors felt so strongly that it should be submitted to a select committee, why was a vote forced on the bill in the previous debate?\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.11', 566, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have no responsibility for forcing votes. i cannot answer that question, and it is not relevant to the argument before the house. perhaps the hon. gentleman will pursue that matter later. all i am saying is that the decision that the house took, on the minister\'s advice, was wise and sensible, and in the end proved fruitful. it was fruitful because, despite sincere differences among members of the select committee, we were able to make nine interim recommendations for action, all of which the government were able to accept.\n i tell the house quite frankly that the majority of members of the select committee would not have agreed to those interim recommendations if we had thought there was any likelihood of the select committee\'s not being set up again. it was clear, at least to most of us, that if the intentions of parliament when it passed the 1967 act were not to be flouted, there was urgent need for further clarification and improvement of the law.\n moreover, there are other matters which have arisen since 1967, not foreseen at the time, which require either amendment of the existing law or new administrative regulations, or both. as the select committee did not have sufficient time to take evidence on these matters or to discuss them at any length and so to make recommendations, it was unable to complete the task for which it was set up. we were not worried about that because we had been given a solemn pledge by the minister of state that if we did not complete the business it could be continued in a further session. i cannot believe, therefore, that the house would be prepared to leave the matter there.\n may i give just five examples of what i have in mind? first, the 1967 act certainly did not intend to provide abortion on demand, as the lane committee report later confirmed. nevertheless, in paragraph 201 of the lane committee report it asserted that some practitioners interpret the act to mean that…termination is possible in every case". that is still the situation.\n later, in paragraph 603, the report said that in parts of the private sector patients could have their pregnancies terminated on request, for payment, when there were no lawful grounds for that to be done. to quote directly, it said: in short, in some parts of the private commercial sector the provisions of the act have been flouted and abortion on request has been the rule". who, in the face of that, can doubt that the law needs to be clarified and strengthened so that flagrant abuse in return for financial reward is brought to an end?\n it would be naïve to think that the select committee\'s interim recommendations concerning the examination of women seeking abortion will eliminate that scandal. indeed, an assistant under-secretary at the home office told the select committee: if it is indeed the case that…a doctor can lawfully perform an abortion on the strength of a mere statistical risk, then i am not even sure that you get home by providing that he has got at least to see the woman and examine her. those last few words\n to see the woman and examine her underline the type of scandalous abuse and disregard of the interests and health of the women concerned that have been going on ever since the act was passed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.12', 68, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that the whole tenor of his argument so far has been about the enforcement of present legislation and in no way about changing the law? he was been describing the way in which doctors abuse the present act. we need to enforce the act. there is no need to change the legislation in the light of anything that the hon. gentleman has said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.13', 1284, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have a great deal of respect for the hon. lady, who has been a good colleague on the select committee. if she will listen to the rest of my argument she will realise that what she said is not so. let me proceed. if the hon. lady catches your eye, mr. speaker, no doubt she will be able to take up the point.\n nor will our interim recommendation concerning the control of fees be adequate in itself. dr. coplans, of the association of anaesthetists, told us that controlling the price will not stop people interpreting the act in a way which you could say was abortion on demand. that is my first example. clearly, therefore, further consideration must be given to this crucial question.\n second, it is necessary—here is the answer to the hon. lady's point—to bring the upper time limit of 28 weeks for abortion, except in cases where there are serious medical indications, into line with current medical opinion and modern techniques. in any event, the lane committee thought that the limit should be reduced to 24 weeks. we are told that the world health organisation is considering a period of 22 weeks. sir john peel, one of the most distinguished gynaecologists of our time, thinks that the upper limit should be 20 weeks. indeed, the british medical association, commenting on the lane report, warned that even with the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks, however, the position still exists that owing to an error in the calculation of dates a foetus intended for destruction could be born alive and be capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independent of any connection with the mother. therefore, whatever change is thought to be appropriate—it is clear that whether we accept 24 weeks or 20 weeks as the upper limit, some change is long overdue—it must involve amendment to the abortion act combined with the repeal of the 28–week presumption in the infant life (preservation) act 1929—the course favoured by the lane committee.\n the select committee's very modest interim recommendation that late termination be restricted to certain places with certain facilities is, in my view, no substitute for such a statutory provision, since that recommendation involves leaving legal time limit as it is. that makes legal nonsense. it is a situation that the house cannot continue to tolerate. for that reason alone there will be an argument for the select committee to consider what is the most suitable legislation to be introduced.\n third, there is the disturbing question how far the conscience clause in the 1967 act protects doctors and nurses who have a genuine conscientious objection to abortion and the extent to which the careers of those who have such objection are damaged.\n there is no doubt that discrimination exists and that it causes fear and distress. i do not want to give the house my own opinion. let me quote the evidence which the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists gave to the lane committee: …medical members of hospital gynaecological and anaesthetic departments…are fearful that if they show distaste or conscientious objection to terminating pregnancy their position may be prejudiced. this fear is amply justified for we have certain knowledge that when candidates are being interviewed for appointment as registrar, senior registrar or consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology it is now almost the rule for them to be asked their attitude to the implementation of the abortion act…we submit that it is quite improper for candidates for posts in obstetrics and gynaecology to be discarded or outruled on the grounds that they have a conscientious objection to performing any particular operation. discrimination continues. my attention has been drawn recently to two cases—one of a distinguished royal college gold medalist who has been driven out of the country by it, and the other, a general practitioner, who for years sought posts involving gynaecology in different parts of the country and was turned down repeatedly because of his views on abortion. such evidence should be laid before the select committee. we have already taken convincing evidence from the royal college of nursing that great distress and anxiety exists in the nursing profession as well.\n in recent years parliament has spent a great deal of time legislating against the evils of discrimination on grounds of race or sex. how can anyone justify discrimination against members of the healing professions who have a conscientious objection to the destruction of life in the womb? is the house of commons going to say that it cannot find time to discuss a matter of this importance? that is really what the issue is about—whether time can be found for that matter, among others, to be discussed. it is utterly disgraceful that discrimination of this kind should be practised. clearly, a reappointed select committee should consider the problem and decide whether it can best be overcome by amendment of the 1967 act or by fresh administrative regulation.\n fourthly, the select committee should be given an opportunity to make recommendations on the question whether, in criminal prosecutions, anonymity should be granted to witnesses who have had abortions. the lane report commented on the difficulties caused to the police by the present situation which frequently leads to women being unhelpful to the police in their inquiries.\n an assistant under-secretary at the home office told the select committee that, in principle, the home office would go along with the idea of anonymity, though possibly at the court's discretion rather than as an absolute right. the home office was concerned, however, that this question should also be considered in the context of offences other than abortion.\n since the select committee last discussed this question, the advisory group on the law of rape, under mrs. justice heilbron, has recommended that rape victims be granted anonymity in criminal proceedings. i understand that the advisory group's recommendations have had a sympathetic reception from the home secretary, and rightly so. 1 submit that a reappointed select committee should now consider the question of anonymity in abortion cases in the light, inter alia, of the recommendations of mrs. justice heilbrcn's advisory group.\n my last example—hon. members will be able to produce many other examples of cases in which consideration must be given to the question whether legislation is necessary—is that it is clearly unsatisfactory in law and in morality to leave the blacklisting of pregnancy advice bureaux to the indirect means of control proposed in the select committee's third special report. that was intended purely as an interim measure indicating to the government what we thought should be done. here again, there is need for new statutory controls, which witnesses from the department of health and social security repeatedly urged on the select committee.\n here, then, are five good reasons—there are many others—for reconvening the select committee and allowing it to complete the task with which it was entrusted by the house last year. i urge hon. members to support the motion. it does not commit any hon. member to one view or another on any of these contentious matters. the final recommendations of the committee would have to be decided by the house itself. the select committee could not determine the matter. it would make recommendations to the house, and the house would then have the opportunity of deciding whether to accept them or not.\n i hope that, because of that fact, hon. members will tonight decide to agree to the motion without a division, but whatever decision they make it is clear that these grave matters cannot be left where they are. the law must be clarified and amended. what better body than a select committee to review what needs to be done in this context?\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.14', 4, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' several hon. members rose—— \n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.15', 35, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i must inform the house that in the approximately two and a half hours that remain for the debate, 20 hon. members wish to speak. i hope that that will be borne in mind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.17', 97, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall be as brief as possible, mr. speaker. on 2nd february last year i gave a pledge to the house that i and my fellow-sponsors of the bill were not playing tricks. tonight, i again assure the house that we have not shifted ground. having said that, i want to put paid to a rumour that i and my fellow sponsors brought about our proposed amendments because of the book "babies for burning ". that story is utter and complete rubbish, and we challenge any hon. member to say when any of us have said that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.18', 24, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will not my hon. friend accept that he tried to use it, and that now that it has been discredited he is backing out?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.19', 17, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i never at any given moment tried to use that book, nor did i quote from it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.20', 21, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'but would not the hon. gentle man agree that none of the allegations made in the book has ever been disproved?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.21', 187, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have never at any given moment quoted from that book, either in the house, in the select committee or outside the house.\n it was the government who came to us and offered us a select committee. we did not go to the government for it. the government, in their wisdom, realised that the amount of evidence we had to hear could not be properly heard in a short space of time and that a year would not be enough. we were guaranteed by the government that the select committee would go from session to session.\n what did the select committee achieve? first and foremost, i must pay my respects to the chairman, my right hon. friend the member for sunderland, north (mr. willey). he was most capable and certainly one of the best chairmen we could have had. secondly, although at times we in the committee disagreed and divided, we did not experience the bitterness that arose during the proceedings on the 1967 act. it was a very nice committee, and i should be delighted to meet with the same hon. members in that committee again.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.22', 44, 'uk.m.10132', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is the second time in the debate that the statement has been made that the government promised that the select committee would go from session to session. will not my hon. friend acknowledge that the house, and not the government, appoints select committees?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.23', 223, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes, i agree. but had i thought that there was any danger of the select committee sitting for only a short time, i would have pressed the chairman and the clerk for much more evidence to be called—evidence which i wanted to call and would have called earlier had i thought that there was any doubt about the committee's continued existence. i still believe that the house is fair, and i believe that in fairness it will give us the majority that we want tonight. i do not see any inbuilt danger.\n i want to call certain evidence, for example, from professor peter hunting-ford, who willy-nilly goes about saying that, irrespective of what we say, he will practise abortion on request. he interprets the present law as allowing abortion on demand. i think that he should appear before the select committee.\n i think that we should hear professor hugh mclaren, from birmingham, who has disagreed very strongly with some of the evidence that the select committee has heard. in fairness to all, we should hear the other side. i would be keen to call professor ian donald, from glasgow, who is in favour of my bill. i should like to hear dr. margaret white, from london. i should like to hear each and every one of these people, two of whom practise abortion.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.24', 80, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am very confused in listening to my hon. friend. i believe he said on the radio this morning that he was concerned that 1,000 women from glasgow had come to england to have unwanted pregnancies terminated according to law. now he says that he wants to call professor ian donald. is it not professor donald's responsibility that these 1,000 women from glasgow have to come to england because they cannot get their pregnancies terminated in glasgow according to law?\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.25', 58, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall come to the glasgow situation. i happen to represent a glasgow constituency. one of the reasons why i brought in the bill was my total dissatisfaction with the situation in glasgow. i hope that my hon. friend will agree with me as she listens.\n i should also like to have evidence from behind the iron curtain——\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.26', 104, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before my hon. friend leaves the point—[ interruption. ] i have not spoken on this subject before. i am no expert. i do not claim to be an expert. i do not think that my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) should be so insulting. all i want to ask is this. has the committee considered taking evidence in glasgow, from a wide section of interests in the west of scotland, on this subject—interests which for some time have been producting facts and figures to show the degree of abuse that is taking place in the operation of the existing law?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.27', 180, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i agree with my hon. friend that the committee could well go to glasgow. indeed, the majority of my sponsors happen to be scotsmen. the committee, in fact, has never been to an abortion clinic. i should also like evidence to be taken from sociologists and others in various parts of the world who claim to be experts on backward babies. i should like evidence to be taken from the woman detective, chief inspector brenda reeves, who did some fairly full research into the problem on behalf of the police.\n what i am really interested in, however, is why ladies must pay to have an abortion. all my life i have been totally opposed to fee-paying for schools and fee-paying for beds in hospitals, and i am bitterly opposed to the idea that one needs to have 60 £1 notes in one's pocket before one can get an abortion. i ask my hon. friend the under-secretary of state for scotland, the member for glasgow, provan (mr. brown), how many of his constituents can afford £60, not counting the train fares.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.28', 44, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i give the answer? there is in the 1967 act a conscience clause, which we all supported, which allows national health service practitioners to refuse to do the operation on grounds of conscience. that is why women have to pay £60 a time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.29', 153, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope my hon. friend the member for welwyn and hatfield (mrs. hayman) will join me in doing something about that. that is a good reason for reappointing this committee to hear all the evidence.\n i am opposed to the practice in abortion clinics by which people have to pay the money before they have the operation. that is not the type of abortion centre we ought to have. the proposal for a select committee offers a way of ensuring that any future legislation designed to amend the 1967 act will be soundly based.\n i fail to see any reason why this motion should not be supported. a select committee cannot legislate. it can only recommend. nevertheless, i think that everybody will agree that the committee has done a first-class job and should be allowed the opportunity to carry on and deliberate on what other recommendations ought to be brought before the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.31', 305, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i hope i sound more coherent than i feel, since my recent contact with the medical profession has had more to do with influenza than with abortion.\n this motion is without precedent in the house. a point that has been over-looked by the two previous speakers is that the motion invites us to set up a select committee to consider a bill which lapsed in the last session. it is not the same committee as that which the government offered during the debate a year ago, when the suggestion was that the sponsor should withdraw the bill and that a select committee on the working of the abortion act should be set up to consider the lane committee's report and the hon. member's bill. that suggestion was turned down by the house. the bill received a second reading and was committed to a select committee instead of to a standing committee.\n although the government are honouring a moral commitment by moving the motion, i believe it is seriously defective because the committee will, according to its terms of reference, be restricted to consider matters contained in the abortion (amendment) bill. that is a very important limitation. if the motion empowered us to keep a watchful eye on the working of the abortion act generally, on the development of the new day-care facilities or the lack of facilities in the national health service in birmingham or glasgow, or the difficulties of operating a conscience clause, bearing in mind the evidence given to us by the royal college of nursing in favour of setting up specialist units, there would be a case for setting up a committee. but many of the things that we might like to review are not in the hon. member's bill and, therefore, are outside our powers of review according to the motion.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.32', 57, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "since the hon. member's bill had a long title to enable it to be comprehensive, by allowing an amendment to the existing abortion law, what reason does the hon. member have for suggesting that a select committee appointed on these terms would feel any sense of limitation in dealing with all the matters that he has adumbrated?\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.33', 222, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. member is advancing a novel point of view if he thinks that we can go beyond the matters contained in the bill. there is nothing in the bill about an extension of national health service facilities. the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b, braine) made a valid point when he talked about the rule of anonymity. this is referred to in the bill. but there has been a recommenda- tion from mr. justice lane's committee, and we have had a recommendation also from mrs. justice heilbron's committee, and it is our job to stir up the home office to do something about this. what is required is action, not more discussion.\n to set up a committee confining itself to reconsidering a bill that has been wholly rejected by the bulk of the medical profession is a waste of parliamentary time. much has happened in the year since we last considered this matter. the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists voted by 28 to 2 that they were not dissatisfied with the working of the 1967 act. the british medical association voted overwhelmingly, by 360 to 4, to oppose the terms of the bill introduced by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). is it seriously suggested that we should take up that matter again as a starting point?\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.34', 38, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman not agree that the previous select committee ruled out certain abuses? does he not now agree that there are further abuses to be ruled out? hence the need to set up a select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.35', 779, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman will let me make my own speech he will find that i shall be coming to the question of abuses. the situation a year ago was that parliament was faced with a series of abuses of the abortion law. one could criticise successive administrations for lot acting and reporting to the house on what they were doing to check these abuses. it was as a result of questions in the house from members with different views that the previous secretary of state for social services, the right hon. member for leeds, north-east (sir k. joseph), set up the lane committee in 1971. it reported in march 1974. it came to the conclusion that the act has relieved a vast amount of individual suffering", and that members of the inquiry were unanimous in supporting the act and its provisions. we have no doubt that the gains facilitated by the act have much outweighed any disadvantages for which it has been criticised. the committee, however, also said that much of the criticism is justified: in consequence of the abortion act a situation has arisen in which a very small number, of perhaps about 20 or 30 members of the medical profession and those associated with them, have brought considerable reproach upon this country. despite the publication of the lane committee\'s report, the house had no government statement on the matter. the committee had reported but the house was left in the dark. the hon. member for pollok has, in a sense, provided a useful service in raising the whole matter and enabling us to get started on our work. the fact that we were able to elicit from the department for the first time some of the steps that it was already taking—for example, the development of the black list of referral agencies—was of value. they were able to close clinics by using the powers of the act—powers which had existed all along in the act but had not been used before. in the wake of the select committee\'s work the department is to operate stricter controls, such as fees and certification. the department is taking several important steps, and has begun successfully to end many abuses.\n i am not surprised that the house voted overwhelmingly for the bill of the hon. member for glasgow, pollok. i pay tribute to the chairman of the select committee and to the useful work which was accomplished by the select committee in the previous session. we were able to produce a nine-point series of recommendations that were accepted by the secretary of state for social services. i think they have been useful, doing much to highlight abuses of the act and to recommend further steps that should be taken.\n the hon. member for glasgow, pollok mentioned three abuses in his speech last year. he said: the base of commercial operators is the growing number of foreign women who are lured into britain in the knowledge that for cash a group of doctors will perform illegal abortions on request, totally ignoring the criteria of the act. that was perfectly true. the minister of state took up the same point and said: france since 1972 has always provided the largest single group of patients: in 1974 it was 36,541. to many people this is a very high figure which raises serious questions about the need to have a statutory ban, but it may well drop considerably following the introduction of the new laws."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1758–1805.] that last sentence has turned out, a year later, to be true. as other coun- tries have changed their laws, the picture of abortion in this country has become totally different. the number of women coming from france in 1974 was 36,541, but last year it dropped to 14,809. the breakdown for 1975 shows that 7,400 women came from france in the first quarter, but in the last quarter the number had fallen to 1,411. there has been a similar decline from other countries, such as germany, as more liberal abortion laws have been introduced. we have broken the back of the problem of importing foreign patients.\n interestingly enough, the number of women from italy and spain has increased, for the obvious reason that no abortion law exists in those countries. the number of foreign women coming to this country was down by 37 per cent. in 1975. the total number of abortions was down by 14 per cent. the picture today is very different from what it was a year ago, the figures now being in decline for the first time since the passing of the act in 1967.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.36', 9, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, due to the work of the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.37', 430, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'partly due to the work of the select committee, but mainly but to the action taken by other countries in developing their own legislation.\n another matter that influenced the house a year ago and to which the hon. member for glasgow, pollok referred was the book entitled "babies for burning". it is a little late in the day for the hon. gentleman and his supporters to disclaim that book\'s influence. it provided headlines in many newspapers, and many respected commentators quoted from it freely. copies were sent to members.\n when the committee examined the authors i must say that i had never seen such a pair of charlatans before a select committee. i do not wish to go into the claims that were made and the credentials that were offered, as those are all matters that may be before the courts, but in the introduction to the book there appeared this sentence: every quote we reproduce was tape recorded by us. yet when we asked for the tapes of the most gruesome parts of the book it was admitted that no tapes existed. we were told that the mechanism was faulty, that the newspapers had lost them, or that the police had possession. there was always some explanation, but by some strange coincidence it was always the most sensational parts of the book for which no tape was available. there were plenty of tapes available to cover the more ordinary parts of the book. the book uncovered many abuses, but the most blatant and gruesome sections were unsubstantiated.\n nor have the authors ceased their activities since appearing before the committee. in a letter to the church times in september, mr. lichfield wrote: the select committee has some forty hours\' playing time of tape recorded evidence from myself and mrs. kentish, the co-author. they have tapes of a doctor talking of \'hitler\'s progressive thinking\' in this matter and the prospects of selective breeding \'. the committee had no such tapes, yet these lies are put forward the whole time. i stress the nature of the book because hon. members who sponsored the bill appeared anxious to disclaim any connection with it.\n however, the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) reviewed the book in the spectator only a week or two before the house was asked to make its decision. i shall make two quotations from the hon. gentleman\'s review. first, he wrote that the authors came to the problem as virginal and pristime as only young journalists can be.…". he then wrote: yet one cannot forbear to pay them tribute …". \n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.38', 82, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'perhaps the hon. gentleman will quote more of my remarks. clearly, it would have been far better if the authors had published the tapes without making any comment. i emphasised that in my article. why does the hon. gentleman not quote that? why does he pretend that we do not have hours and hours of tapes? they are in the possession of the select committee. the view has been taken that we have the time in front of us to examine them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.39', 496, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman wishes me to quote further from his article i shall do so. he wrote: it would have been wise and more effective if the authors had simply left the tapes to speak for themselves: the grim recounting requires no embellishment. i agree, but there would not have been a book, because the outrageous tapes did not exist.\n i do not pretend that the working of a difficult piece of legislation will be plain sailing from now on; there is bound to be variation within the medical profession. but i take issue with the hon. member for glasgow, pollok on the bonafides of some members of the medical profession who operate within the national health service in london. the suggestion is made that there are certain consultants who provide abortions on demand. i met one such consultant recently. although this consultant did not go along with the mainstream of medical opinion, he had an equally sincere and conscientious regard for his patients. there was no question of merely granting abortions. there was certainly no question of performing abortions without examination, interview and regard to the length of pregnancy. all those matters were taken into account before the consultant made up his mind.\n it is totally false to suggest that abortion on demand exists within the national health service. however, there is a wide discrepancy of interpretation. that will always exist within the medical profession, on this and other matters. it is our duty to lay down the boundaries of the criminal law. that is what we did in 1967. it is not up to us to judge whether individual abortions should or should not be carried out. as long as the practitioner acts in good faith under the 1967 act, such judgment should be left to him.\n normal parliamentary checks are open to us. if the house wishes at any time to change the substantive law it should do so by the normal processes and not by hiding behind a select committee. i believe that it will be a waste of parliamentary time and resources to set up another select committee to operate within narrow terms of reference. i also believe that in the light of the evidence that has accumulated during the past year, and as published in the past month in the british journal of psychiatry for the first time, the picture is much clearer. the study of the british journal of psychiatry was based on women who had abortions at a london hospital. it is the only study of its kind since the abortion act came into force in 1968. the article was written by a number of doctors. no evidence prior to the study had been published in britain.\n the article claims that the evidence provides documentation to the effect that the abortion act has led to relief from distress not measurable in statistical terms. it is in that spirit that we should decline to set up the committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.41', 565, 'uk.m.22541', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "although i was one of the members who helped to put the 1967 bill on to the statute book by voting for it, i did not take any active part in the proceedings. abortion has never been one of my main interests, although i have taken a keen interest in many aspects of the national health service. therefore, when i was appointed to the select committee i had to study the matter in much greater detail. as a result of that study and of being a member of the select committee—i believe that i have a 100 per cent. attendance record—two matters have become clear to me. the first point is not easy to state without appearing to be a female chauvinist, if there is such a thing, but this is how i feel.\n it is clear from the comments on the bill in committee that it is impossible for many people to understand the totality of involvement in which a woman is caught by an unwanted pregnancy. it is an involvement not only for nine months or for the duration of childhood but for the rest of the woman's life. because nobody but the woman herself can fully appreciate the totality of this involvement, it must be her decision whether she can cope with that total situation, for whatever reason, and that must be the decisive factor in giving an abortion.\n i am not saying that we must not do everything possible, by more effective contraceptive methods and advice, to try to prevent unwanted pregnancies. but if that fails and the woman decides to have an abortion, she should be entitled to have her pregnancy terminated within the law in the safest possible conditions. i stress this factor because there were poignant reminders in written evidence given to the select committee by those who had experienced the horrors of backstreet abortion. relief was expressed by nurses in evidence to the committee that they no longer had to treat the sickening after-effects of such cases. no woman should be driven to such desperation again by putting back the clock with restrictive provisions such as those referred to by the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). if the select committee is re-established with its present membership, however, i believe that that will be the result. there is an imbalance in the committee's membership in favour of those restrictive provisions.\n the select committee clarified for me the basic soundness of the 1967 act. this was made clear by the whole weight of medical evidence and there was a good deal of it ranging from major national bodies, such as the british medical association, to individual testimonies by doctors, many of whom work in socially-deprived areas such as that part of north london in which my constituency is situated.\n it was clear that if the committee proceeded with the main provisions of the bill it would go against the whole of that medical evidence. it was clear from the evidence that many of the abuses stressed by the bill's sponsors either never existed at all or had been cleared up by administrative action. nevertheless, there were positive points on which our deeply-divided committee was able to agree. these were incorporated in the committee's third special report. that report was accepted by the secretary of state, and action is being taken by the department on all its recommendations.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.42', 19, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i see that my hon. friend has the third special report in her hands. will she read paragraph 5?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.43', 13, 'uk.m.22541', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the report which i have in my hands is the fourth special report.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.44', 12, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will not my hon. friend read the third special report, paragraph 5?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.45', 14, 'uk.m.22541', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "perhaps my hon. friend can quote that paragraph if he catches mr. speaker's eye.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.46', 23, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'may i remind my hon. friend that paragraph 5 contained a unanimous recommendation that the committee should be re-established in the next session?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.47', 282, 'uk.m.22541', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am coming to the point my hon. friend is seeking to make, which is also contained in the fourth special report.\n the minister of state in his evidence made clear that, in his view, no further legislation was needed on abortion at present. in those circumstances, i felt that the select committee would serve no further useful purpose. accordingly, i moved an amendment to the fourth special report on 10th november as follows: early in its proceedings it became clear that the committee was deeply and irreconcilably divided on the main clauses (and purpose) of the bill. i stress that matter because it has been said that the bill had defects, but it was the defective purposes of the bill that worried many of us.\n the amendment continued: despite this, and in order to be constructive, it, therefore, decided to concentrate its deliberations on a number of difficulties in the administration of the 1967 act on which the members of the committee could agree, and made recommendations accordingly in its 3rd special report. now that the secretary of state has accepted and acted upon these recommendations, and time is needed for them to become effective, the committee believes it can serve no further useful purpose at this time, and accordingly reports the bill to the house. unfortunately that amendment was not accepted, but it remains my view and i urge the house to reject the motion to set up a select committee again. we need time to see how the department's administrative action works out. furthermore, i believe that this house and the country need a breathing space from the controversy and passions that have been aroused by this unfortunate bill.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.49', 944, 'uk.m.16732', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel), who appeared to rest his case largely on the fact that the terms for re-establishing the select committee as set out on the order paper are not sufficiently wide.\n i cannot recall any time during the select committee meetings when any point or subject matter was ruled out of order by our chairman as being outside the committee\'s terms of reference. we discussed every possible angle, report and statement in relation to the subjects we were able to cover in the committee. one has only to look at the long title of the bill to see how wide it is: to amend the abortion act 1967 and to make further provision with respect to the termination of pregnancy and matters consequential thereto. it would be difficult to envisage terms wider than those.\n i wish to speak for only a few moments, and i shall concentrate on the essential point of why i believe that the committee should be re-established. after the second reading of the abortion (amendment) bill on 7th february 1975, the house agreed without a vote that the bill should be committed to a select committee. the minister of state made clear in that debate that the proposal for a select committee would ensure that future legislation to amend the 1967 act would be soundly based. the select committee has not yet been able to deal with any possible important changes to the 1967 act. indeed, in that debate the minister went much further and said …the government believe that the bill should have the benefit of sustained scrutiny by a select committee."—[official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1796.] the minister is an honourable man and i am sure that when he replies he will admit, openly and frankly, that the select committee has not yet had the opportunity to examine the bill or some of its most important clauses in toto. i am sure he will recommend to the house that we should re-establish the select committee tonight. if he does not do so, he will be going against his own view that the committee should be able to give the bill sustained scrutiny—something we had no time to do in the last parliamentary session. indeed, we were overwhelmed with paper.\n something like 200 major written submissions were sent to the select committee. several thousand letters were sent to the select committee. i doubt whether any single member of the select committee can claim to have read every single letter that was sent or to have read in great detail every one of over 200 written submissions. we have a great deal of work to do if the select committee is re-established.\n i should have thought that there are very few members who have not had a significant amount of correspondence from their constituents on this matter in the last two or three years. whatever view may have been expressed in that correspondence, it clearly shows that many millions of people in this country are concerned about the operation of the abortion act 1967.\n the committee has not discussed the first two clauses in the bill, which are probably the two most important and key clauses. they relate, in effect, to abortion for social convenience and abortion on demand. these have not even been touched by the select committee, because we agreed at the beginning that we would quite openly try to reach agreement in certain areas where there was a possibility of getting a consensus and where there was a possibility of making unanimous recommendations and reports to the house.\n on the advice and under the guidance of our outstanding chairman, we were right, i believe, in doing so and in trying to find the areas on which we could agree, but it is also the duty of this house to re-establish the select committee so that it can discuss and argue the areas in which it is unlikely to reach unanimous agreement.\n there are very many other areas in which consideration is needed. one can argue very strongly that the police find themselves in an impossible position in relation to the working of the 1967 act. it is well known that it is almost impossible to get a conviction for an illegal abortion under the 1967 act in the context of either the national health service or, in particular, the private clinics. yet a prominent gynaecologist has said openly on television, on the radio and in the press that for all practical purposes he flouts the law of the land. he has said that he has carried out and will continue to carry out abortions on demand. how can any hon. member say, in the context of that statement, that there is not a great deal of work to be done by the select committee?\n i beg the house not to be complacent when it reads the latest abortion figures. i am sure that we are all grateful, whatever views we hold, that the number of abortions which took place in 1975 had dropped compared with 1974. but do not let us imagine that it is a substantial drop in the context of women resident in england and wales. it is only a drop of 22½ per cent. on the 1974 figure. there has been a horrifying increase in the number of abortions carried out on girls under 16 years of age. the increase is 9 per cent. in figures, that is an increase from 3,243 to 3,526. there are no grounds for complacency in that area.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.50', 18, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. member saying that he would rather that children under 16 carried their babies to term?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.51', 152, 'uk.m.16732', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what i am saying is that the society in which we live at the moment and the conditions which have been created have led to a situation in which an increasing number of girls under 16 are having abortions. the very fact that this is happening proves to me that something is wrong. i want the select committee to examine this and find out why it is happening and put recommendations to this house.\n there will be grave disappointment, not only in this house but in the country, if the select committee is not re-established. i believe that the house wants the select committee to continue to probe and question and to think about the fundamental issues involved.\n many of the supporters of the 1967 legislation are far from happy with the operation of the act in practice. this house has everything to gain by deciding to re-establish the select committee tonight.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.53', 682, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is a year last friday since the house debated this very contentious measure. during that time, while the select committee has been taking evidence—both oral and written—and drawing up its recommendations, its very existence has taken up a disproportionate amount of the time of the members of the select committee and members of this house—time and energy which, i believe, could usefully have been spent on other subjects. i could quite well have done with the time and thought which i have had to put into this question in dealing with other matters of importance to this house. i regret that my energies have been diverted in that way.\n it has led to a situation almost of confrontation outside this house in terms of the general public. many thousands of women have taken—or have, perhaps, been forced into taking—extreme positions. they have had their time taken up with organising demonstrations, and so on, on one side of the argument or the other. in my view this has been an enormous waste of energy.\n the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) has said that the house should be grateful to my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) for introducing the subject. i am not grateful for having had to waste this last year on it.\n it is ironic, too, that we should have spent so much time in 1975 in considering how to extend the rights of women. we have taken some fairly small steps overall in terms of sex discrimination legislation, and by virtue of some of the provisions of the employment protection act. in this way we have on the one hand been trying to extend women's rights, while, on the other, allowing, by the very existence of this select committee, a consideration of the restriction of women's rights. nevertheless, the select committee was set up, and it called a large number of eminent people and eminent bodies to give written and oral evidence. the select committee made a number of recommendations. these are now familiar to us and, indeed, are being carried out.\n many of them, as i understand the evidence of my hon. friend the minister of state, were already in train before the report was published. that fact should not go unnoticed. indeed, i suggest that the recommendations could very well have come anyway—and probably would have come anyway—from the department of health and social security, even if the select committee had not considered them. nevertheless, the committee has done its job. i hope that will be the end of it, and that the house will vote against the re-establishment of the select committee.\n the supporters of re-establishing the select committee have said that this does not end the story. the hon. member for essex, south-east has told us that the committee must be reappointed in order to complete the work that was entrusted to it in the last session, but neither he nor any other hon. member has yet produced a valid reason why this select committee should be reconstituted. names have been bandied about of people who could be called to give evidence. various arguments have been advanced that the committee needs to consider amending the existing legislation in order to do this and that. i think that all the supporters of the select committee wish to do is to strike at the fundamentals of the act itself.\n what have these people been saying? who would they now call to give fresh evidence to them in the context of what they are now putting before the house? would they call representatives of the british medical association? the bma has given evidence already, as have the royal college of general practitioners, the royal college of psychiatrists, the royal college of pathologists, the association of anaesthetists, the royal college of pediatricians and gynaecologists, the royal college of midwives and the health visitors association. all these bodies have said that the provisions of the amendment bill would strike seriously at the fundamentals of the 1967 act and, as such, should not be tolerated.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.54', 73, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady said that she had not been given one valid reason. let me give her one. i ask her to consider the provision for the 28 weeks to be reduced to 24. that must involve amendment of the law. it is true that the select committee took evidence on this. but witnesses from the department of health and social security told us that they had no view on it at all——\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.55', 4, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' miss richardson indicated dissent. \n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.56', 28, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'they did. it is documented. for that reason, i think that it is necessary for the select committee to reconvene in order to give the government clear argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.57', 42, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for essex, south-east, has brought me to my next point. as i have been saying, all these eminent bodies gave evidence to the effect that they were strenuously opposd to the bill and that they thought that its provisions——\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.58', 3, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'not to this.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.59', 429, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that the hon. gentleman will allow me to make my point. all of them said, for example, that they would have great difficulty in defining the words "grave and serious" and that they were words that could not be defined satisfactorily.\n to answer the hon. member for essex, south-east, the british medical association said that to consider reducing the upper limit of 28 weeks would exclude serious maternal conditions occurring between 20 weeks and 28 weeks. i do not think that the select committee ought to consider a reduction of the period, and i do not consider that a good and valid reason to reconstitute the select committee, if that is what it wants to do.\n much has been said about the nursing profession. the royal college of nursing and the association of nurse administrators themselves have serious doubts about the changes proposed in the bill, that, including the evidence of the home office and of the department of health and social security, the overwhelming weight of opinion offered to the select committee was to leave the act as it now is.\n this proposal might have been tenable if the select committee had been set up to consider the report of the lane committee, although i have never understood how a select committee could be set up to consider the recommendations of another committee—an eminent and distinguished one at that—which took three years to report. simply to implement the recommendations of the lane committee would have been sufficient, but the motion says that the select committee will consider the abortion (amendment) bill. furthermore, the composition of the committee is the same as before, so we must assume that the supporters of the select committee again want to strike at the foundations of the act.\n what we need, not only in this house but outside it, is a period of calm and to take the whole issue out of this situation of continual confrontation between one side of the argument and the other. supporters of the select committee inside the house have been loud in their wish to frustrate abortion on demand and, in some cases, to frustrate abortion altogether. i hope that they noticed a recent editorial in the crucible, the official journal of the church of england board for social responsibility, which took a line in favour of working towards a genuine and responsible response to the considered wishes of the pregnant woman. this is a departure for the board for social responsibility and one which i think hon. members ought to welcome. i applaud it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.60', 45, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady said that it was a departure. however, when it was reviewed in the times, the reviewer said that it flatly contradicted the board's own policy and the policy adopted last summer by the general synod. the editor was speaking only for himself.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.61', 140, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'nevertheless, he was writing in a highly respected journal, and i believe that people who write in journals do so to influence the opinions of those who read it.\n to get back to my point about abortion on demand, it was always available before the 1967 act to women with sufficient funds. the 1967 act, for which many thousands of women are grateful, has brought within the means of thousands more women the possibility of having safe and proper abortions and has taken them away from the back-street abortions that they had before.\n i should be deeply sorry to think that further restrictions, brought about by the setting up again of this select committee, would result in a return to that situation. i appeal to the house to give all women the facilities that are required in the present era.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.63', 316, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is one very good and important reason why the select committee should be reconstituted. it is simply that it has not finished its work. my information is that fewer than 10 per cent. of the submissions have so far been heard by the committee. if any other committee of this house was set up to examine a question and said that it had finished its work after only 10 per cent. of the submissions to it had been examined, this house would laugh it out of court and certainly not permit it to do so.\n this is an issue which cuts right across party lines. certainly it is one of the most important and basic issues that we face. i am sorry that the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) regrets the time and energy spent on a matter of this kind, but i must tell her that there is a widespread interest in it among millions of people outside this house and that they look to us to bring some modicum of reason, sense, law and fairness into the situation.\n there are several points which the select committee must examine more carefully. my information is that it has not yet examined them properly. the first is the new "quickie" lunch-time abortion. how can it possibly be said that this type of abortion falls in with parliament\'s will? despite what the hon. member for barking said, parliament made it clear, as did the sponsor of the original bill throughout the committee proceedings, that it was not intended to sanction abortion on demand. that was quite clear. the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) said this in letters to churchmen, he said it frequently in committee, and many hon. members voted for his bill because of his assurance that it was no part of his intention that parliament should permit abortion on demand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.64', 42, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what has abortion on demand got to do with the new facility which has been introduced for day cate patients? there is no suggestion that the standard of judgment involved as to whether an abortion should be carried out is any different.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.65', 932, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the whole point. how can a doctor go into the question of an abortion for a woman in the necessary depth and with the required care if she slips in at lunch-time and has an abortion in such a short space of time? the committee should examine whether parliament\'s will not to implement abortion on demand is being frustrated by the working of the act.\n then there is the most important question of the position of doctors and nurses who are jeopardising their careers because they will not carry out abortions. i find it extraordinary that members of this house are not prepared to give thought and sympathy to doctors who wish to practice their profession in accordance with their conscience. not for one moment would anyone suggest that people should go to war and fight if they conscientiously objected to it. why does the house insist that it is perfectly proper for men to be hounded out of their jobs unless they agree to carry out operations which they loathe?\n what about the legal protection of the unborn? this house spent some time last friday debating a bill brought forward by the hon. member for birmingham, northfield (mr. carter). i notice that the times had a headline "rights for some unborn". i should think it is "some unborn". it seems that the decision as to whether an unborn child shall have rights will rest solely on whether it is a wanted child. how can this house agree that only a wanted person has any rights? it is a total denial of all the things we are here to protect.\n there is the question of collusion by racketeering doctors which the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) dealt with in his bill. the committee has not touched on this question, which is of importance.\n most important of all, perhaps—and it has not yet been raised—is the question of the care of women and the need for warnings to be given to them about the nature of the operation. i have here a report from russia. it is interesting to note that many who support abortion are vociferous in their support for the soviet union. dr. polchanova of the central scientific research institute for health education of the ussr ministry of health has written about this. i remind the house that the ussr was the first country to have abortion as a legal operation.\n the doctor said: it is one of the most important problems confronting women\'s clinics to reduce the number of induced abortions and by so doing to reduce gynaecological morbidity and disorders of the reproductive system. the prevention of abortions is an important purpose of health education… the very frequent development of psycho-nervous reactions following an artificial termination, and the extraordinary tenacity and punctillious observance of instructions by women undergoing treatment for sterility, are a convincing indication how necessary it is for a pregnant woman to have a personal interview with a sympathetic doctor who can prevent her making a rash decision.… according to our findings many women assume that provided an abortion is carried out at a hospital all possibility of complications is thereby eliminated. this misconception is due to the comparatively simple way women are admitted to gynaecological wards and their short stay there. we have ascertained that the majority of women are well acquainted only with the comparatively rare complications of an operation for the termination of pregnancy, i.e. perforation and haemorrhage; they are quite inadequately informed about the most prevalent consequences, i.e. gynaecological inflammatory diseases, frequent complications during subsequent pregnancies and confinement, disordered function of the ovaries and so forth. therefore it is necessary to take more active measures based on up-to-date scientific data to combat the idea so firmly held by the public that an abortion performed in hospital conditions is a perfectly safe and harmless operation. the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles mentioned a survey which had been carried out involving women who had had an abortion. the difficulty about putting any credence upon the findings of that survey lies in the fact that only 60 patients out of the 360 were followed up at all. when i inquired from those who were informed about this scientific area whether this would be a reasonable sample to work on, i was told that it was not a reasonable sample. i am concerned about the women. as i understand it, before any other voluntary operation a woman or man is warned of the dangers if there are dangers connected with that operation. so far as i am aware, abortion is the only voluntary operation for which there is no legal commitment to warn the person that dangers exist and may well follow the operation.\n what are the people who oppose the setting up of the committee once more so frightened about? the act is on the statute book. women are having abortions every day under it. the committee seeks merely to go further into these important matters. it would be a sad day if this house said that it no longer had the time or energy to debate whether parliament\'s will was being carried out, or to talk about men and women who are being prevented from working in their chosen professions, legal protection for the weak and helpless or medical care for women. there is no reason why those who oppose the setting up of the committee should be so flighty in their opposition. we ask merely that this vital question be examined properly. so far it has not been.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.67', 807, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wish to refer to the speech of my hon. friend the member for barking (miss richardson). she spoke or abortion on demand being available, in the past, to those who could afford it. that is a point i accept, as i am sure most hon. members do. in itself that does not justify abortion on demand. those of us who are opposed to abortion, or opposed to abortion on demand, would condemn that fact just as much as my hon. friend does. my hon. friend referred to a period of calm. if we analyse that, what it really means is a period of standstill, when we do nothing. it also means adopting an ostrich-like attitude when we bury our heads in the sand and hope that the problem will go away. it will not.\n my hon. friend the member for wood green (mrs. butler) said that abortion was not her main interest. as a father of four i, too, can claim that abortion is not my main interest. nevertheless, i am concerned about the moral, religious and humanitarian issues involved. whether we are for or against abortion, i hope that all of us will credit people who take a different view with being sincere in that view. this is an emotive issue, and i hope that we shall discuss it without bitterness or rancour.\n the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) has done himself less than a service. he implied that the select committee was a waste of time, and could achieve no purpose. [ interruption. ] that was the impression i obtained from what he said. if i am wrong, i apologise. i refer the hon gentleman to the speech of my hon. friend the minister of state on 7th february 1975, when we were discussing the bill. my hon. friend said: this proposal for a select committee offers a way of ensuring that any future legislation to amend the 1967 act will be soundly based. therefore, the outcome of the deliberations of the select committee will be of vital importance in any future legislation on abortion. my hon. friend also said: i have not, i fear, dealt with all the issues but i hope i have said enough to indicate that a select committee on this bill has a major task ahead of it."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, cc. 1797–1806.] that was the view of those of us who were concerned about the re-establishment of the select committee.\n i wish to make my attitude perfectly clear. in spite of my jewish name, i am a roman catholic and i have very strong views on abortion. i recognise the sincerity of those who disagree with me, and i hope that in this and subsequent debates they will recognise my sincerity.\n this subject is of vital importance to all sections of the community, whatever their views may be. we have seen in the public gallery tonight the extent to which some people are prepared to go to influence the house. i do not say that in a critical sense. we have all received correspondence from our constituents expressing views for or against abortion. i hope that hon. members have done the same as i have done and have written to their constituents saying, "even though we disagree with you, we appreciate your having brought your point of view to our attention."\n we must not only consider this question very seriously; it must be seen by the public that we have done so. that is why it is vitally important that the select committee should have a full opportunity to consider the mandate placed before it. my hon. friends have referred to groups and individuals who have been interviewed by a select committee. there may be many more who wish to be interviewed and to put their point of view. we should reappoint the same select committee, otherwise we shall have to go through the whole business again, and that would not do justice to the decision of the house or to the people who elected us.\n the select committee has yet not been in existence for a year. the deliberations of the select committee on race relations, quite rightly, took a long time. abortion is an equally important issue. on 7th february 1975 my hon. friend the minister of state said: should the eventuality arise that the house goes into a different session before the bill is considered, the government give the commitment to the sponsors of the bill that they will re-establish"— i emphasise "re-establish"— the select committee. it will ill behove the government or the house to go back on such a definite commitment. if we do so, in the eyes of the public it will be a reflection not only on the government but on parliament itself.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.68', 70, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend not accept that what the minister gave was not a commitment that the committee would be re-established, because the government could not give that commitment? what the government could do was give a commitment that they would table a motion such as this for the house to decide. therefore, does my hon. friend not agree that the government are honouring that commitment by doing that tonight?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.69', 25, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not agree. my hon. friend is trying now to put words into the government\'s mouth—[hon. members: "rubbish."] you obviously have not been listening.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.70', 8, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. gentleman must address the chair.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.71', 104, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg your pardon, sir.\n the minister said: .…the government give the commitment to the sponsors of the bill that they will reestablish the select committee. that is a clear commitment. the government did not give the commitment to the house particularly but to the sponsors of the bill and the house accepted that. he went on: …and the government believe that the bill should have the benefit of a sustained scrutiny by a select committee. to spend less than 12 months on such a vital issue does not amount to a sustained scrutiny. so there is every case for the house to continue——\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.72', 96, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on the issue of the commitment, is it not a fact that what the minister specifically said, in another context from the one quoted by my hon. friend, is: should the eventuality arise that the house goes into a different session before the bill is considered"— as it has— the government give the commitment to the sponsors of the bill that they will re-establish the select committee."—[ official report, 7th february 1975; vol. 885, c. 1794–86.] that is a commitment which was given. is it not more casuistry to suggest that it can now be avoided?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.73', 75, 'uk.m.22164', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes. that is what i said, actually.\n the house has provided the opportunity for some sustained consideration and scrutiny by a select committee. i hope that we shall justify the decision and the commitment that we gave the people of this country by giving the select committee the opportunity to continue its scrutiny and consideration so that, at the end of the day, we shall be able to consider its recommendations and make our decision.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.75', 2032, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is one of those rare occasions when the house is obviously deeply divided on an issue which cuts right across the party lines. as such, it is an occasion when each of us individually has to make up his own mind as to how he votes. therefore, although i am speaking from this box, my voice, such as it is—i apologise for it—represents no party line, no party or manifesto commitment. i speak only for myself, but i hope that my views may commend themselves to some hon. members in all parts of the house.\n since i have not spoken in any abortion debate since the report stage of the bill of the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) in 1967, perhaps i might start by making it clear where i stand on the main issue. that might help the house to weigh the advice that i may be giving on the point before us.\n i supported the original bill on second reading and on third reading, although on third reading with some misgivings. as the record shows, on report i spoke to amendments which the sponsor felt unable to accept. but i supported the bill in the end because i thought that there was a great need to define the circumstances in which it was right for a pregnancy to be terminated, that there was a need to take powers to deal with private establishments where the abortions were done and that it was necessary to provide protection to doctors and nurses with conscientious objections. the bill did all those things and i voted for it.\n i have never supported either of the extreme views—on the one hand the view that there could be no abortion or an abortion only if a woman\'s life was at stake, or on the other hand the view that abortion should be available on request unless there were clear medical contra-indications. i imagine that that view is held by a great many hon. members. i do not believe that abortion should be confined strictly to medical reasons. the struggling, inadequate mother of six who finds herself pregnant yet again with an unwanted pregnancy seems to present a case where social reasons may well justify terminating the pregnancy.\n however, i also believe that the unborn child has a right to life. that is a view which must be given full weight. i cannot accept the doctrine that abortion is a woman\'s right to choose. any human life—anyone\'s life—even life in embryo, is not at anyone\'s unfettered disposal, not even the mother\'s.\n therefore, for me this has always been a question of striking a balance. it has been a difficult question and it is one to which the house on this second time has yet to address itself. i hope that the house will forgive that brief personal testament, but it may be helpful and was a way of putting my own credentials before the house.\n within a few months of the 1967 act becoming law there was growing public concern at the way it operated in practice. it is right to put on record, because it is often forgotten, that my right hon. friend the member for leeds, north-east (sir k. joseph) took a great deal of action to tackle the worst of the abuses as they became apparent. he set up a special investigation branch within his department. he exercised a rigorous scrutiny, so far as resources allowed, over abortion clinics. many licences were withdrawn or suspended and steps were taken to deal with the dreadful business of touting at airports and stations.\n my right hon. friend also set up the lane committee in february 1971 which was to look more closely at the operation of the act although it had restricted terms of reference. that committee reported in april 1974. it provided a mass of information and made a number of useful recommendations. however, the report was not debated until the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) presented his bill last year.\n however, that did not still public anxieties. when the hon. member for pollok presented his bill many right hon. and hon. members recognised that the supporters of the original act had a not insubstantial case to answer. the hon. gentleman\'s bill may not have been the right way to frame that case. indeed, i am pretty clear that his bill was not the most appropriate vehicle for reform. there was no doubt about the deep anxiety, which was felt in all parts of the house, about the way in which the original act was operating. therefore, there was widespread support—which i shared—that the bill should go to a select committee.\n presumably the assumption which the house made, when it accepted the motion of my right hon. friend the member for crosby (mr. page) that the bill should be committed to a select committee, was that that select committee would examine and report on all the matters that were put in issue by the bill. it was recognised during the debate that that might well take longer than the last session. the words of the minister of state, as reported in hansard on 7th february 1975 at column 1794, have been quoted many times this evening and i shall not weary the house with them again. however, at that stage the government were committed to re-establishing the committee. that meant that they were committed to putting a motion before the house and presumably to supporting it.\n therefore, the question is: has the committee examined and reported to the house on all the issues raised in the bill presented by the hon. member for pollok? the only possible answer must be "no, it has not". the committee has heard a great deal of evidence and has reported on some of the issues, but it has not reported on all the issues.\n the committee made nine valuable recommendations, all of which were accepted in principle by the right hon. lady the secretary of state. when reporting to the house in its third special report, the committee had this to say: in their second special report your committee undertook to make an interim report. in so doing they deal only with some matters on which they believe they have received sufficient evidence to make recommendations upon which the government ought to take action now without awaiting any further report. paragraph 5 of the report says, your committee emphasise that their recommendations are not exhaustive and are made without prejudice to any report which the re-established committee may make on the bill. indeed it is for this reason that your committee in their present report have not referred to the provisions of the bill. it is their belief that the re-established committee should be able to report without delay in the next session. if one examines the minutes of the committee, one finds that there was no dissentient voice to either of those paragraphs. that was in july. since then the committee has seen many organisations: the british pregnancy advisory service, the brook advisory centre, the royal college of nursing, the association of nurse administrators and the health visitors association, and it has seen the minister of state. yet when we came to november, at the final meeting, as the hon. member for wood green (mrs. butler) has told us, there were some members of that committee who by then had decided that there was nothing further for them to do.\n what has happened? we have some clues now from the speeches in this debate and from the circular sent around by a number of members of the committee to all hon. members, i imagine, at the end of last month. the message of the circular was "because we are unlikely to be able to reach a consensus, therefore no further useful purpose would be served by reconstituting the committee."\n i do not share that view and i do not think that the house as a whole ought to share that view. i have just spent most of the weekend in bed—with a heavy cold—reading a great deal of the evidence tendered to the committee. it is obvious that much—indeed, most—of the evidence was opposed to the particular provisions of the bill of the hon. member for pollok. however, i think that only a very deeply prejudiced supporter of the original act of the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles could fail to recognise the genuine voices of concern that all was not well with the operation of that act.\n nor is it true that the nine measures which the interim report put to the house represent the full extent of the legitimate areas of concern. there is a whole raft of matters, matters on the day-to-day application of the provisions of the bill to situations that actually happen in real life and on which a great deal of evidence was heard, on which we till have to have a report from the select committee. my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) mentioned a number of them, and no doubt other hon. members will be able to mention others.\n for me, there are three matters which seem to be of critical importance in deciding whether the 1967 act requires to be amended, all of them matters on which evidence was given to the select committee and all of them, i suspect, matters on which it ought not to be difficult for the select committee, if it is prepared to try to be objective and to exercise some good will and harmony where that can be done—as it has in the past—to be able to reach agreement.\n the first matter is the operation of the conscience clause. freedom of conscience is the very stuff of liberty. even when we were faced with the full terror of hitler\'s tanks and bombers, we recognised the freedom of conscience of individual men and women who were pacifists. freedom of conscience was written into the 1967 act, but who can read the evidence tendered by the royal college of nursing, or even the evidence tendered on the last day of evidence by the minister of state, without recognising that not all the intentions of parliament in 1967 are being met?\n can anyone who reads the minister of state\'s long answer to question no. 1995 on page 374 of the report—i have no intention of reading it to the house tonight—be in any doubt that willingness to perform abortions is a term of some appointments under the national health service? i would find it helpful to have the committee\'s view on that, perhaps if necessary even its divided views. the committee has heard a lot of evidence, but most hon. members do not have time to real all the evidence. that is what we appoint select committees for. this is a matter of great importance.\n the second point which is important is a corrollary of the first. it was the intention in the original act that it should be possible to have therapeutic abortions on the national health service, though it was always recognised that there would be a substantial private sector. the evidence both to the lane committee and to the select committee has shown that there is a huge variation in availability of therapeutic abortions under the national health service facilities between different parts of the country.\n again, this is a matter of some importance to the house and to the country. if a patient\'s condition indicates the desirability of an abortion, if the law does not prevent it and if, as was the intention, termination should be available under the national health service but it is not, surely we need to know the select committee\'s view on that and what measures might be necessary to remedy what is a defect.\n i am not suggesting that it is remotely possible in the foreseeable future—in the next few years—that the national health service could or should become the sole source of therapeutic abortions. my point is that there are enormous variations in the availability of abortions between different parts of the country.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.76', 122, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what the right hon. gentleman says is true, but he has put to the house two irreconcilable points. he says on the one hand that he objects to the attempt by the national health service to ensure that in every part of the country there are doctors and nurses willing to perform abortions. he says that he objects to that because it interferes with the career prospects of some doctors. he says on the other hand that he wants the full availability provided for women in all parts of the country. it seems that he is asking not for a select committee, but for a committee with the judgment of solomon, or perhaps for the magic circle, to reconcile these two irreconcilables.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.77', 529, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not share the hon. lady\'s pessimism. nevertheless, both those matters are problems and they both fall within the terms of the bill and within the terms of reference of the select committee. they are problems upon which the select committee has heard a great deal of evidence. my point is that, faced with this, at least the house might have the benefit of the select committee\'s views on these two problems.\n the third problem, which i believe is perhaps the key question of all and, perhaps, the question that lies behind the circular and some of the very bitter opposition to the re-appointment of the select committee is: does or does not the act in practice allow abortions on request to take place?\n i accept, as perhaps the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) did not, that it was not the intention of the sponsors of the original act that it should allow that. the hon. member for rox-burgh, selkirk and peebles said this: we want to stamp out the back-street abortions, but it is not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request."—[ official report, 22nd july 1976; vol. 732, c. 1075.] indeed, if that were not so, why did we spend so many hours, days—and, indeed, nights—and weeks arguing about it all?\n yet it is possible to state that it is on request. dr. coplans, the anaesthetist representative on the cchms, said this to the select committee on 23rd january in answer to question no. 1006: i believe that some people interpret the present act as something which allows them to move very far to \'on request\' and others do not. one reason—this has been exhaustively examined by the committee—is the statistical argument. the argument is that if one takes a pregnancy before the twelfth week there is greater risk by letting it run to full term than there is by procuring a termination, and therefore, some people say—on the argument of balance of risk—the right thing would always be termination without any examination of the patient, without taking account of her health or circumstances. that argument has been used not perhaps in the public sector but certainly in the private sector.\n professor sir stanley clayton, president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, was perhaps one of the committee\'s most important and distinguished witnesses, and his evidence is frequently read as showing that the royal college was not upset at all by the existing act and, by a vote of 28 to two was in favour of preserving it. yet on the question of misuse—the misuse of the intention of parliament on the balance of risk argument, the so-called statistical argument—sir stanley was clear. the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) put to him—this is question no. 1216 in the evidence— …there should be a proviso there which would not make it possible for people to use the general statistical argument? and sir stanley replied: yes, i would accept that. i have mentioned only three matters, but there are many others on which the select committee has still to report to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.78', 4, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'read the next sentence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.79', 75, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall. it was. i do not seem to meet this argument in practice very often. of course he does not, because he is a practitioner of the highest and utmost respectability. but, as the hon. member for pontypool said, we are dealing here with some of the fringe operators, and it is to those that we are directing the question whether they are misusing the statistical argument in a way which parliament never intended.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.80', 46, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'could the right hon. gentleman indicate the number of occasions, when this very argument was brought up, when the medical profession clearly indicated to us that to substitute the words "grave and serious" would have the most devastating effect on the fundamental principle of the act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.81', 292, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i accept that.\n i do not want to go too deeply into the details of the hon. member for pollok's bill. i have already said that i do not like the bill, and i am satisfied that that is not the right way to deal with the matter. but what the hon. member for pontypool was suggesting was some additional words to indicate the original intention of parliament, so that the statistical argument could not be used in the way i have described.\n the hon. member's bill has fallen, but it is always open to him or to some other hon. member to reintroduce it. i believe that that would be a pity, because i am certain that the bill would create more difficulties than it would solve. i am also satisfied that there is a great weight of medical opinion opposed to it. but, like many hon. members and a great many of our constituents, i am not yet satisfied that now, with nine years' experience of the 1967 act behind us, we have got it right. there are grave areas of public concern which go beyond the administrative changes recommended by the committee and accepted by the government.\n if that were all, there might be something to be said for the right hon. lady's view that we should wait and see how they work. but it is not all. the committee heard much evidence directed to other issues of wide concern on which it has not yet reported. i believe that our constituents would think it very strange—even a dereliction of duty—if we did not reflect their concern by asking the committee to complete the task for which it was set up. i shall vote in favour of the motion.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.83', 1330, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "in intervening in this debate, i do not give a government view on the question we are debating. the government have no collective view. this is a moral issue which concerns matters of individual conscience and, as is traditional, voting tonight on the motion will take place on the basis of a free vote in which members of the government will be voting in different lobbies. it might, however, be helpful to the house if, as minister with day-to-day responsibility for the workings of the abortion act, i were to bring the house up to date on the present situation.\n the house will recall that on second reading of the abortion (amendment) bill i suggested, on the basis that the sponsors had agreed to withdraw the bill, that a select committee should be set up to examine the proposals contained in the bill. at that time it was widely recognised in the house that there were some aspects of the workings of the abortion act, particularly the extent of abuse in the private sector, which were causing grave concern to many members, and i have never hidden from the house my personal concern about these abuses. this concern was unrelated to the views that many hon. members might have had on the question whether they supported or rejected the abortion act itself.\n it was felt, i think, by many members that a dispassionate yet detailed examination by a select committee on some of these matters to reinforce those already identified by the lane committee in its report of the working of the abortion act would help the secretary of state and the government, who had already embarked on a scrutiny of the working of the act. at the end of the debate the house decided against establishing a special select committee as had been suggested. it decided to commit the bill itself rather than the proposals to a select committee. as a direct result of this decision, under the rules of procedure, the bill and the select committee lapsed at the end of the last session.\n some people have criticised or attacked the decision by the government to put down this motion, arguing that we were not committed to give the house an opportunity to re-establish the select committee. i believe that to have refused to put down this motion would have been to shield behind a technicality that would not have been in keeping with the spirit of the previous debate or what i said during that debate, or in keeping with the wishes of the house. whatever our views—and there are strong views in this house and outside—i think it was the government's duty to give the house the opportunity of deciding whether or not to re-establish the select committee.\n i am grateful to the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) for recognising so fairly in his speech that the government have honoured the commitment that i gave. that point was reiterated by the hon. member for rox-burgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel).\n i see my task now as trying as objectively as i can to indicate, first, what the select committee has already achieved and what are the issues involved if the house decides to re-establish the select committee.\n during its sittings last session, the select committee received a formidable amount of written and oral evidence from government departments, professional bodies and individuals, including myself. the select committee produced several reports, and in its third special report it unanimously presented to the house a list of nine recommendations clearly designed to reduce the potential for abuse and exploitation of patients and to improve the workings of the abortion act. the secretary of state, in her statement to the house on 21st october 1975, accepted in principle all of the recommendations. i think it will help the house if i summarise the action that has been or will now be taken.\n new regulations have been made and laid before the house to implement the recommendations on disclosure of information contained in the abortion notifications to the president of the general medical council where serious professional misconduct is suspected, and on the examination of patients prior to certification of abortion. it is proposed that the new abortion regulations will come into effect on 1st march, when new forms for the certification and notification of abortions, including these new provisions, will be available for use.\n my department has also undertaken a study on certification and notification procedures and its findings in draft form are now being considered with other government departments.\n in the private sector, the secretary of state now controls the total cost charged to patients at all nursing homes that concentrate on abortion. nursing homes must inform her before they increase charges above the level approved, and they are required to inform patients of the total costs of their treatment before it is carried out. these measures should contribute to preventing the financial exploitation of women who find themselves in this vulnerable, situation. nursing homes must be able to show my department's investigators that their financial arrangements with doctors and referral agencies are satisfactory.\n my department is in the process of drawing up a list of approved pregnancy advisory bureaux, in addition to the black list which already exists. thirty-five bureaux have already applied for approval and their applications are being investigated and their premises and facilities inspected. my department's special investigators will continue to make unannounced visits to nursing homes and pregnancy advisory bureaux to ensure that they are adhering to these and the other assurances required of them.\n terminations after the twentieth week are now restricted to those nursing homes which have available adequate equipment, including resuscitation equipment. currently, seven out of the total of 57 homes approved under the act have been authorised to carry out late terminations. as to the national health service, regional medical officers will ensure that all nhs hospitals where terminations after the twentieth week are carried out are equipped with appropriate facilities.\n a draft paper on the counselling of patients seeking abortion has been circulated, for consultation, to statutory bodies and organisations. we have also sent it to various voluntary bodies and those known to support and those known to oppose the act. a revised version of the paper will be prepared in the light of comments that we receive, and the final version will subsequently be issued.\n in june 1975, my department issued a circular reminding health authorities of the peel committee's recommendations on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research, and where the peel code of practice was not already in use they were called on to adopt it. in addition to fulfilling this condition, private sector nursing homes are required by my department to give an assurance that appropriate arrangements are made for the disposal of abortion foetuses as a condition of approval to carry out terminations.\n my department is currently undertaking an inquiry into the facilities provided by nursing homes which treat foreign patients with a view to ensuring that the reception, counselling and after care of foreign patients meet the high standards expected, and to prevent the exploitation of those foreign women who are most vulnerable because of their language difficulties. i am also obtaining, as a routine feature, quarterly figures of the number of foreign patients treated at all nursing homes.\n as i have said, some of these steps were being planned by the secretary of state or had already been identified in the lane committee report on the working of the abortion act. nevertheless, the select committee's report gave them an additional impetus and enabled them to be treated collectively as a comprehensive package. i am grateful to my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), my right hon. friend the member for sunderland, north (mr. willey), and all the other members of the select committee for the work they carried out in producing these useful reports.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.84', 41, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend now satisfied that the reports as they stand leave nothing further of use for the nation to be carried out? is he satisfied that the select committee has reached a logical and just end to its deliberations?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.85', 1023, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i shall give my personal views later, but there is no secret about them. i gave evidence to the select committee as the minister with day-to-day responsibility for the act.\n there is one important matter concerned with the working of the act on which there is general agreement, which will require government action and which is touched on by the select committee in its recommendations on abortion after 20 weeks. this concerns an upper time limit for abortion. various proposals have been made as to what an upper time limit should be. at present, the infant life (preservation) act 1929 contains a statutory presumption of viability at 28 weeks' gestation, and this, in practice, has provided an effective upper time limit.\n the lane committee recommended that there should be a lower limit of 24 weeks, without exception, and this has been generally supported by those consulted on the lane report. i told the select committee in november that we broadly approved this recommendation, which would require principal legislation.\n the government have tabled this motion to enable the house now to consider, in the light of progress to date, whether it wishes the select committee to be re-established to examine more fundamental aspects of this controversial issue. members of the select committee were themselves divided on the question whether the select committee should be re-established, voting 5 to 4 in favour, and i think this vote reflects the problems which would confront a reconvened select committee in reaching a substantial measure of agreement.\n the figures for resident women receiving therapeutic abortion has remained relatively stable for the last three years. the 1975 figures which have just been published show a 3 per cent. fall compared with the previous year. at the same time, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of foreign women being treated in this country in the last 12 months. there has been an overall decrease of 37 per cent.—nearly 20,000 patients—compared with last year.\n the fall in the number of foreign women is directly attributable to the new abortion law that has been introduced in france and the changed attitude being taken in some neighbouring countries. i am sure that hon. members, irrespective of the view they take on legal abortion, will welcome this fall in the number of women seeking treatment.\n as for resident women, i am hopeful that the long-overdue free comprehensive family planning arrangements that we have introduced, which became fully operative on 1st july last year, will give all women the opportunity of planning when they wish to become pregnant. i am sure that whatever our attitude on this subject we would all accept that treatment for termination of pregnancy should be a last resort and should be kept to the minimum.\n a number of issues relating to abortion have been raised in this debate. the right hon. member for wanstead and woodford (mr. jenkin), who spoke with much understanding of the problem, raised two important issues—the question of freedom of conscience and the variations in practice in the national health service. i think that my hon. friend the member for coventry, south-west (mrs. wise) was right in her intervention when she raised the question of possible conflict between these two beliefs. evidence was taken on this matter by the select committee, and i was questioned. i think that the hon. member for brighton, kemptown (mr. bowden) was right when he said that the principal matter on which no action had been taken in my hon. friend's abortion (amendment) bill was the proposal to change, and, by the words in the bill, restrict the grounds on which doctors decide whether women may receive treatment under the act.\n on this issue, as has been testified by many hon. members who have spoken in the debate and who are members of the select committee, there is unlikely to be unanimity in the select committee—and there are many differing views outside. the british medical association voted 360 to 4 against any change in the grounds for abortion, and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists similarly voted, by 28 votes to 2, in favour of retaining the existing provisions. their president told the select committee that he thought they would gain little by altering the act. a central unanimous conclusion of the lane committee, after studying the working of the act for two and a half years, was that the grounds set out in the act should not be amended in a restrictive way. this select committee has unanimously produced an important set of recommendations, which should generally improve the working of the act.\n it is not for me to make recommendations to hon. members as to how they should vote, but as my hon. friends have asked me directly, and in order that hon. members may discount any bias that i may have put into my speech—and as the right hon. member for wanstead felt that he should tell the house—speaking personally, i believe that what is now needed is not further examination of the provisions of the act by the select committee, which is itself clearly divided, but a period of time to see exactly how its unanimous recommendations, which the government are implementing, will work out in practice.\n there is no secret about my views. hon. members can read them in the select committee's report. i told the select committee that this was my view when i gave evidence to it on 3rd november 1975. i shall therefore, personally vote against the motion.\n in putting down this motion and making time available for debate, the government are fulfilling the pledge which i gave to the house last february and which was reiterated by my right hon. friend in her statement to the house on 21st october, giving the house, in the light of the committee's reports already published, and of this debate, the opportunity to decide whether the select committee should be re-established. we are enabling every member of the house, on a free vote—as is traditional in these matters—to exercise his or her individual judgment. that is, i think, what the house expects.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.87', 758, 'uk.m.21824', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad to be called to speak following the contribution of the minister of state, who is responsible for the day-to-day working of the abortion legislation.\n one feature that should be laid to the credit of the select committee is that it spurred the department into action. i personally believe, as did the committee, that the department should have taken earlier action to deal with two factors—first the question of public anxiety, and secondly the report of the lane committee. if that had happened earlier, i believe that there would have been no need to set up a select committee to examine the situation.\n i accept the minister\'s personal view that we should now have a period of calm. the 1967 act brought great benefits to women in this country, and indeed to women in other countries whose legislators have followed the example of our legislation. our legislation has been a great refuge for women in times of great trouble for themselves and their families. i believe that women have been under-represented in this house; they have been especially in the consideration of this legislation which mainly affects women.\n it was by women that i was asked to help to sponsor the original bill that led to the 1967 act. that act ran for three and a half years before the lane committee was set up. it looked at the operation of that act and made far-reaching recommendations in a report published in 1974. on those recommendations there should have been more action.\n the lane committee had recommended, among other things, that there should be no change in the grounds of abortion. four years later the select committee took evidence from the medical profession and was given the same story: "whatever you do, do not interfere with the grounds of abortion or restrict them." in plain language, some of them said "stop mucking about with this law because we have had to adjust to it. we believe that, for the time being, it is the right measure. if you try to restrict it now, it will put doctors in a quandary and will drive people back to the back-street abortionists."\n that is one of the things we wish to avoid. that is why i wish to see a period of calm reflection and an opportunity for the minister to heed the "kick in the pants" by the select committee and get on with the job of curbing abuses.\n on 3rd november in the select committee i asked the minister whether he now thought that he had all the powers required to deal with any abuses current or foreseen. his answer was: yes. we believe that we would, by accepting your own report and by the action we have taken, have got a comprehensive package to stop as far as is possible abuse in the private sector over abortion. that was the sector with which we were most concerned. i have disagreed with the minister over many things, but on this matter i find myself in complete agreement with him.\n there has been a welcome decline in the number of back-street abortions. it was these that worried people so much that they consented to the passage of the abortion bill in 1967. there was evidence from leading medical authorities that the emergency units set up in many of the main hospitals throughout the country had been stood down because the need for them to deal with the results of back-street abortion had lapsed and that, fortunately, they were able to deploy the staff for more useful purposes.\n the view of the medical profession has quite clearly been that it does not want a change in the grounds of abortion.\n i believe that many people who wish to see the select committee reestablished, with the widest possible terms—unconstrained, by the long title, from discussing any item at all in the whole area of abortion, as the hon. member put it—should face the fact that its reestablishment will go on putting the public in doubt and keep the medical profession in doubt.\n i do not believe that we should any longer give people the worry that the government or this house will interfere or restrict the carefully devised grounds for abortion which are enshrined in the 1967 act, recommended by the lane committee and endorsed by all the medical opinion that came before the select committee.\n for that reason, i shall be among the many people in the house who will vote tonight against a reconstitution of the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.88', 29, 'uk.m.17903', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "perhaps before i call the next speaker, i should point out that there are eight hon. members who would like to address the house before ten o'clock. mr. abse.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.90', 1408, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there are two questions before the house. the first is whether there are still areas which require the adjudication or consideration of a select committee, or some other body. secondly, if it is not to be a select committee, can we leave it to the minister? are there areas which genuinely need to be examined? if there are, should it be left to the house, through a select committee, or should it be left to the department, at the elephant and castle?\n the right hon. member for wanstead and woodford (mr. jenkin) has mentioned three matters which particularly concern him, which have not been fully discussed by the select committee or are matters on which the select committee has not so far made adequate recommendations.\n the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) has categorised five issues. i shall run through them, and also some others that i think are quite clearly the types of matters that have to be dealt with, and upon which decisions have to be made.\n first, there is the need, which was repeatedly stressed by the department, to give statutory powers directly to license and control pregnancy advice bureaux, rather than—as we tried to do in our recommendations—give indirect powers, which really amount only to a holding measure.\n all along, the ministry has maintained that it requires statutory measures. that is why it supported a previous private member\'s bill. i ask why it now believes—if it does—that the tentative, negative measures that we have suggested as a holding operation should be regarded as satisfactory. are they satisfactory?\n secondly, there is a most important matter that has not been dealt with except very elliptically by the minister—namely, the discrimination against doctors with conscientious objections to abortions. it is a weighty and serious matter. i suspect that it is a matter that can be adequately dealt with and weighed only by a select committee.\n thirdly, there is the practice of some doctors to grant abortions virtually on request under the terms of section 1( a ) of the original act. home office witnesses suggested to the committee that even a requirement to examine each patient individually and to consider each case individually would not necessarily eliminate the practice. it is a question of examination by committee or by an individual to ascertain how we can remedy the problem.\n the suggestion was made by the president of the royal college in oral evidence, that the risk necessary to justify a legal abortion may not have been within the terms of the bill of my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white). we shall have to consider whether the matter can be confined so as to overcome the statistical problem mentioned by the right hon. member for wanstead and woodford.\n there is the possibility of collusion by doctors in approving abortions outside the spirit of the law through a mutual financial interest in the decision to terminate. that was attempted to be dealt with within the bill of my hon. friend. it has not been dealt with so far. it has not been touched upon in any of our recommendations, yet who can doubt that it is a matter upon which some judgment and guidance should be available to the public and the house?\n there is the desirability or otherwise of statutory restrictions on the qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners undertaking or approving abortion operations. should they have been in practice for a number of years? that is a matter upon which the bma and the other medical organisations hold varying opinions. no decision has yet been taken, and judgment has not been weighed. the select committee believed all along that it would have ample time, and it has not engaged itself upon matters that are urgent and upon which unanimity is necessary.\n we have heard once more of the confusion that exists about the need to bring the upper time limit for abortions into line with current world medical opinion, merely doing as we have recommended. the minister has indicated that our recommendation will be fulfilled. but we have not made a judgment on the important question of how late an abortion can take place. it has been indicated by the hon. member for essex,south-east that we have not dealt with the need that is generally regarded as necessary to provide anonymity for witnesses who have undergone abortions and who are involved in criminal proceedings. no judgment has been made. a problem faced by the police, as the evidence clearly revealed, is the virtual impossibility of proving lack of good faith on the part of the doctor. there is also the difficulty of gaining access to patients\' registers at approved places.\n many matters have been raised in our discussions with the home office, but they have been left unattended. there is the important difficulty that is caused by the six-months\' limitation within which prosecutions can be brought under the abortion act. there is the paltry minimum fine provided for breach of certification and notification regulations. we have not dealt with the issue. we have not engaged ourselves upon those matters. but they are not issues on which the committee could not reach some consensus, given the good will\n the point has been rightly made about the inconsistencies that exist between one area and another in terms of the availability of abortion under the national health service. it is an important issue. has it arisen because in certain areas there are people who are being excessively restrictive, or has it come about because in some areas there are people like professor huntingford, who have taken the view, despite the will of the house, that there should be abortion on demand? do both factors apply? surely there is a necessity for some recommendation to come from a committee which would lay down guidelines and amount to something more like a standard medical practice than exists today.\n again, there are the conditions relating to the licensing of clinics or blanket pregnancy advisory bureaux. these cannot be left now, as has been suggested, merely to men in the elephant and castle. i speak as a lawyer. justice requires that there should be an appellate jurisdiction. does this mean the creation of machinery by legislation? this has not been dealt with.\n we should ask again—who can deny that it is not necessary to ask—whether there should not be a special screening of first-pregnancy abortions. we may argue how high is the incidence of risk, but everyone agrees that there is a significant risk when a first pregnancy is aborted. all the medical evidence, including that from russia, hungary and czechoslovakia in recent months, indicates that this is not a matter to be put on one side, and that it can have very serious consequences. i know of nothing more dangerous and sad than that an ill-considered decision taken by a woman when she is young can mean that she is rendered sterile, and never able to have the blessings of parenthood. i know there are women who put forward the view that motherhood is a curse and not a blessing, but that is not the view held by the majority of women in this country. i believe that it is necessary that the house should know the evidence and, in the light of the evidence that the select committee can collect, be able to make its own decision whether we should give, in some form, special consideration to a woman in that position.\n this becomes more important when we find that since we have reported the suggestion has been made—it has not come from the committee and has not been examined by the committee—that there should be day clinics for what have been pejoratively described as "lunch-time" abortions, and that the ministry, without and review by the select committee, will give these experiments into the hands of so-called charities. i say "so-called" charities, because the evidence that came before the committee showed that the doctors who work for these charities, as abortionists, are capable of earning £25,000 a year. that is a charity, and it is one of the two charities to which the minister is prepared to give this experiment, which may have merit and which may have to be done, but which, if it were done, i should prefer to see done in the national health service than by a charity of this kind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.91', 46, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend suggesting that any new techniques introduced should be first brought to this inexpert committee for vetting before the minister grants approval for certain respected charitable clinics—i repeat, "charitable clinics"—to carry out now what they have been doing on a 12-months\' experimental basis?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.92', 34, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'all i am saying is that if right hon. and hon. members will look at the evidence they will find that it is there, both before the lane committee and before the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.93', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is not there.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.94', 835, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the figures are there. well over 90 per cent. of these charities give abortions to those who go to them. it may be that my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) believes in abortion on request, and it may be that that is a view which can be respectably argued. but it is not the law of the land. it is not what this house has passed.\n i have considerable misgivings when i find that this new and serious experiment, on which there are arguments between the so-called charities as to which is the right technique, should be given to what is effectively the private sector. it is to be done without any surveillance. this is the first real initiative to have come from the department other than as a result of repeated promptings by way of questions, motions or requests from select committees.\n if i look back upon the history of the workings of this act i realise that it is only as a result of pressure from this house, following what has happened outside, that any changes have come about. the truth is that the department, in successive administrations, has limped and lagged behind the expression of opinion in this house. at the beginning we were told, in the memorandum presented to the select committee by the department, that the department's view was that it had limited powers. it felt that it could do nothing to control any clinic other than by way of approving its physical accoutrements. provided that, physically, it had the necessary equipment to be classified as a nursing home, nothing more could be done. in its evidence the department made it clear that it believed it could not go further.\n it took years before the department took the appropriate legal advice which eventually brought it to the conclusion that it could take action as far-reaching as that now to be implemented by the minister on the recommendation of the select committee. it would be curious if the house were now asked to trust the men at the elephant and castle. if they came here with a good record, having shown themselves ready to take the initiative, that would be a heavy argument. but the hon. member for dorking (sir g. sinclair) has expressed his opinion of how febrile the activities of the men at the department have been for years. is he now asking us to place all confidence in the department? ministers come and go, but the men at the department continue. the house would be wrong if, even with the best will in the world, it decided to put this matter to rest in the cradle inside the elephant and castle.\n the truth is that however we interpret the undertaking given by the minister on behalf of the government—whatever casuistry may be attempted to be brought in to suggest that a commitment eras not given to the house and the country that the select committee would have the full opportunity to review matters and continue its work in another session—the undertaking was given. i saw that this would happen, as did my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok. we asked for an undertaking from the government when we agreed that we would support the idea that the bill should go to the select committee. we anticipated the situation. we knew that if the house was to do justice to this issue we would have to carry on as a committee.\n we asked for the undertaking and it was given in specific terms. we sometimes have to explain to people outside that this is a pluralist society and that no one can have his own way totally on an issue of this kind, in this highly opinionated society. we who have taken people with us would be placed in a great difficulty. it would be regarded as a betrayal, even if that were not intended, if we decided to shirk the issue and pass it back to the ministry. i hope that as a matter of political wisdom my hon. friends will join with me. in my view it is hon. members on the labour benches who have a responsibility, because the government will be regarded by many as having given an undertaking.\n i do not understand what the fear is. the select committee will try to reach unanimity. every sensible man or woman knows that what we are aiming at is a consensus that will stretch out its hand to women in trouble while at the same time striving to maintain the sanctity of life and a cessation of the corrosion of our values. that is the aim, and it is difficult, but surely possible, for legislators to make the attempt.\n i hope that the house will enable us to have another look at the possibilities which i hope will bring about a consensus and a lasting healing—not a sense of frustration or betrayal—because that is what every sensible man and woman wants.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.96', 395, 'uk.m.17216', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "we are asked to approve the setting up of a select committee to consider matters contained in the abortion (amendment) bill, which seeks to amend the abortion act 1967. we have already had the benefit of three years of inquiry by the lane committee into the workings of the 1967 act. there has been a year's deliberation by the select committee which is the subject of the motion. i agree with the minister of state that it is time that we allowed this matter to settle down and for the medical profession to operate the bill with any additional guidance which it receives from the minister from time to time.\n until the passing of the 1967 act there had been no legislation on this subject since 1861. the battle lasted for over 100 years and was eventually won by those in favour of reform. however, the opposers of the 1967 act will not accept defeat and, therefore, they have proposed the abortion (amendment) bill.\n i was asked to take an interest in the proposal that the select committee should be reconstituted, and i had so many letters couched in exactly the same phraseology that i became suspicious. they all asked that the select committee should be set up with exactly the same constitution. i wondered what was so special about the committee that it should not be altered to the extent of one or perhaps two members. i should have thought that some hon. members were perhaps tired of discussing the subject for a year and would wish to be relieved of their membership of the committee.\n i therefore considered the constitution of the select committee, and i discovered that only four of its 15 members were women. abortion is a matter of vital importance to women. i should have thought that half the members of the committee at least should be women instead of barely one-third. after all, half of the population in this country are women.\n the committee of selection bears a large measure of responsibility for the way in which the select committee was constituted. that is one reason why i would not vote for the committee to be set up: it is wrongly constituted. that is my greatest criticism of the motion.\n religion and morality have been brought into the debate. one or two hon. members have declared their religious affiliations.\n ", datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.97', 6, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'leave out the question of morality.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.98', 207, 'uk.m.17216', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should like to do so, but it has been introduced.\n the composition of the select committee is unsatisfactory and biased on religious grounds. [an hon. member: "why?"] i shall not say why. hon. members can refer to the book in the library setting out the religious affiliations of hon. members. they can decide whether the bias against women in the composition of the committee also applies to the question of religious denominations.\n there is far too much dogma on this question. i should like to see a little more compassion and humility for women confronted with unwanted pregnancies, especially against the background of the medical and scientific progress of recent years. is it not possible that the hand of the almighty guided those who developed the pill and those who have now perfected quick and safe methods of abortion?\n i congratulate the secretary of state on her recent moves in connection with same-day abortions by the vacuum aspiration method. my hon. friend the member for brighton, kemptown (mr. bowden) told us about the increase in juvenile abortions, of girls under the age of 16. i look forward to the time when this apparatus is standard equipment in the first-aid centres of all our large comprehensive schools——\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.99', 2, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'absolutely disgraceful!\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.100', 15, 'uk.m.17216', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '—just as i look forward to the time when we shall have abortion on demand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.101', 3, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'are you serious?\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.102', 232, 'uk.m.17216', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course i am serious. i said that i look forward to the time. we should be looking forward in this debate, not back over the last 100 years. i would go even further. when the abortions take place, if they have to, they should be entirely at the wish of the young person concerned without any parental interference. this is a decision that they should be allowed to make for themselves.\n we have heard a good deal about whether the period should be reduced from 24 to 20 weeks. i see developing in the correspondence that i have received an unhealthy cult which i can only refer to as the adoration of the foetus. it is time that we put that whole matter into perspective.\n in this debate, which will end with a free vote, i have said what i sincerely feel about this subject, just as many of my hon. friends have expressed their points of view. i was glad when the 1967 act was passed. i agree that it wants watching, but i see developments not in the way of restricting its activities but in broadening them until we reach a time when women will be in control of their own destiny, when any uncertainty which exists in the act is removed and the medical profession can settle down to a long period of useful work under that act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.104', 799, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house has heard a number of emotional speeches tonight from those who are known to be anti-abortion, deliberately attempting to mislead right hon. and hon. members about the evidence taken by the select committee. those hon. members who heard my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) will understand how some of the witnesses before the committee felt when they realised that there were more words from him in attempts to persuade them to accept his view than they were allowed in putting their views.\n i am concerned that so little regard has been paid to the needs of women who are in difficulty through having too many pregnancies, for whatever reason, and who are entitled under the law as it is—i defend the 1967 act, in spite of what my hon. friend the member for pontypool wants to put into my mouth—but who are refused a legal termination of pregnancy.\n it so happens that the figures that were given by my hon. friend the minister of state in hansard a week ago indicate the unfairness of the way in which the act operates. this is because of the abuse of the conscience clause which is written into it.\n in the west midlands the women have the lowest number of abortions per 100 live births. the figure in the west midlands is 3·7 per 100 live births. that is a scandalous situation. yet we find that, according to the number of abortions per thousand women in the childbearing age from 16 to 49, taken according to residence in hospital areas, the highest number of abortions, apart from those in the london area, is carried out in the west midlands. by contrast, in the north, which includes the old newcastle regional hospital board area, there is the highest number of abortions in the national health service but the lowest number per thousand women of child-bearing age.\n the conclusions are clear. the fact that there is an area in which the availability of abortion is restricted because of the conscience clause, about which so many anti-abortionists have made a great deal of play tonight, does not prevent women from seeking and obtaining terminations under the law. they are precisely the women who are driven to the private sector. that is another issue about which many anti-abortionists have made a great deal of weather.\n fewer women have had abortions in areas where abortions are available under the national health service than in areas where abortions are restricted under the national health service. a clear lesson is to be learnt from this. it so happens that, in areas where the consultants have a reasonable view towards pregnant women, they also have a reasonable view towards the availability of contraceptives, and contraceptives are made freely available by them in co-operation with health visitors and the social services. very few anti-abortionists have asked that contraceptives should be made more freely available. they want it all ways and will never be satisfied. they ask for the select committee to be set up again. as my hon. friend the member for barking (miss richardson) said, the select committee will have the contrary aim and objective to that of my hon. friend the member for pontypool. it will seek to undermine the 1967 act because the bill is a wrecking bill. the committee has a built-in majority, as the hon. member for skipton (mr. drayson) said, of those who are fundamentally opposed to the 1967 act. their aim and objective has always been to undermine that act. they do not mind what will happen to the unfortunate women who now have a legal right under the act to the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.\n we have heard a great deal, again from the anti-abortionists, about the need to take account of public opinion. what public opinion is it of which they want us to take account? even before the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) introduced his bill there was a determined, well-organised and well-financed campaign against the 1967 act by a minority. that minority has written letters, sent deputations and held demonstrations in london. its supporters have come to london in their coach-loads. however, the committee has also taken evidence from a united medical profession—from general practitioners to the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the men who operate the 1967 act. without exception, all have condemned the bill. without exception, all have said that they want the act to remain unamended.\n in the face of that united medical opinion, what have we got? the anti-abortionists on both sides of the house—even the right hon. member for wan-stead and woodford (mr. jenkin), forgetting what his leader said yesterday about choice—say that women shall not have the choice, even though they are entitled to it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.105', 72, 'uk.m.22490', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as there may be a number of hon. members who were not present to hear what i said, i should like to say that i hope that the hon. lady will recognise that i said it was always a question of balance and that a woman did not have the unfettered choice, because a child has a right to live. this is a question of balance, and that is what i said.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.106', 190, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the balance, however, is provided for very clearly in the act, because no woman in britain gets abortion on demand under that act. let us be absolutely clear about that. she first has to be referred by her general practitioner to the consultant gynaecologist in the hospital, and two doctors have to approve the operation. that is a fact. it is irrefutable. the right hon. gentleman really needs to understand what exactly his position is. i think that he is very confused.\n we have the united expression of medical opinion in britain. on any other issue i challenge any right hon. or hon. member on either side of the house to indicate where he would oppose such united medical opinion. right hon. and hon. members would not dare, and yet on this issue they have the temerity, because it is something that affects women and not men, to put themselves up against the united, skilled, expert opinion in britain. they are very brave men indeed.\n i am absolutely sure that had our reproductive processes been distributed differently, had it been men who became pregnant, there would have been a free\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.110', 14, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.112', 13, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i shall put the whole motion as it stands on the order paper.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.124', 83, 'uk.m.22512', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. may i raise with you the important question of just what question the house has just decided? as i understand the situation, what the house has just passed is merely the motion that a select committee be appointed to consider the matters contained in the abortion (amendment) bill committed to a select committee in the last session of parliament and not the remainder of the words which appear on the order paper in the separate motions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.125', 38, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i was at great pains to say to the house that i was putting the whole of the motion. i put it within the hearing of the house, and that is what the house has decided upon.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.126', 249, 'uk.m.22512', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i, too, was at great pains to take note of the words you said. indeed, i wrote down your words which were "i shall put the whole motion"—"motion" in the singular. you then said "the question is, that the motion"—in the singular—"is as it stands on the order paper".\n i do not claim to be expert in these matters, but, as i understand it, the separate paragraphs, if i may so call them, which appear on the order paper on these occasions are technically separate motions and technically, therefore, separate questions. it is not only known to the house but is perfectly common for the house to take separate votes and sometimes to pass the setting up of a committee but then, on a separate question, to consider the composition of the committee.\n i suggest to you for your consideration that technically the house has had before it one motion and one question which it has now decided and which is contained in the first two lines which appear on the order paper under the name government deputy chief whip. if the house wanted to address itself in one vote to all six motions before the house, it would have been necessary for that to be made absolutely clear to the house by saying that the house was to consider together the six motions standing in the name of the government deputy chief whip and to have one vote upon them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.127', 54, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the time when the hon. gentleman should have raised this question, if he desired a number of votes, was when i said to the house that i was going to put the whole motion. my ruling is that i have submitted the whole of the motion as it appears on the order paper.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.128', 88, 'uk.m.22512', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. the question seems to resolve itself into this. are all the lines appearing under the heading "abortion" on the order paper one motion or six motions? according to "erskine may" and to the expertise of the house, if they are one motion my point falls. if, however, they are six motions, i suggest that, by saying as you did that you were putting the whole motion to the house, that could only mean the first motion on the order paper.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9.1.129', 60, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i must say to the hon. gentleman and to the house that i think that, if he had it in mind, i cannot for the life of me understand why he did not rise in his place when i put the question. i have given my ruling and i fear that that must be the end of the matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1976, 2, 9, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1976-02-09.9']]
['Partial-Birth Abortion']
['PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION']
[['uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.9.1.1', 1309, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to prohibit partial-birth abortions. partial-birth abortion is defined in the bill as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living foetus before killing the foetus and completing the delivery. the procedure, which originated in the united states, is usually used after the 20th week of pregnancy, and often much later. the practitioner, guided by ultrasound, pulls the living unborn child through the mother\'s vagina, except for the child\'s head, which is deliberately kept just within the uterus. the practitioner then puts surgical scissors or another medical instrument into the back of the skull, inserts a catheter and sucks out the brains.\n in 1992, dr. martin haskell of dayton, ohio, wrote an eight-page paper explaining step by step how to perform the procedure. haskell himself has performed more than 1,000 such procedures, for which he coined the term "d and x". it is also known as brain-suction abortion. a diagram illustrating the procedure has been circulated widely to hon. members. it was confirmed as accurate by a spokesman for the american national abortion federation in evidence to the house of representatives judiciary sub-committee in june 1995.\n the bill would amend the abortion act 1967 to prohibit the partial-birth abortion procedure. under the bill, any person performing a partial-birth abortion would be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. no proceedings would be brought without the consent of the attorney-general. it would not be an offence for a medical practitioner to perform a partial-birth abortion if he or she reasonably believed that the procedure was immediately necessary to save the life of the mother, and that no other procedure would achieve that.\n it is not known to what extent the technique may be practised in the united kingdom. provided that the terms of the 1967 act are complied with, there is nothing to stop a practitioner from using it. replies to parliamentary questions show that abortion notification forms do not specify whether abortions are carried out by that method.\n the secretary of state for health has stated that the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists has asked all its members and fellows to ensure that they record details of any abortions involving intra-uterine decompression of the head of the foetus on hsa4—the form that notifies the chief medical officer of all abortions. however, there is no legal requirement for practitioners to notify the use of the technique.\n in the partial-birth abortion method, a woman visits the abortion clinic on three successive days. on the first two days, her cervix is mechanically dilated with material called laminaria. the baby is removed on the third day. american medical news reported on 5 july 1993 that two leading practitioners of the method, dr. haskell and dr. mcmahon, had stated in interviews: the majority of foetuses aborted this way are alive until the end of the procedure. dr. martin haskell, the principal exponent of the technique in the united states—he has performed it more than 1,000 times—said in a tape-recorded interview with the american medical news : in my… case, probably 20 [per cent. of abortions by this method] are for genetic reasons. and the other 80 per cent. are purely elective. elective abortion is another name for abortion on demand. dr. haskell\'s statement refutes the claim by some advocates of abortion that the procedure is used only where the woman\'s life is in danger or in cases of extreme foetal abnormality. the rcog has claimed that the procedure would be used in britain only in extreme cases of disability. nevertheless, under the abortion act 1967, there is nothing to prevent a practitioner from using the technique in abortions certified under any grounds.\n in the previous parliamentary session, an early-day motion calling for a ban on partial-birth abortion was tabled. several hon. members signed an amendment objecting to such a ban, in which they cited the objections of the rcog and the british medical association, and argued that it was not the role of parliament to regulate the details of clinical procedures. no one suggests that the opinions of those bodies should be excluded from the debate, but there is particular cause for concern about the rcog\'s opposition to a ban of the procedure in view of its guidelines on termination of pregnancy for foetal abnormality, which stipulate that, to avoid the possibility of prosecution, a legal abortion must not be allowed to result in a live birth". that means that steps must be taken to ensure that the unborn child is dead before being expelled from the mother. the practice of partial-birth abortion would conform with those guidelines.\n in a paper opposing a similar bill, which was sent to members of the other place at the time of the bill\'s introduction by my right hon. and noble friend lord braine, the rcog stated: partial-birth abortion could be considered more respectful to the foetus than established methods of abortion… in which the foetus is removed from the uterus in fragments. as the editor of the sunday telegraph aptly commented, "respectful" is not the first word that springs to mind at the description of the sucking out of a baby\'s brain.\n the fact that an unborn child has a disabling condition is no reason for killing the child, and in such an appalling manner. furthermore, disability in the child does not mean that the procedure is indicated for the benefit of the mother. even in cases of hydrocephalus, a condition which enlarges the head of the foetus, there are alternative methods of clinical management. if necessary, a caesarean section can be performed.\n former abortionist dr. bernard nathanson wrote in 1983 that the "destructive operation" in which a baby\'s head was crushed to allow vaginal delivery became obsolete towards the end of world war two as a result of medical advances that greatly improved the safety of caesarean sections. in the light of dr. nathanson\'s observation, it is ironic that, despite continuing advances in modern obstetric care, partial-birth abortion is defended as though medicine had not progressed since the 1940s.\n furthermore, there is evidence that the procedure could endanger the mother. dr. pamela smith, head of the obstetrics teaching programme at mount sinai hospital in chicago, told the us senate judiciary committee that the partial-birth abortion procedure is an adaptation of a procedure occasionally used to deliver a baby in a breech position, but that that procedure carries risks for the mother and its use is recommended only to deliver the second baby in the birth of twins.\n the bill allows a medical practitioner to perform a partial-birth abortion if he or she reasonably believes that it is immediately necessary to save the life of the mother and that no other procedure will achieve that. evidence that before the 10th week of human development foetal structures relating to pain are present and functional supports dr. giles\' and others\' opinion. even many of those among us who do not agree with the principle of the right to life of the unborn child accept that avoidable suffering should not be inflicted on the foetus. under current practices, there are more restrictions on how the remains of aborted babies may be disposed of than on how they may be killed.\n it is perplexing that several hon. members who called on the government to ensure more humane treatment of veal calves signed the amendment opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion. surely parliament has no less interest in protecting the young of our own kind from cruel and unusual punishment than in protecting the welfare of animals. i hope that the house will give me leave to introduce the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 4, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.9.1.2', 707, 'uk.m.10120', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "partial-birth abortion, more correctly described by doctors as intact dilatation and evacuation, is a procedure used on rare occasions by some doctors in the united states of america when they believe it to be in the best interests of the woman. it is not currently used in the united kingdom. members may have already noted from the official report that on several occasions conservative members have asked how many times partial-birth abortions have taken place. on each of those occasions, ministers have repeatedly confirmed that they are not aware of that procedure being used in the united kingdom. a bill therefore to prohibit its use is clearly unnecessary and a misuse of the valuable time of the house.\n the descriptions of the procedure, as it is supposedly carried out in the united states, are both inaccurate and misleading. descriptions such as the one we have just heard contain horrific accounts of the foetus being partially delivered while alive. it is my understanding that, on the rare occasions when intact dilatation and evacuation is carried out in the united states, the foetal heart is humanely stopped before the procedure. president clinton himself has recently vetoed attempts to ban the procedure, referring to it as a potentially life-saving, certainly health-saving, measure for a small but extremely vulnerable group of women and families.\n emotive, grisly descriptions of abortion procedures are often used by those who oppose abortion to shock and repulse people. the anti-choice movement considers it an important tactic because it believes that those who are pro-choice attempt to deny what is involved when a pregnancy is ended. that is not the case. those of us who support legal abortion do so because we believe that it is necessary for the well-being of the woman.\n it seems that the bill proposed by the hon. member for batley and spen (mrs. peacock) is an attempt to reintroduce the topic of abortion to the house. she may expect that the emphasis on the details of that technique—her version—will attract support for further legislation to limit the availability of legal abortion. the present abortion law was accepted as necessary by a majority of both houses in 1990. nothing has changed since to justify any amendment.\n abortion at any stage of pregnancy is performed only after careful consideration and within the grounds permitted by law. late abortions are often of wanted pregnancies, terminated because a severe foetal abnormality has been detected. those women are especially vulnerable and it is important that when decisions are taken by doctors about the management of their care, they are free to act in the best interests of their patients.\n when, earlier this year in another place, lord braine introduced a private member's bill to prohibit partial-birth abortion, it was opposed by the british medical association and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists. those organisations support the view, which has also been expressed by ministers in response to questions on the matter, that methods of abortion are a matter of clinical judgment.\n as the procedure referred to as intact dilatation and evacuation is not used in this country, the bill that the hon. lady seeks leave to introduce would not affect abortion practice directly. it would, however, undermine the principle that a clinician should have freedom to choose the method of abortion most appropriate to a specific clinical situation.\n that could interfere with doctors' ability to act in the interests of their patients. a gynaecologist or obstetrician could be convicted of a criminal offence, even when his or her peers considered the actions taken to be the safest and most appropriate management of an abortion. the clinical decisions taken by doctors could be influenced by their fear of prosecution. that would be an unacceptable outcome, and i ask the house to oppose the motion.\n question put, pursuant to standing order no. 19 (motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to. bill ordered to be brought in by mrs. elizabeth peacock, sir andrew bowden, mrs. ann winterton, mr. thomas mcavoy, mr. a. j. beith, ms liz lynne, mr. toby jessel, mr. keith vaz, mr. david atkinson, mr. joe benton, sir michael grylls, and rev. martin smyth.\n ", datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 4, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.9'], ['uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.10.1.1', 27, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'and the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time upon friday 14 february, and to be printed [bill no. 37].\n ', datetime.datetime(1996, 12, 4, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1996-12-04.10']]
['Abortion (Amendment) Bill']
[['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.2', 573, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time. in coming to the debate this morning, three months after i presented the bill, i thank those hon. members on both sides of the argument for the way in which, generally, the debate has been conducted. this is a difficult issue, which rouses sensitivities, anger, bitterness, and, sometimes, even hatred. by and large, members of this house have conducted the debate in the country with great dignity and decorum, giving this issue the respect to which it is entitled. i hope that we shall be able to mirror that in the house today.\n fifty-nine years after the passage of the infant life preservation act and 20 years after the passage of the abortion act, it is my hope that the house will today allow this bill to proceed to commitee. public and parliamentary opinion clearly believes that, in the light of medical and scientific advances, a clear upper time limit beyond which abortion may not occur should be established.\n wherever we come from in this debate, be we pro-life or pro-choice, opposed to or in favour of abortion, no one can be sanguine about the nature and consequences of late abortions. that is the issue before the house today and this bill provides a vehicle for public policy to be reviewed.\n the existing statute regulating abortion comprises three pieces of legislation—the offences against the person act 1861, the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and the abortion act 1967. no upper time limit when abortions may occur is specified in the 1967 act. no distinction is made between late and early abortions. indeed, section 5(1) declares: nothing in this act shall affect the provisions of the infant life (preservation) act 1929. those who framed the 1929 legislation came to the question after an assize judge had before him a case in which a child had been killed shortly before the moment of birth and before it had an existence independent of its mother. it emerged that the killer could not be charged with any criminal offence, so a bill was introduced in the house of lords by one of the lords of appeal to fill the gap between abortion and murder. in framing the legislation, it was considered necessary to exclude the case where a foetus was destroyed at a time when it was not capable of being born alive, so a rule of thumb was created in section 1(2) of the act to the effect that, at any time after the 28th week of pregnancy, the child is, prima facie, assumed to be capable of being born alive.\n it does not seem unreasonable, 59 years after the passage of that act, to ask parliament to reconsider this rule of thumb. indeed, given the gigantic strides in medicine and technology, where medical knowledge has increased by leaps and bounds, it is incumbent on any civilised or ordered society to review its public policy and to strike a proper balance between claimed rights and responsibilities.\n many of us hold powerfully held convictions about the right to life over the notion that we have the right to choose to take life, but this debate is not about that. it is about what, in the judgment of individual members of parliament, the public interest requires and what people as a whole can be brought to accept as a rational solution to an intractable problem.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.3', 81, 'uk.m.21934', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman will know that i wrote to him three days ago, enclosing a letter which i sent to my constituents concerning this point about what the time should be. most hon. members agree that 28 weeks is not acceptable, but, equally, many hon. members do not accept 18 weeks. will the hon. gentleman give the house an assurance, during the debate, that he is prepared to accept a middle-ground time, which will bring many people on to his side?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.4', 157, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "that is a helpful intervention and i am happy to answer the hon. gentleman's question. many hon. members have written to me. some have suggested that the time limit should be more in line with other european countries where the average is about 14 weeks. other hon. members have suggested that it should be 14, 16, 18, 22, or anything up to 28 weeks. i have made it clear that, although in my judgment 18 weeks is about the right time, i recognise that there are strongly held views on this subject throughout the house. indeed, it would be proper to examine in committee other possible points where a time limit might be established. i give the hon. gentleman and the house the assurance that, if an amendment were suggested, provided it did not emasculate the bill beyond the point of recognition, i should be happy to accept anything that could be done to rationalise the law.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.5', 95, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman said that, in his judgment, 18 weeks was about the right time. what does he have to say to the parents of one, two or three disabled children who are yearning to have another child who is not disabled? how does he advise the mother when the choices are either to have a disabled child with whom they cannot cope or to have a child who will suffer so much that they are not willing to see such suffering? is he prepared to close the door on that family having additional children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.6', 101, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman and i have discussed this matter, for obvious reasons, many times. we both have very personal, strongly-held views about the eugenics question and about whether abortion might take place on the ground of disability. the bill contains an exclusion clause for those cases of disability which are incompatible with life. if a child has anencephaly, or there is potter's or edward's syndrome it would be proper, under the terms of the bill, for a termination to occur, but i disagree with the hon. gentleman about the legitimacy of taking life on the ground of disability. however, i recognise—\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.7', 2, 'uk.m.22639', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.8', 278, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "—the power of the hon. gentleman's comments. i also recognise that, given that 92 per cent. of all late abortions involved healthy children, if an exclusion clause were included in the bill in committee to deal with the question of disability it would still be a worthwhile measure. the widespread debate which accompanies such an initiative is of equal importance to the bill. that is where attitudes can be challenged and the climate changed. i refuse to believe that anyone is in favour of abortion, and that is why it is right that, time and again, politicians, public figures and the country must discuss this question.\n before coming to the detail of the bill and to the question on which we shall vote later, i wish to place the bill in the context of that national debate. twenty years ago, when introducing his bill, my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) said that it was his intention to eliminate back-street abortions. he said that it was not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wider door open for abortion on request. yet who can doubt, almost 3 million abortions later — 600 abortions are undertaken every working day, some even on the grounds of the gender of a child, simply because it is a little girl—that we have anything other than abortion on demand in most parts of britain?\n in a census of 746 gynaecologists, undertaken by gallup and published two days ago, over 400 —86 per cent. — stated that, from their experience, abortion on demand is now available in the nhs hospitals in which they work.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.9', 58, 'uk.m.10449', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman said that to his knowledge, terminations were taking place in cases where the gender of the child was in question. that is quite clearly illegal and cannot be supported. if the hon. gentleman knows of such cases, he should present them to the director of public prosecutions for prosecution. will he give us that assurance?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.10', 635, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the example highlighted by bbc radio 4 has already been presented by the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) in a letter to the attorney-general. in the view of many hon. members, this ought to be challenged as being illegal under the terms of the 1967 act. the fact that bbc radio 4 is prepared to substantiate those claims and has provided chapter and verse shows that the matter ought to be a cause for concern.\n in 1967, abortion was presented almost as a panacea or as a universal remedy. in 1967, we were told that abortion would reduce illegitimacy. today, it stands at 15 per cent. and is rising. in 1967, we were told that there would be less child abuse because every child would be wanted. however, scarcely a day passed in 1987 when we did not hear of a case of a child being physically or sexually abused. in 1967, we were told that abortion would give a woman new rights. by 1987, many women and men had been emotionally and psychologically scarred and the demand for post-abortion counselling has been growing. we have learnt much in 20 years, and even more since the passage of the 1929 act.\n it was only in 1969—two years after the passage of my right hon. friend\'s bill — that the science of foetoscopy really took off. in 1967, let alone in 1929, medics could not take an electrocardiogram of the baby, which shows its heartbeat and reaction to painful stimuli as its heartbeat increases. twenty years ago, it would have been impossible accurately to date the exact time of gestational development or the characteristics of the developing child. clearly, ultrasound scanning, chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis have changed all that. since 1967 we have revolutionised our awareness of the humanity of the developing child. since then, we have learned a lot also about the consequences of abortion, both for the mother and child, and for the medics as well. i am amazed that those who counsel in favour of abortion, especially so late in pregnancy, would really warn a woman of the potential physical and psychological consequences. abortion was recently described by an opponent of my bill as being as safe as having an injection of penicillin". we must challenge the assumption that abortion is either prudent or desirable.\n not only are there the physical effects of invasive surgery on perfectly healthy women but there are the psychological consequences of post-abortion trauma. in 1976 the department of health and social security started to fund the manchester unit of the royal college of general practitioners which is studying the psychiatric morbidity experienced by women after an abortion. the report will be published shortly. but today the independent shows that of those surveyed 79 per cent. admitted that, if they knew that a child had quickened in the womb, they would experience a great sense of guilt if they were to carry out an abortion after that time. that is how people tick. a late abortion—when a woman has felt her child quicken, when its humanity can be in no doubt—is inevitably the most traumatic abortion of all.\n kathleen mcdonnell, in her book "not an easy choice —a feminist re-examines abortion"— i do not believe that abortion is ever an easy choice — quotes approvingly a young abortion councillor who says: yes, this is killing, there is no way around it. but i am willing to accept that. mcdonnell says: there is no escaping the fact that we have, with full consciousness, terminated life. this is most emphatically not the same as blaming ourselves or burdening ourselves with an unnecessary load of guilt. but it is simple casuistry to say, "yes, it is killing, but, no, i will not feel any sense of guilt."\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.11', 6, 'uk.m.10285', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.12', 14, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '1 shall give way to the hon. gentleman, who has been trying to intervene.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.13', 101, 'uk.m.10285', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman remember that i wrote to him on 15 october in response to a circular which was sent to hon. members and asked him about a particular point? i ask the hon. gentleman the same question now: does he believe in abortion at 18 weeks? it is important for that question to be answered. some of the people who have been canvassing and lobbying hon. members look at the present proposals as a step to follow the abolition of abortion in all circumstances. the hon. gentleman should tell the house whether he believes in abortion at 18 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.14', 223, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is perfectly entitled to ask that question. i have never made any secret about my views. in 1981, when i attempted to reduce the upper time limit, i made exactly the same point that, for me, abortion, whether late or early, whether legal or illegal, is the taking of life. that is not the bill before the house at the moment. this is a legitimate review of public policy. that is what is contained in the bill.\n given the psychological and physical consequences to which a woman may be subject, having had an abortion, why do counsellors advise her to have an abortion, especially so late in a pregnancy? one reason is revealed in a figure which has been provided to me by the department of health and social security. the department confirms that 32 individuals are directors or trustees of a company or a charity providing abortion counselling and are simultaneously involved in private clinics undertaking abortions. about £12 million is estimated to have passed hands in this business last year. according to the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists survey into late abortions, in one year alone 60 per cent. of the late abortions undertaken in private clinics were performed by just 11 practitioners. they and the clinics in which they work netted £2 million in this business.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.15', 146, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i point out the sad case of one of my constituents. she says: i have had two abortions. the private clinic that i attended on both occasions made it relatively easy for me to obtain an abortion. the plausible reasons that i gave for seeking the terminations were readily accepted. i received no counselling but i now realise that this is due to the fact that private clinics run a profitable industry in human weakness. in all probability both babies would have been born perfectly healthy and even though i considered, at that time, i could not bring them up myself, i was not reminded of the fact that there are only too many childless couples anxious to adopt. however, private clinics are not in the business of giving support and pointing out the available options. sadly, i only considered my own situation at the time. \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.16', 470, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the hon. lady for that important intervention. some 88 per cent. of all late abortions take place not in the national health service but in private clinics. half of the late abortions are on women from overseas, who are then duly despatched on an aeroplane back to the countries from which they came, without any care or compassion shown for them. how do we know what physical or psychological condition a woman will be in when she returns to her country? that is why there is a case to be answered. we must show compassion for the woman and the child. if there are consequences in a late abortion for a woman, there are consequences for the child as well. every country and every age will be judged by the simple test: how did they treat their people?\n by 18 weeks, a foetus is not just a clump of tissues, not just a blob of jelly. the child has sentience and can feel pain. if a light is shone at its mother\'s womb, the child will react and turn away. the child has a complete skeleton and reflexes. it pumps 50 pints of blood a day. a report "human procreation — ethical aspects of the new techniques", published by the council for science and society — certainly not a body supporting my view—states that pain is experienced after the foetus has developed a nervous system, six weeks after pregnancy being the earliest. in november, dr. peter mccullagh, an eminent immunologist, stated that research on foetal nervous systems showed that pain could be felt at eight or nine weeks, and perhaps earlier. he said that babies could be in agony during abortions.\n what, under a late abortion, do we allow to happen to a child? two principal methods are used in a late abortion. of the 12 per cent. of late abortions undertaken in the nhs, the method known as prostaglandins is the most commonly used. by this method, labour is induced by drugs. the labour will be more painful than in a birth and can last for 20 hours or more. there is a chance that when prostaglandins is used the child will be born alive. to avoid this a child is usually poisoned before the abortion. because this is a long-drawn-out business, the method of late abortion used in private clinics is primarily dilatation and evacuation. by this method, the cervix is dilated and the baby\'s body removed piece by piece. to facilitate its extraction from the womb, the skull is crushed, the spine snapped and the body removed piece by piece. an attendant nurse then has the job of reassembling the body to ensure that nothing has been left behind that might cause infection. throughout this procedure no anaesthetic is used on the child.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.17', 6, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.18', 125, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "in a moment.\n a nurse involved in these late abortions wrote to me in these terms: although the doctor commences the infusion, it's the nurses who have the job of looking after the patient—and some of these are so advanced it's like a normal delivery. sometimes the foetus lives for a few minutes though the harsh contractions caused by the drugs have usually battered it to death. i don't know which is worse, those done in theatre, where you see the uterine contents being sucked into a bottle, or seeing the bruised bodies of these always perfectly formed foetuses in a receiver on the wall. this is a corrupting and degrading business for the medical staff who become the destroyer instead of defender of life.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.19', 63, 'uk.m.17268', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman started on a premise that we all share: no one is in favour of abortion. however, does he agree that the photographic material sent out by the anti-abortion lobby is deplorable in that it is difficult for laymen to handle as they are beset with the horrors of life and death in all medical aspects and not just in birth?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.20', 15, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. it is time that people saw the reality. it is also an extraordinary paradox.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.21', 82, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman share my concern about what happened before the 1967 act, when the foetus was stabbed by a knitting needle or a screwdriver? i had direct experience of that, as i was a nurse in the wards which received the victims of backstreet abortionists and women who had had self-induced abortions. it was horrific. at least now abortions take place in clean, clinically controlled environments. there was more suffering, pain and anguish for women then than there is now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.22', 278, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with the hon. lady that a return to the back streets would not be progress. if it were possible to have introduced a abortion (utopia) bill, i would have introduced it. no one would wish for a return to the back streets, but the nature of the operation that i described can be undertaken only by a doctor and a nurse if it is undertaken so late in pregnancy.\n in other countries in western europe that have a rational time limit such as that i have suggested, there is no problem with back-street abortions. in confirmation of that, my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) said: it true … that the bulk of the illegal abortions, the backstreet abortions, which go on today occur not at the stage where the foetus is fairly advanced … but at an early stage." —[ official report, 13 july 1967; vol. 750, c. 1347.] it is a paradox that we spend some £13 million a year on abortions in britain, when doctors and nurses should be using their skills to care for and cradle life, not to extinguish it and snuff it out. care and kill can never be used as synonyms.\n the nurse\'s observation that aborted babies are perfect is invariably true. of the 8,276 late abortions undertaken last year, 92 per cent. were on perfectly healthy children. the bill, by imposing an upper time limit, sets out to stop that. hard cases are used to try to rubbish the bill—but hard cases make bad law. however, those hard cases will be brought up during the debate and should be examined in detail.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.23', 6, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.24', 1155, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. i have given way already.\n some hon. members do not share my view about disability. i have already said something about that in answer to the hon. member for caernarfon (mr. wigley). about 8 per cent. of late abortions occur after an amniocentesis or another test that shows that a child will have a disability. as professor ron taylor, a supporter of the bill and the professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at london university stated in last week\'s sunday times: with new techniques such as chorionic villus sampling and ultrasound, discovery of such abnormalities as can be diagnosed are found much earlier than 18 weeks. it is true that not all conditions diagnosed by amniocentesis will be discovered by cvs —and cvs is not yet available everywhere. i recognise that some hon. members will wish to include an exclusion clause to allow post-l8-week abortion on the ground of disability. that is a perfectly proper issue for the committee to consider. although i personally do not support abortions on eugenic grounds, i have made it clear that even if such an exemption were placed in the bill it would still be of enormous worth.\n for six years before coming to the house i worked with children with special needs. it would have been a brave man or woman who would have told them that they would have been better dead. at the outset, when i announced my intention to introduce the bill, a young woman called ellen wilkie contacted me. she was born with muscular dystrophy. the doctors had told her parents that she would not live beyond her teens. ellen is now 29, she has a classics degree and writes poetry and plays. she said in her letter, more eloquently than i could say: no one can say what a disabled person will be capable of. who are we to play god? disability should not be a disqualification for life.\n interestingly, wednesday\'s gallup survey of gynaecologists revealed several significant things. almost all gynaecologists questioned sought a later limit for severe handicaps, such as anencephaly or potter\'s syndrome where the baby cannot survive. my bill contains a specific exemption for such circumstances. however, two thirds, or 68 per cent., believed that an upper limit of 18 weeks was right in the case of minor handicaps such as hare lip, club foot, or impaired hearing or sight. almost half, or 46 per cent., said that there should be no abortions for such minor handicaps. the president of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists called for an upper limit of 24 weeks to allow late abortion for handicap, but that suggestion had the support of 31 per cent., or less than one-third, of practising gynaecologists in britian.\n there are radical alternatives to utility, based on uninhibited, unqualified, unconditional love, and backed up by practical support, care and resources. that finds its bedrock in authentic human values. abortionism is defeatism — albeit a defeatism that is often born of desperation and fear. the answer can never be to kill one of the two patients who confront the doctor.\n let me turn to some of the other cases which have been cited by those who oppose the bill. contrary to what has been said in newspaper articles and speeches that oppose the bill, after 18 weeks, abortions are not often performed on young girls. only 4·7 per cent. of late abortions are performed on girls under 16. late abortions are not often performed on women with many previous children who cannot face the prospect of another baby. only 0·8 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are on women with more than four children. late abortions are not often performed on middle-aged women who may have mistaken pregnancy for the menopause. only 2 per cent. of late abortions are performed on women over 41. late abortions are not often performed in cases of pregnancy arising out of rape or when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. during five years, only 13 late abortions, out of 40,000, were performed for one of those two reasons. the bill specifically allows for a termination of pregnancy when the mother\'s life is at risk.\n we are told that 20 per cent. of late abortions result from delays in the nhs. no doubt the minister will want to say something about that. however, given that 88 per cent. of late abortions are not even performed in the nhs, that seems a curious claim. the 1984 report of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists stated that 95 per cent. of women presenting for late abortions were operated on within 14 days of first seeking advice.\n opponents of the bill claim that women will be forced into the back streets. the dilatation and evacuation operation that i mentioned earlier clearly could not be performed by a back-street abortionist. in other ec countries, where time limits are much lower than in the united kingdom—the average time limit in the eec is about 14 weeks—that argument has been shown to be scare mongering of the worst kind. let me re-emphasise that 88 per cent. of late abortions, or 7,270 out of 8,276, were performed under the act, which allows for social abortions.\n men must, of course, approach the debate with humility and sensitivity. we rarely have to suffer the practical day-to-day experience of an unwanted child. we rarely hear about unmarried fathers, only about unmarried mothers. we do not hear about men having illegitimate children, only women, and how often men smugly talk about fallen women. we never hear about fallen men.\n women are frequently pressurised into abortions by men. men too often leave a woman in the lurch, having used their sexuality without responsibility. those who maintain that abortion is purely a woman\'s issue do women no service; it allows men to evade their responsibilities, and without changes in men\'s attitudes women will not be truly liberated. men and women are involved in abortion, and all that is required to come to this debate is humanity.\n i believe that i have made out a case for this bill being allowed a committee stage. these arguments must then be sifted through and honed.\n speaking on "woman\'s hour", dame josephine barnes, not a supporter of my bill, but a leading gynaecologist, said: we have far too many late abortions in this country. it is deplorable. many would share that view.\n i have attempted to bring forward a modest bill. which deals with only 4·8 per cent. of all abortions, but undoubtedly those which carry the gravest consequences for the mother, for the child and for the medic alike. in framing this one-clause bill, i have demonstrated a willingness to be reasonable. i have made it clear that i will not be intransigent in trying to steer through a much-needed and long overdue reform. it is in that spirit that i commend the bill to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.25', 60, 'uk.m.19469', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'before i call the first of the back benchers to contribute, i remind the house that a great many hon. members wish to take part in the debate. well over 30 members have indicated their wish by letter and there may well be others. i make a special plea for contributions to be brief so that others may be called.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.26', 372, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i believe that the bill is phoney. it does not stand up to close examination. it is perfectly acceptable intellectually and morally to be opposed to abortion, to believe that it should be illegal and to take the view, which i do not share, that it is murder. i have a very close working relationship with the members of the pro-life group in my constituency. i understand and respect their views, but i do not go along with them, and they are aware of that.\n i cannot understand how the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) can have just plucked out of the air the time of 18 weeks. if he believes that abortion is murder, surely it is murder at 16 weeks, 14 weeks or 12 weeks. what is worse is that the limit of 18 weeks will do grave damage to those parents who have conceived a grossly disabled child in the past, wish to have further children, and know that there is a one in four chance that that child might also be grossly disabled.\n the house will be aware that tests can only just be carried out at 18 weeks. those tests take many weeks before conclusion can be drawn and then, if need be, a traumatic and difficult decision must be made by the parents to arrange an abortion. under the bill, many decent, reasonable, caring people will find that they are unable to have an abortion. i am privileged to have in my constituency the headquarters of the epidermolysis bullosa support group, known as debra, under the inspirational directorship of mrs. mary freeman. some hon. members came to the debra rally in the grand committee room on tuesday. whatever one's view of the bill, one would have been deeply moved by the people one met there. they were not zealots or fundamentalists; they were christian, caring people who had experienced the trauma of having a grossly disabled child and did not want to repeat that tragedy. not unreasonably, they wished to have further children, which their gynaecologist told them had about a three in four chance of being disabled. they would be denied the opportunity to have an abortion if the bill is passed.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.27', 6, 'uk.m.16500', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.28', 147, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i will not give way, because mr. speaker has indicated that many hon. members wish to speak. i will give way to my hon. friend later if he will let me pursue my point.\n all hon. members must have had constituents come to their advice bureaux or surgeries with disabled children. they, like me, will have noted how much those parents have aged. somebody who looks 65 tells one that he or she is only 40. they perhaps bring with them other normal children, and those normal children are not being properly cared for because, quite rightly and naturally, the parents have to devote every waking hour to that grossly disabled child. the parents fear what will happen to the child if they die early, in their 50s. this becomes a trauma for them, a nightmare, which they get out of perspective, but i can understand that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.29', 41, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "a lady came to my advice bureau with a seriously handicapped child and i saw the look of love on that mother's face. she said that she would not have done without that child; all she wanted was the support services.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.30', 8, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend makes a perfectly valid point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.31', 6, 'uk.m.16500', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.32', 777, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i will not give way; i want to answer the point.\n as my hon. friend the member for lancaster (dame e. kellett-bowman) points out, many people have disabled children and they love them and treat them well. they are given excellent services by the local authority and the state.\n like the hon. member for mossley hill, i am not in favour of abortion. all i am in favour of, as a conservative, is freedom of choice for people to be able to decide. it is a traumatic decision for the parents to have an abortion—not just for the mother, but for the father as well. it does not help if politicians interfere and tell those parents whether they should go ahead with that abortion. it is up to the parents to decide whether they wish to have a grossly disabled child. i could never dream of advising them one way or the other. my wife and i are not sufficiently capable as parents to have a disabled child. to be totally honest, i could not cope with it. i have terrific admiration, as does my hon. friend the member for lancaster, for those people who are able to cope—but the decision must be theirs, not ours.\n another element of the bill worries me. if passed, the bill would be the worst piece of class legislation that the house has put on the statute book for many a long day. my affluent, middle-class, and, i hope, by and large intelligent, constituents would have no difficulty in arranging an abortion, either privately or elsewhere. most of those abortions, except in the case of the disabled, would be well before the 18-week limit, so they could take a very relaxed view.\n all hon. members have had come to their surgeries 15 or 16-year-old girls with a low iq. they are not aware of what contraception is; they are pregnant, lost and confused. often the girl does not realise for several months that she is pregnant. she is scared, frightened to speak to her parents and frightened to go to her doctor, so it is many weeks before she faces the crisis. that will be the little girl who will suffer from the bill, not my affluent constituents. we will then go back to the bad old days, briefly mentioned by the hon. member for halifax (mrs. mahon), of back-street abortions.\n it is only 21 years since the abortion act was introduced, but i am sure that everybody can recall the horror of back-street abortions. we are all realistic enough to know that abortions will still take place, whether legal or illegal, so it is important that they are done in modern clinics where there is good hygiene, good follow-up services and a sensitive attitude. a return to back-street abortions will mean a return to deaths and trauma, and the people who will suffer are those whom the house should most want to protect. the vulnerable, the not very intelligent and the inadequate will be driven to the backstreet abortionists, who will be laughing all the way to the bank. that would be a bad example to set.\n like me, many of my hon. friends would be happy for the limit to be reduced to 24 weeks. medical science has advanced immeasurably during the past 20 years so that today it is perfectly possible for a child to be born at 24 weeks. i also believe that abortions on grounds of disability need not be performed after 24 weeks, as tests for disability can be carried out earlier. what should those of us who hold that view do? i suggest that they should not support the bill, as my right hon. friend the prime minister suggested at the dispatch box yesterday. i will tell the house why. in the past few days, some of my hon. friends have said to me, "i am totally against 18 weeks. i accept all the arguments on disability. however, i would like the limit to be reduced to 24 weeks. cannot we amend the bill in committee?" my hon. friend the member for dorset, west (sir j. spicer) raised that point earlier.\n i will tell the house what will happen if hon. members who advocate a limit of 24 weeks vote for the bill today. it will get a substantial majority on second reading, which will mean—i do not object to this—that the hon. member for mossley hill will have a considerable say in the constitution of the standing committee. i suggest—i would do the same in his position—that he will pack the committee with anti-abortionists who would like to see abortion made illegal.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.33', 6, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.34', 152, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'just one moment. of course, i shall give way to the hon. gentleman, because i should like to hear from him on this point.\n an amendment tabled in committee suggesting 24 weeks will be resisted by the anti-abortionists, with the result that it cannot be referred back to the house on report. my hon. friends will then be left in the difficult position of having to vote against the bill on third reading, as my hon. friend the member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight) says. to leave it until third reading is to leave it very late, and some of our constituents would be very confused if we voted for the bill on second reading and against is on third reading. that would be most unfortunate.\n finally —[hon. members: "give way."] i was prepared to give way, but the hon. member for mossley hill not longer seems to wish to intervene.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.35', 99, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that the hon. gentleman has already dealt with the point. i had intended to say that hon. members will have opportunities at various stages of the bill in this house and in another place, whatever the committee decides. i have already made it clear that i have no intention of being intransigent if i can get a useful measure on to the statute book. surely the hon. gentleman would accept that, if i do not keep my word, he and other hon. members will have the chance to vote against the bill on report and third reading.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.36', 155, 'uk.m.10391', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am prepared to accept that the hon. gentleman will not be intransigent, but not that those whom he places on the committee will be at all reasonable. i have been in the house far too long to fall for that one.\n in fairness, the hon. member for mossley hill has made it clear that he resists the idea of medical exemptions. an amendment to allow such exemptions would appeal to many of my hon. friends. again, let me issue a warning. it would he very difficult to insert a suitable clause specifying the medical conditions that would lead to exemptions. the medical authorities tell us that there could be more than 2,000. that would be a nightmare, and it would be quite unacceptable. therefore, i share the view of the hon. member for mossley hill on that point, although for very different reasons.\n finally, i urge hon. members to reject this most unfortunate bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.37', 652, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as i was the promoter of the abortion act that went through the house in 1967 and as this bill seeks to amend that act, it is only right that i should speak on it, albeit briefly.\n i appreciate the manner in which my hon. friend the member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) introduced his bill. he is not only my hon. friend but a friend of mine, which is not always exactly the same thing in this place. having said that, i cannot support the bill, and i wish to tell the house why.\n in the past few weeks, we have all been bombarded with postcards carrying enlarged photographs — me more than most, perhaps. one that i received from a constituent said: mr. steel, how do you think the human race managed to keep a balance for nearly 20 centuries without abortion? it is one of the great myths peddled by the supporters of this bill that abortion came into being with the 1967 act. the truth is that it did not. the house was motivated to change the law in 1967—mine was the seventh attempt in 15 years to use private members\' legislation to secure reform —by the appalling record of illegal abortions in britain. no one knows the precise figures for illegal abortions, but the medical authorities vary in their estimates from 40,000 to 200,000 a year. they fell into two categories. some people could get safe and comfortable abortions—the law for the rich — because if one had money and the intelligence to find one\'s way through all the medical specialists, one could get a quasi-legal abortion in a hospital. however, people who were not rich and intelligent went through the various back-street methods.\n in the 1960s the house was faced with the knowledge that between 30 and 50 women died each year as a result of criminal abortion. that was only the tip of the iceberg. many more were maimed or injured for life as a result of operations carried out in the back streets. the idea that abortion started with the 1967 act is one of the myths that we must explode.\n the other myth is that britain has become the abortion capital of the world and that we have a high abortion rate. i am not in favour of a high abortion rate, but the house should be aware of the facts. according to the figures for 1984—the latest that i have—our abortion rate is 12·2 per thousand women of child-bearing age. that compares with 15·2 per thousand in france, 18·4 per thousand in denmark, 19·1 per thousand in italy and 27·4 per thousand in the united states. that is not taking info account those countries that unfortunately use abortion as a method of population control. in romania, the rate is 90·9 per thousand and in the soviet union it is 181 per thousand. we need to keep a sense of perspective and recognise that, deplorable though the increase in abortions may be, our rate is by no means the highest in the world, as the opponents claim.\n i have never come across anyone who is pro-abortion. most of us who support the present legislation have always operated on the basis that abortion is the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. i hope that the church of england will reprint its detailed and objective report, "abortion— an athical discussion" published in 1965, which traces the ethics of abortion over the centuries. it said: this discussion will proceed … on the supposition that there may be cases in which, granted this general right of the foetus to live and develop, this right may be offset by other conflicting rights; and that the proper function of the criminal law is, in a restricted area, to regulate the adjustment of those rights when they cannot be, or are unlikely to be, adjusted by other means. \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.38', 7, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my right hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.39', 16, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in a moment. it was on that ethical foundation that the abortion act 1967 was framed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.40', 37, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'as my right hon. friend chooses to quote the attitude expressed by the church of england in 1965, will he tell us what is the attitude of the synod of the church of england to the bill?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.41', 482, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was about to come to that point, because at that time most of the churches supported the reform of the law. since then, various churches have monitored the operation of the act and have expressed their views, which are all different. my church, the church of scotland, made it clear in a letter sent this week to all scottish members that it is a matter for individual christian consciences. the letter says: you will no doubt be aware from debates at the general assembly that there is division of opinion within the church of scotland on the issue of abortion as clearly there is throughout the country. in all of this, the church should urge that those engaged in political decisions should recognise that freedom should be given to all to act according to their conscience. i think that that approach has been broadly adopted by the church of england. different committees in the churches—and hon. members can speak for their own church—have produced different recommendations to the house.\n it is our task to lay down the boundary of the criminal law. it is not our task to say in what precise circumstances any individual should or should not have an abortion. the house decided in 1967, despite the fact that some hon. members argued then, as some hon. members will argue today, that we should legislate for abortion at the request of the woman, that that was not to be the basis of the 1967 act; nor is it. we did not legislate for abortion on demand.\n my hon. friend the member for mossley hill complains that people are running profit-making clinics and using those clinics for making money mainly from patients imported from overseas. that was not intended in the spirit of the 1967 legislation. the answer to that complaint lies in the capacity of the ministers in charge of the health departments to make regulations under the act and to say to such clinics that their licence will be withdrawn. there is no need to change the law in order to achieve the objective.\n i now turn to the question of late abortions. i have read again the speeches made in 1967. i said at the time that if we were to have abortion at all, it was desirable that it should be done as early as possible. i very much regret that we still have a high rate of late abortions. they happen for two reasons. one is that administrative snarl-ups in the national health service very often delay the abortion operation. that is a matter to be argued on another day. the other reason is that, sadly, many women present very late for consideration of termination of pregnancy. that is especially so in the case of those who fear or have been tested for foetal abnormality — covered by a specific clause in the 1967 act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.42', 69, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is broadly agreed that a late abortion is a post-24 week abortion. the numbers of such abortions have come down massively, and last year there were only 29. two thirds of those were because of severe foetal abnormality and the others concerned young girls and menopausal women. the adjustment is taking place and late abortion is being reduced, but i agree that we should do more about that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.43', 361, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. lady is talking about late abortion in a very precise sense after 24 weeks. i am talking about late abortions generally. in passing the 1967 act i think that the whole house intended, and still wishes, that abortion should take place as early as possible.\n the case of the handicapped is extremely emotive. i hope that the house will recognise that charities such as mencap, which spends its whole existence caring for the handicapped, is among those organisations that oppose the provisions of my hon. friend's bill and support the present legislation. it is not true to suggest that those who believe that this is a proper provision in the law do not care for the disabled in our midst, who deserve the full consideration that we all give them.\n we have had many letters from medical bodies urging us not to support the bill. more impressive than those is a short letter that i received from a constituent who said: having had a late termination (about 19–20 weeks) because it was discovered my baby had severe abnormalities i know what i am talking about. it was a disturbing event for me but not as bad as giving birth after 9 months to a baby the doctors said would not have lived anyway. parents must have the choice to make their own decision in cases like this. i know i personally could not have coped with a full term baby being born like this. i have had a healthy daughter since this tragic event but i am sure i would never have had the courage to become pregnant again if i knew that i would have to go 9 months and not be offered a late termination had the baby had the same abnormalities. that letter is the answer to those who say that it is uncaring or unheeding to consider the termination of pregnancy in such circumstances. nobody is forced to require this if that person does not believe that it is right. it is simply that the criminal law allows it to happen if the doctors, the mother, the father, think that these are the right circumstances.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.44', 24, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman tell us his view on the 92 per cent. of late abortions that are carried out on healthy children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.45', 905, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am coming to the question of the time limits, if that is what the hon. gentleman is asking about. my hon. friend the member for mossley hill asserted, and i have seen it in much of the literature put out in support of his bill, that other european countries have a much more restricted cut-off point in their legislation than we have. my hon. friend is misinformed in this matter, because that is not so. the laws of most of our european neighbours are different from ours because they establish in their legislation two degrees of abortion. they allow abortion on request of the mother up to a certain limited stage.\n i have a list which illustrates that. sweden allows abortion on request of the mother up to 18 weeks, but after that it is for serious medical or social reasons. in denmark, abortion is on request up to 12 weeks, but after that it can be for social or medical reasons. in norway it is on request up to 12 weeks and after that it is on the doctor's decision. france allows abortion on request up to 12 weeks but allows it up to 24 weeks on medical grounds. in italy it is allowed for various reasons that are established during the first three months, and after that it is allowed for the woman's health or for foetal abnormality.\n therefore, one sees that other countries have approached their law in a different way and the cut-off points mentioned by the promoters of the bill are not cutoff points at all. they are the dividing line between abortion on demand and other categories of abortion that come later. because we have not approached abortion in that way, we do not have a cut-off point and it is unfair to make comparisons with the cut-off points in other legislation.\n the committee of inquiry, under mrs. justice lane, into the working of abortion recommended that there should be a restriction of abortion to 24 weeks. that has been endorsed by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists. in 1967 we did not establish a 28-week limit but simply took the existing law, the infant life (preservation) act 1929 as the basis for the cut-off limit. there is no cut-off limit in the 1967 act and the law of england and wales is established as in 1929. it is similar in scotland. i think that it is fairly common ground that medical science has moved on, and that it is possible for foetuses born as early as 24 weeks to survive. that is why i support, as do the prime minister and the leader of the opposition — although that may not be an argument that commends it to the house—the 24-week limit.\n my hon. friend's bill seeks to do something very different from that. it does not seek to establish an 18-week limit. that is because, every time a legal limit is set down, the actual medical practice allows two weeks for safety. in medical practice, the present 28-week limit is a 26-week limit. if the house establishes a statutory 24-week limit, in medical practice it would be a 22-week limit. the bill does not seek to establish an 18-week limit because it talks about the beginning of the 18th week. that is a 17-week limit and in medical practice will mean a limit of 15 weeks.\n i do not have the slightest doubt that, if the bill were to pass into legislation, it would make a major difference to the operation of the abortion law and would deprive thousands of women of the opportunity to go to their medical practitioner and consider the case for termination of pregnancy. as i have said, i do not think that it is for us to tell women in particular circumstances, or their doctors, that they should or should not have an abortion. the bill would cause deprivation and for that reason it should be opposed.\n i agree with the point, perhaps not made very judiciously, by the hon. member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay) that the promoter of the bill is entitled to choose the members of his committee. there is no doubt that the bill would not be substantially altered in committee. but it will have to come back to us and we could alter it on report. i have a bigger objection than that to voting for the bill. the second reading should be a vote on the principle of the bill. the principle of the bill is not about tinkering with the upper medical limit as recommended by mrs. justice lane or the royal college. it is a fundamental change to the abortion act 1967, and that is why i oppose it.\n finally, we are meeting at a time when, whether we are for or against the bill, we are all concerned that, if at all possible, there should be a lower level of abortions. it is tragic that this year the family planning services, funded by the national health service, are facing cuts. i am told that this very day the central birmingham district health authority is negotiating with the brook advisory centre for further cuts for the next three years, which will result in a 40 per cent. reduction in that centre's activities in the city of birmingham. if we want, as i do, fewer unwanted abortions, let us have few unwanted pregnancies.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.46', 633, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "whatever view any of us take about this great issue, we are all profoundly grateful to the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) for opening the debate with a speech that was a model of lucidity and compassion.\n it is a sad commentary on the way in which we conduct our affairs in this place that on every occasion since 1975 when a similar bill has secured a second reading and has done so on the basis of principle, all have foundered because of procedural devices at one stage or another and because of lack of time. that is sad, because we know that there was and is now a substantial majority in the country in favour of abortion reform.\n for over 20 years, i have been concerned at the way in which a civilised country such as ours has permitted, and indeed encouraged, the deliberate destruction every year of 150,000 unborn babies, most of whom, if born, would have been perfectly normal, healthy children. that was the point on which my hon. friend the member for pembroke (mr. bennett) sought to gain a response from the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), but the right hon. gentleman misunderstood it. that point remains unanswered, but perhaps i shall be able to develop it a little later.\n abortion presents a dreadful dilemma for all of us, whatever view we take of the bill. in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where there are indications of grave and permanent damage to the child if born, the majority accept that termination is justified. however, such tragic circumstances account for only a minute proportion of the total number of abortions carried out under the 1967 act. of the 2·6 million unborn babies destroyed up to the end of 1986, only 123 had to be sacrificed to save the mother's life. the overwhelming majority were authorised on social grounds—and many of us know precisely what that means: abortion on demand.\n the bill will not change that situation greatly. the hon. member for mossley hill is not proposing something that will tear up the 1967 act or change the position in any material way. however, i readily concede that it will change the climate and affect our attitudes to abortion generally in important ways.\n it follows then that the overwhelming proportion of late abortions are performed on babies which if born, would have been normal healthy children. there is only one word for that in my book, and that is murder.\n i agree that there is no magic about 18 weeks. the early stages of human life are part of a continuum as, indeed, are our own lives after birth. well before 18 weeks, the foetus is recognisably human. the hon. member for mossley hill touched on that, and it should be basic to our understanding of what the bill is about.\n an article in the british medical journal of 26 january 1980 put the facts very clearly. i read the article at the time and have kept it. it states: nine weeks after conception, the baby is well enough formed to bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand, in response to a touch on the sole of his foot he will curl his toes or bend his hips and knees to move away from the touching object. at 12 weeks he can close his fingers and thumb and he will open his mouth in response to pressure applied at the base of the thumb. at first when his hands touch his mouth the foetus turns his head away though his mouth opens. later the foetus may turn his head towards his hands and even put a finger into his open mouth and stick it. \n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.47', 7, 'uk.m.10519', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the right hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.48', 382, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way. i mean no discourtesy to the hon. lady, but a great many hon. members wish to speak and i shall obey the injunction of the chair. i would rather not give way because there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. members to speak, but only if we restrain ourselves on interventions.\n the facts are that at 12 to 14 weeks the auditory system of the foetus is complete. at 18 weeks it can certainly recognise its mother\'s voice and reacts to light as well as to sound. it has learnt to put its hands before its eyes to shield them from moving light or over its ears to protect them against loud noise.\n yet, although the miracle of human life has developed to that point at 18 weeks, the human foetus has no rights at that stage. our abortion law, unlike those of other civilised countries, permits thousands of perfectly normal healthy children of that gestation to be destroyed, not that i consider gestational age to be of great importance when considering the moral implications of abortion, or even of viability.\n there is precious little sense on this subject where our existing law is concerned. as has been said, procuring an abortion at 28 weeks has been recognised since 1929 as the crime of "child destruction". however, we now know that at 23 or 24 weeks babies born prematurely are capable of surviving, and do so survive. the only difference between babies born at 24 weeks, or for that matter after 28 weeks, and those born at 18 weeks, is that the latter are smaller. almost everything else is the same.\n therefore, the question that the bill\'s opponents must face is surely, "why should it not also be a crime to destroy an unborn baby at the gestational age of 18 weeks?" that question must be answered, because late abortions, the outlawing of which is the purpose of the bill, clearly involve the destruction of sentient human beings, who not only react to outside stimuli and can feel pain, but who have none of the protection that they would have only a few weeks later. where is the logic and the morality of that? the question must be answered by those who oppose the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.49', 2, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.50', 2, 'uk.m.10449', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.51', 25, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a lottery — [interruption.] no, as i said a little earlier, i must set an example. i am not going to give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.52', 2, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.53', 572, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i would love to debate this endlessly because i feel deeply about it, but if i give way i shall be setting a bad example and will deprive those hon. members who in some cases have a great deal of experience of the opportunity to express their view.\n it is a lottery as to whether or not, because of the late stage of its development, the baby of 18 weeks or more will be aborted in the most cruel way with its limbs torn from its body and its head crushed, as many doctors and nurses have testified. that revolting procedure — the house must face up to what late abortion really means — is described in detail by dr. margaret white, a general practitioner, magistrate and very distinguished member of the general medical council, in her book entitled "two million silent killings". she explains that with late abortions, the baby is already of a size and its bones have hardened to such an extent that: with the pliers the baby is torn limb from limb and pulled out in pieces. the skull is crushed, as it is much too large and too firm to be pulled out intact. it is the unpleasant duty of the nurse to assemble the broken parts of the body, to be sure that no pieces are left behind in the womb. at that stage, too, the mother is not unaffected. some of the most poignant letters i have received over the years have been from women pressurised into abortions. long afterwards, they suffer both physical and emotional damage. only last week i received a letter from one of my constituents, whom i do not know. she had previously had an abortion and then had another, this time at 19 weeks. she wrote: i did not do it lightly—nevertheless, i made the choice —the wrong one. it was so easy to get an abortion. if i had known the true facts of what happens to the baby being aborted, i would definitely never have had it done. also if the abortion bill limited it to 18 weeks then my child would be alive today. it has left a scar forever. may i now deal with what is probably the most emotive argument about the bill and one that is often misrepresented. the hon. member for mossley hill has made it clear that the bill will not affect termination of pregnancies where severe disability incompatible with sustaining life has been diagnosed, and i am glad that he has done that. indeed, the bill will protect those babies whose disability is compatible with life and is treatable. we have to be careful to distinguish between the two.\n some of the most gifted, delightful and lovable people in our society were born handicapped and might have been deprived of the right to live if their abnormality had been detected before birth as it can be nowadays. in our hearts all of us know that to be true. who among us would not have been moved by the story in the times on 20 january about the award of the whitbread book of the year prize to a young spastic boy who can neither speak nor hear well? he cannot move himself, and types with a stick attached to his forehead. he used his acceptance speech, given for him by his mother, to speak up for the handicapped and against abortion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.54', 2, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.55', 20, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this young man is the winner of one of the most prestigious literary prizes our country can offer. he said—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.56', 2, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.57', 21, 'uk.m.10054', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) has said that he is not prepared to give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.58', 611, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "he said: tonight is the happiest night of my life. imagine what i would have missed if the doctors had not revived me on that september day long ago. can freedom now be denied to a handicapped man? can yessing be so difficult that rather than give a baby a chance at life, man treads upon his brother and silences him before he can draw one breath of this world's fresh air? those of us who support the bill must be sensitive—i believe that i am sensitive—to the views of those who want to be sure that it will not bar the way to termination in those cases where it can be established that the handicap is likely to be so severe that the child, if born, would be incapable of sustaining life in any meaningful sense. here, medical technology—some of us have been watching it closely in recent years—comes to our aid. it has certainly not stood still since the abortion act became law 21 years ago.\n many of the disabilities that opponents of the bill regularly cite as requiring the test of amniocentesis can now be detected much earlier, indeed as early as the eighth of 10th week of pregnancy, by a variety of methods. we may have to find—i am ready to join in the search—a formula that will safeguard the position of a woman for whom tests have begun before the 18th week but which for some reason are not complete before that time. that is a matter to which we must address ourselves in committee. that is the message i have received from many of my right hon. and hon. friends.\n i know that we are being told by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the british medical association and other learned bodies that they are opposed to the bill. however, before we fall over ourselves in considering the weight of their opinion, it is important for the house to realise that it is not shared by the majority of gynaecologists. a recent survey of about 700 gynaecologists, accounting for 40 per cent. of all those involved in that specialty in britain, revealed that one third supported the recommendation of the royal college and the bma that the upper limit for abortion should be 24 weeks, but a substantial majority, nearly two in three—64 per cent. — would like to see the upper limit for abortion reduced from 28 weeks to 20 weeks or less with exceptions made when the mother's life is in danger or for severe foetal abnormality.\n there is much more i should like to say, but there are many others who wish to speak. let me emphasise once again that the bill does not undermine the essential principles of the 1967 act. as one who has a vivid memory of the debates in 1966 and 1967, i must echo what was said by the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale that it was never his intention, nor was it the intention of parliament at the time, to legislate for what we have today, which is virtually abortion on demand.\n it is right to consider what should be done about babies likely to be born with severe handicaps, but in our compassion for all who are likely to suffer from some handicap, we should not allow ourselves to forget that the overwhelming majority of babies being aborted at present at 18 weeks or later would, if born and not destroyed because they are momentarily inconvenient, be perfectly normal, healthy children. those children, too, cry out for our compassion. for that reason alone, the bill deserves the support of the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.59', 1223, 'uk.m.10438', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not going to quote reams of statistics today. i am aware that the time is limited. moreover, i am a statistician as a result of part of my medical training and i know that statistics can be manipulated by people who are not experts to say whatever they like, and can be manipulated even more readily by those who are experts. therefore, it is specious to quote reams of data at each other today.\n i should like to go back to the start of my medical career, when i was a student in 1968. that is when i first experienced the workings of the abortion act 1967. the first girl i saw was 15 years old. she did not really know what it was all about and she did not understand what happened. she just knew that she wanted to go back to a normal life and that she did not want to bear a child, and she did not. the other woman was in her early 40s with a large number of children. she could not face the reality of bearing another child and she, too, was relieved of that burden. that is what the 1967 act gave women in this country. it gave them an element of choice.\n having started clinical work in 1968, i have no direct experience of illegal abortions. illegal abortions in this country effectively ended with the passing of the 1967 act. i have heard plenty of reports from older doctors and nurses about what went on before, and i do not want to see a return to that.\n i believe that the bill concerns certain basic principles. first, is abortion a moral or an ethical thing to do? if so, who should decide whether an abortion should be carried out? thirdly, what constraints should society place on that decision — i believe that the sponsor of the bill would like us to believe that that is the major concern of his bill.\n i believe that abortion is both moral—that is, right for the individual woman to decide upon—and ethical: it is a correct procedure for a doctor to perform at a woman\'s request. at present, the decision to carry out an abortion is given to the medical profession alone to make, at the request of the woman. i believe that a change in that practice is long overdue. the constraints relate to the reason for the abortion and the age of the foetus at the time the abortion is carried out. surely those two issues are the nub of the argument today.\n we all agree that there should be an upper limit beyond which an abortion, the destruction of a foetus, cannot and should not take place. at present, the law places that limit at 28 weeks and medical practice effectively places it at 26 weeks. the bill would reduce that limit to 18 weeks, or, as has been clearly illustrated, effectively closer to 16 weeks. i believe that that would be wrong, and my belief is supported by the vast majority of my profession, and, i believe, by society.\n i could quote reams of examples about this matter—conversations i have had with women, women i have treated or whom i have referred for an abortion during my medical career. i could quote letters that i have received from my colleagues in branches of our profession —including gynaecologists—pointing out the damage that will be done not only to women who are at risk to bearing a handicapped foetus — i accept that they are the minority—but to many young women if the bill is passed. by young, i do not mean girls under 16. for many girls under the age of 21 — single, possibly of low intelligence and in desperate social circumstances—the possibility of having a child is a serious prospect —handicapped or not. for many women who have already borne children, a further burden may be more than they are prepared to bear and more than society should expect them to bear.\n women have complex reasons for delaying the decision that they take to seek an abortion. i believe that the law should reflect that and should give them the chance to come forward at a later stage, post 18 weeks. i do not see any case for depriving them of their right to undergo an abortion if they so choose. i believe that their rights supersede those of the foetus at the developmental stage that we are discussing.\n i do not believe that we should be in the business of bringing more and more unwanted children into our society. i believe that, ultimately, a woman must have the last say on whether she wants to bear a handicapped child. it is a specious argument to look at handicapped children who exist now and say that it would be wrong to kill them. of course it would be wrong, but it is right and proper for the woman and her husband to be able to make the choice: "i will not bear a handicapped child." we are in danger of taking away that right. we are not taking away the right of an already born handicapped child to live. those children are entitled to all the compassion, understanding and help that society can give. so often, society does not offer that help because we are not prepared to put the money into that care.\n i believe that it is high time that we looked at the workings of the 1967 act. for what it is worth, my view is that women should have open access to abortion and, if we must use the pejorative term, to "abortion on demand". i call it "abortion on request" and it should be carried out up to an agreed stage of about 12 weeks. i believe that, on the present grounds, women should be entitled to have an abortion up to roughly 24 weeks.\n the system also needs overhauling. it is a system that lets girls down and does not give them the armament they need to make the decisions that would stop a pregnancy in the first place. we need to look at the availability of facilities for abortion, to ensure that women do not have to experience the delays that we know occur in many areas. above all, we need to look at our attitude towards women and women\'s rights.\n it is time for a formal review of the system, not some ad hoc measure brought before the house in the form of a private member\'s bill. we need something along the lines of the warnock commission report on which we will have an opportunity to vote later in the session. that is the correct, reasonable and civilised way in which to bring about a change in the law on abortion, and i believe that that is long overdue.\n the bill is not the way to make a reasoned change in the 1967 act. frankly, i do not trust the bill or its supporters to accept any amendment. they are not in the business of providing compromises, they are in the business of stopping abortion at 18 weeks. i do not trust them and i hope that others who have listened to this debate will likewise vote against the bill to defeat it today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.60', 197, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for kirkcaldy (dr. moonie) made it clear that he completely agrees with abortion on demand at every stage and the the foetus has no rights — [hon. members: "abortion on request."] — well, if the house prefers, "abortion on request". i see no difference between the two. the hon. gentleman is entitled to his opinion and i am entitled to mine. the hon. gentleman is not entitled to assume that anything in particular will happen in committee. he cannot predict that now. there will be people on the committee who are anxious about the principle of late abortion. however, the sponsor of the bill has said that he is not intransigent and that he will listen to all the arguments. obviously the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) wants his bill to get through, even if there are amendments at a later stage.\n if the hon. member for kirkcaldy is so deep in the abortion business, he must know, when he tells the house that he does not want a return to illegal abortions, that such abortions do not happen after 18 weeks because it is too dangerous to carry them out.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.61', 6, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.62', 29, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i will not give way, because there are so many people who wish to speak.\n almost all the flak against the bill has been to do with handicapped children.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.63', 8, 'uk.m.10510', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady should start telling the truth.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.64', 13, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i strongly resent being told that i am not speaking the truth. [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.65', 35, 'uk.m.10510', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, madam deputy speaker. i said the hon. lady was not speaking the truth because she deliberately distorted what was said by my hon. friend the member for kirkcaldy (dr. moonie).\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.66', 31, 'uk.m.10054', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'chairman', 'chair', 'in this house we are all responsible for what we say. the hon. lady is interpreting the speech of the hon. member for kirkcaldy as she believes that she heard it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.67', 193, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'almost all the flak against the bill has been to do with handicapped children. no one who has not had to cope with a physically handicapped son or daughter can possibly understand the burden that that imposes. i have no doubt that that care often takes a terrible toll on a family. however, the overwhelming number of babies aborted after 18 weeks, about which we are concerned today, are not handicapped. they are perfectly normal children whose only crime is that their mothers do not want them.\n today we are in danger of concentrating on the 7·8 per cent. of handicapped children aborted after 18 weeks and ignoring the 92·2 per cent. of perfectly normal children who are so aborted. the postcards that many supporters of the bill have sent out have already been mentioned and have been described as an emotional argument. my goodness, there are emotional arguments on both sides, because all the opposition to the bill has been centred on and advanced about handicapped children. that has been the major feature of the opposition to the bill.\n it should be understood that mainly we are talking about perfectly normal children.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.68', 6, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.69', 243, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'for the benefit of opposition members, i should make it clear that i intend to be brief, to allow them to make their speeches.\n should we continue to sacrifice the 92 per cent. of normal children for that 7·8 per cent? the bill allows for abortion if the child is likely to be seriously abnormal. so perhaps the figure of 7·8 per cent. should be reduced to 5 per cent., and that is a conservative estimate.\n what about that 5 per cent.? should any handicap—a club foot, deafness, blindness or any other handicap—mean that the child should be aborted? is it a sufficient reason to get rid of a child?\n new techniques are being introduced all the time that allow a pregnant woman to know at an early stage—it is becoming earlier all the time — whether the child is handicapped. a cvs test is carried out at eight to 10 weeks; ultrasound scanning is coming on stream and, for quite some time, has been giving extremely important information about the unborn child; and there is amniocentesis. we shall shortly be able to know whether there is a blemished child in the womb before the time limit give in the bill. if not, and if there is proof that a woman may not know until it is too late, i am sure that that vital point will be considered most carefully in committee.\n we must ask whether we think that a handicapped child—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.70', 65, 'uk.m.10260', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "will the hon. lady accept that the opponents of the bill do not think that foetuses with severe abnormalities should not be allowed to continue to term? we believe that if severe abnormalities are discovered it should be the mother's right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, and that she should not be forced, on pain of the criminal law, to continue the pregnancy.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.71', 767, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady should read the bill, because that point is covered by it. it has been carefully considered and incorporated by the hon. member for mossley hill.\n if we send out from the house the message that handicapped people have no right to live, that is a very serious matter, and that is what people will think. i have talked to handicapped people outside the house — [interruption.] clearly, that is the implication. if the house sticks to the idea that a handicapped person can be destroyed, many handicapped people will have cause to be concerned.\n if we think that it is right for the house to send out that terrible message, perhaps we should support the bill. if we believe that because god, fate or anything else has denied a child so much, and that we in the house should not deny it the right to live, we should support the bill.\n all help, support and counselling and practical assistance should be given to parents coping with a handicapped child. i do not believe that sufficient help is given at the moment. some doctors have been less than helpful to the parents of handicapped children; one could give many examples of that. we should do our best to help and support women and their husbands with that burden. it is true that blemished children often give great happiness to their parents; they often achieve a very special success; my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir b. braine) gave such an example.\n with regard to the 92 per cent. of perfectly normal children whom the bill seeks to protect, no one dreamed, when the abortion act 1967 was debated in the house, of the huge numbers of children who would be destroyed under its provisions. the figures that the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) gave were extremely suspect, because many of the countries that he purported to give figures from have no way of collecting such statistics.\n during the debate in 1966, it was never said that there were as many as 200,000 illegally aborted children in britain. we considered that point very carefully at that time, but it was virtually impossible to discover how many illegal abortions there were. we could say only that a certain proportion of illegal abortions finished in hospital with remedial treatment. on that basis, the figure was about 10,000 or 20,000. currently, there are about 170,000 abortions a year. that figure shames me, and it should shame those who introduced that legislation. children can be saved today who could not have been saved at that time. the caravan has moved on. the law should be reconsidered and changed. the public are undoubtedly concerned about abortions.\n those who support the bill are not all zealots. we are not all —perish the thought—roman catholics. we are concerned, and we care deeply. we believe that contraception, not abortion, is the answer. we care about the children who are presently dying; we care about the women who often suffer after abortion; we care about the implications of a society that thinks that handicapped people should be destroyed — [interruption.] i am worried about the opinion that a handicapped person has a right to live only as long as its mother wants it. the hon. member for peckham (ms. harman) cannot deny that that is what she is putting forward. a handicapped child has the right to live and that right should not be dependent solely upon whether its mother wants it. [an hon. member: "what about mencap?"] figures can be bandied about, but the arguments given by all the organisations are balanced for and against.\n the argument often used against the bill is that a woman has the right to choose. we have never been so well informed about contraception as we are today, so woman has the right to choose not to become pregnant. once she has become pregnant she does not have an automatic right to destroy the child in her womb, the child has rights too. the child has rights in law. there have been cases in which people have sued on behalf of the unborn child and won.\n choice should not be given only to one person. there is no one to speak for the child but us. we have a heavy responsibility in that regard. because the child\'s voice cannot be heard by all of us, some of us must speak for him or her. that is what i am doing today and that is why i shall support the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.72', 577, 'uk.m.10553', 'uk.p.UUP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have some sympathy with some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight), yet as a woman she may have put another import on the bill. i welcome the opportunity of speaking and especially of replying to the hon. member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay) who first spoke against the motion. he spoke about not trusting those on the committee if the bill were passed today, and he made tremendous play on the question of choice. representing people in the province who have voted in different ways for choice, and he represents the northern ireland office which does not listen to the choice of the voters, he had fair gall in making that point.\n some of us are aware that some people would like to see the 1967 act extended to northern ireland, and in committee it would not be beyond the capabilities of hon. members to seek to insert a clause to that effect. therefore, i take this opportunity to repeat that, by and large, the bulk of people in northern ireland, irrespective of their religious outlook or political convictions, have no desire to see the 1967 act extended to northern ireland.\n today we are debating the alton bill. the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), the leader of the liberal party—i had to pause to make sure that i did not make a mistake, because things change so quickly—pointed out that we were debating the principle of the bill. he imported into the debate a motive which is not on the face of the bill, thus departing from the principle of the bill. for that reason he was basically arguing against himself. i understood that he agreed with a reduction in the upper age limit for abortions. that is the principle of the bill, and i support it.\n i welcomed several of the quiet arguments against the bill which have put on the record issues which must be faced. however, we are debating in a moral climate which must be understood. we have moved into a moral climate where it is tempting to call evil good. a decade ago, for example, teenagers used a lovely word when they were enjoying themselves. they said, "that\'s fab." now, unfortunately, the manipulators of opinion are trying to change a word of approval into an acronym for fight alton\'s bill.\n many people who may have an open mind on abortion are nevertheless convinced that we should have better counselling which gives people a choice. i represent a constituency where, thanks to the fine work of the life movement, carers have provided a hostel where young women are given a choice and the back-up to make that choice calmly, rather than being drawn into the mentality of what i call this disposable generation.\n when we speak of choice we must also remember the choice for life of those who have the potential for life. it is ludicrous to spend millions of pounds, correctly in my judgment, on helping doctors in perinatal cases to give youngsters a chance of life and at the same time to create a climate of opinion which has allowed nearly 3 million human beings with potential to be denied such a choice.\n for those reasons, i support the principle of the bill and i leave it to the committee to work out the points of contention on which people believe that there should be movement.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.73', 274, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should have liked to start by congratulating the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) on his good fortune in being chosen third in the ballot, but i am sorry that he has proposed this bill, which is so strongly opposed by hon. members and many people outside the house who are so vulnerable in society. the hon. gentleman is widely respected for the sincerity of his views and he is on record as saying that he is opposed to all abortions and to discrimination against the disabled. but his bill does not meet either of those objectives.\n the bill will fail, because the hon. gentleman has failed to strike a balance. this is a difficult issue, on which we must balance our feelings of compassion against our judgment. he has failed by taking the figure of 18 weeks. as has been pointed out, this is not an 18-week, but a 17-week bill, which in practice and in medical terms will mean 15 weeks. there does not seem to be any reason for choosing 18 weeks. perhaps the hon. gentleman had a coloured photograph which made him decide on 18 weeks. medical opinion is that the foetus is fully formed at 10 weeks, so the argument about the formation of the foetus would apply equally well at 10 weeks.\n the hon. gentleman said that in his judgment 18 weeks was about right, but he fails to understand that modern medical diagnosis has its greatest capability at that stage. ultrasound scanning equipment—the united kingdom is a leading country in the use of this equipment—is at its most effective at 18 to 20 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.74', 89, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman is well aware that the new developments of chorionic villus sampling, combined with ultrasound scanning and amniocentesis, mean that, increasingly, the thresholds are being pushed back. although i have already conceded that there is an argument on the crucial question of whether or not a person has the right to decide to terminate where there is a detected disability, will the hon. gentleman also say a word about the 92 per cent. of late abortions that occur after 18 weeks and which involve perfectly healthy children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.75', 154, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. gentleman will know that there are many reasons for late abortions. the bill does not deal with the 95 per cent. of abortions that occur before 18 weeks, so it fails to meet the hon. gentleman's principal objective, which arises from the fact that he is wholly against abortion. [interruption.] \n there are many reasons for the 5 per cent. of abortions that occur after 18 weeks, but a principal reason is disability. professor stuart campbell of king's college hospital has said that his practice would be destroyed by the application of a bill such as this. the hon. gentleman says that he does not want to discriminate against disability, yet the bill discriminates against many disabled people because they are in danger of giving birth to children who will carry a genetic disorder and babies whom they do not want to bring into this world, and they will be denied that choice.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.76', 93, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend cannot have it both ways. the people bringing in the bill do so because they want to tackle a particular social abuse of late abortions, and we have clearly kept to that. then we are accused of not spreading the bill wider, when we are trying to obtain maximum support in the house for the issue. it is not true that disability is the main reason. ninety-two per cent. of all abortions are on healthy children on social grounds, which is the issue that my hon. friend has not addressed.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.77', 536, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the hon. member for mossley hill said that he thought 18 weeks was about right. yet that is highly discriminatory against disability. he said that he is against discrimination on the grounds of disability. he said in his briefing note that homes can be found for handicapped children. it is a monstrous lie to suggest that families are queuing up to take handicapped children. hundreds of severely handicapped children are in residential homes up and down the country, and families cannot be found for them. the hon. gentleman must be aware that the catholic st. margaret's adoption society has compromised its own beliefs in this area and come out with an extraordinary reported statement: because of the extreme difficulty in placing severely handicapped children with families, we are taking the unusual stance of allowing divorcees to adopt only severely handicapped children that no one else wants if they promise never to marry again. if that is not discrimination, i do not know what is.\n the bill is opposed by many organisations, including mencap and asbah. we were told about a gallup poll of gynaecologists, but it was a dishonest poll. it did not refer to spina bifida, which is one of the most serious disabilities that can be detected principally by ultrasound scanning after 18 weeks. the bill lacks compassion. why should mothers be forced to carry a child with spina bifida, when 70 per cent. of such children die in agony before five, and have to be sedated because of their pain? must mothers be forced to go on with such pregnancies? mothers who opt for termination in such cases do so out of love and for the sake of having a future healthy pregnancy. they would never risk another pregnancy again unless they had this choice.\n why does the hon. gentleman want to make such a private decision into a public criminal act? he seems ignorant of the fact that modern medical practice has made it possible not only to ensure survival for some of the children who can be born at 24 weeks, but to pick up many more of these disorders, of which there are more than 2,000 or 3,000 of a structural kind, and 3,000 genetic and chromosomal. many families who have the misfortune to have a severely handicapped child find that they cannot cope. it is a mirage to suggest that there are queues of people who want to take such children.\n my wife and i chose to adopt a handicapped child who had been shunted from pillar to post for six years. it was only by chance that we saw him advertised in a newspaper. we chose, of our own free will, to take the child. other hon. members could choose to adopt a handicapped child, too. interestingly, the latest figures show that there were 648 abortions after 18 weeks on the grounds of foetal handicap—648 abnormal foetuses that would otherwise have been born if the hon. gentleman had had his way. that would allow one handicapped child for each hon. member, excluding madam deputy speaker and myself. if hon. members would not find it convenient to adopt a handicapped child, why are they imposing that on other people?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.78', 89, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can i explain to the hon. gentleman something that has not been made clear to the house? these matters will be dealt with in committee. if, by some freak of circumstance, they are not, despite what has been said by the hon. gentleman, mr. speaker can, at his discretion, allow on report an amendment to secure precisely the same objective in the same language as could be effected in committee. so, at the end of the day, the house will take a decision by majority vote on these matters.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.79', 57, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the single point in the bill to which i take the greatest exception. the hon. member for mossley hill, could have put that clause in his bill if he had believed it. he has said that he believes that 18 weeks is about right. i point out that the burden of having a handicapped child—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.80', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.81', 363, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have already given way several times.\n the private financial burden of caring for a severely handicapped child has been estimated by the courts as £500,000. if one takes into account the cost to the state of the statutory provision, the cost could well be another £500,000. the school fees for the school to which, as the hon. member for mossley hill well knows, my child goes, are £15,000 a year—twice those for a school such as eton. why should the house consider forcing people to accept such a burden if they do not want it.\n the hon. gentleman seems to regard suffering as a virtue. we have heard various speakers say that there is some great virtue in bringing up a handicapped child. no one should wish a child to be handicapped because, in some strange way, they can gain from that.\n we all want fewer abortions, but not at this price. the way to fewer abortions is through education and understanding, not through criminal sanctions on private decisions. the country in europe with the lowest rate of abortions is holland, where the laws are most liberal. that is the example the hon. gentleman should study if he wants fewer abortions. hon. members who are unsure how to vote, but in favour of the change to 24 weeks that has been recommended by various bodies, should reject this 17-week bill as far too extreme, in favour of a private member's bill that is now in the house of lords. it changes the existing law from 28 to 24 weeks. hon members should tell their constituents that they are rejecting this extreme 17-week bill in favour of lord houghton's bill in the house of lords, which is currently in committee. i remind my hon. friends that the conservative women's group came out against this bill.\n even a 24-week bill needs careful consideration. of the 29 abortions carried out after 24 weeks, two were in bolton. one was for a mother who had previously refused diagnosis and screening, and was found to be carrying a baby with one head and two bodies. the hon. member for mossley hill would force that to go through—\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.82', 2, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.83', 5, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.84', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.85', 42, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i trust that the hon. gentleman will withdraw that remark. my bill makes it absolutely clear that, if a child is incapable of sustaining life, as in the example he just gave, it will be excluded by the terms of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.86', 64, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman\'s bill uses the words, life … independently sustained". what does he say about the baby featured on the front page of a newspaper recently which was born with two heads and is living\'? it is showing it is capable of independent life. would he force a mother to go through with such a pregnancy because the baby is capable of life?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.87', 60, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in those circumstances, of course, it would not be the intention of my bill to force someone to carry a child. if the hon. gentleman is being sincere in his argument, he will ensure that it is put in committee. he will now say something, too, about the 92 per cent. of late abortions carried out on perfectly healthy children.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.88', 95, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i cannot accept that from the hon. gentleman. he had plenty of time, when thinking about the bill, to put into it the words that should be there. he has used wording that suggests that if the baby is capable of life the pregnancy should go on.\n this monstrous bill has been described by the royal colleges as inhumane. it hits at the most vulnerable people in society. if hon. members want to vote for change, they should reject the bill in favour of the 24-week bill that is on its way through the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.89', 1300, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i compliment my hon. friend the member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) on winning a prize in the annual raffle which allowed him to promote a private member\'s bill. i compliment him also on his courage in selecting this subject for a bill and sympathise with him in the considerable personal abuse, and physical abuse to his home, to which he has been subjected as a consequence of promoting the bill.\n those who oppose the bill talk about the right to choose. parliament has a right to choose, too. i hope that parliament will be given that right by allowing the bill to have a second reading and then discussing amendments that should be made to it during its passage through the house. there was a rumour that many petitions would be presented this morning, and i am glad that it did not happen.\n during the 16 years that i have been a member of the house, i have supported every attempt to amend the abortion act 1967, and it is interesting to note that all of them have been defeated on procedure, not on a straight vote. that is why i say that parliament has a right to choose. i hope that this time the opponents of the bill will allow it to be voted on at all its stages so that we may know the will of parliament.\n on "question time" last night, in which i appeared, and again this morning, we have heard people say that the bill is the thin edge of the wedge and that if it is accepted we will attempt to introduce another. perhaps that is because we have rumbled a few people and have decided that we are as entitled to use procedure as are those hon. members who have tried to block legislation on the matter. it will be for parliament to decide whether it wishes to pass another bill. that is democracy. that is what the law is about.\n on the argument about the right to choose, what about the rights of the unborn child? since it cannot exercise those rights for itself, is it not the job of the elected parliament to exercise them on its behalf? it is the job of parliament to protect the rights of the unborn child, and it is the right of parliament to legislate on the matter.\n i have heard all the arguments against the bill. some have already been exercised this morning and more will be exercised as the day proceeds. some are perfectly valid arguments, but some are absolute rubbish, including the suggestion that if the bill became law we would return to back-street abortions. before 1967, back-street abortions were usually carried out earlier in the pregnancy, not after 18 weeks. as nearly 50 per cent. of abortions that take place after 18 weeks are carried out on women who are shipped to britain by air and sea because they cannot obtain abortions in their own countries, britain has become the country of back-street abortions for the rest of europe. in 1986, of the 8,276 abortions after 18 weeks, 3,688 were carried out on women who came to britain from abroad.\n the opponents of the bill tell us that many late abortions are carried out on girls aged under 16 who were scared or did not recognise their pregnancy. that is absolute rubbish. the fact is that, in 1986, only 4·7 per cent. of abortions on residents from 18 weeks onwards were on girls aged under 16.\n one thing is certain: 88 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are carried out in private clinics for private profit. it is staggering to hear what labour members say about the bill. all these people who are supposed to be ardent socialists want to propagate a system that allows abortion for private profit—in private clinics not on the nhs—with millions of pounds changing hands. that is the system which these marvellous socialists, on the front bench as well as the back benches, want to propagate. what sort of socialists are they? they talk rubbish.\n we are told that 18 weeks was picked out of the air. by 18 weeks, a foetus is fully formed, with all major organs, except its lungs, functioning.\n what of the handicapped child? i confess that that is the most difficult area to defend, but first let me deal with a fact which the hon. member for bolton, north-east (mr. thurnham) refused to acknowledge. in 1986, of 8,276 abortions after 18 weeks, only 7·8 per cent. were performed because the child was likely to be born handicapped. despite all their pious speeches in defence of the handicapped, hon. members ignore the 92 per cent. who were denied life because they were aborted after 18 weeks. they refuse to face that fact.\n it must be wrong to discriminate against an individual at any stage of life simply because he or she does not meet the standards of physical or mental perfection set by others. we who support the bill are accused of a lack of compassion. is it compassionate to take the life of a handicapped child? i repeat that 92 per cent. of abortions after 18 weeks are carried out not because the child was likely to be born handicapped. of the remaining 7·8 per cent. of abortions some would continue to be allowed under the bill. most abnormalities can be detected in fewer than 18 weeks—indeed, in 10 weeks—with the results being made available after a maximum of two weeks. indeed, i put it to the minister that a death certificate should be issued after an abortion that is carried out after 18 weeks stating the precise cause of death.\n i support the bill because i believe in human life. as the right hon. member for castle point (sir b. braine) said, abortion after 18 weeks is murder in the womb.\n my right hon. friend the member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) said that he was not sure about the view of the church of england. he quoted the church of england when introducing his bill. yesterday, i and other hon. members received a letter saying that the general synod of the church of england —i hope that i have the correct figures—voted by 247 to two in favour of the bill. if it was right for my right hon. friend to quote the church of england in 1965, it is right for me to quote it in 1988. again, 66 per cent. of gynaecologists were in favour. some hon. members may shout, "it was phoney. how many were done?" we can all quote those who are in favour. opponents of the bill quote the bma. i do not want to embarrass my right hon. friend — that has never been part of my function — but, in 1970, he said: they"— that is, doctors— cannot dictate to parliament what should be the provisions of an abortion act."—[ official report, 13 february 1970; vol. 795, c. 1693.] of course, that was when they were agin him. now that they are for him—at least, he thinks that they are for him—he is in favour of quoting the bma and doctors. but the gynaecologists\' opinion poll — it was a representative sample — showed that well over 60 per cent. were in favour of today\'s bill.\n a child is entitled to have life. a child is entitled to be given the right to breathe, the right to love and the right to live. i am not a roman catholic, but i claim to be a christian. this is a matter of human and christian concern. that is why i hope that the bill will be given a second reading and why i commend it to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.90', 745, 'uk.m.21695', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith) seemed to imply that abortion was available on demand. if that is so, the existing law is being broken, and action can be taken. like other hon. members, i dislike abortion. i am naturally prejudiced against it. nevertheless, i shall vote against the bill.\n what matters is not so much what i think or whether i am for or against abortion, but in what medical and social circumstances should abortion be allowed. if the law does not appear to be reasonable, there is bound to be a reversion to back-street abortionists, with all the health dangers that that implies. on the one hand, the law should discourage abortion, but, on the other hand, it should accept medical realities and be merciful towards social realities. in short, the law must represent a balance, and the abortion act 1967 succeeded in doing that.\n on the basis of what information i as a layman have been able to gather since the matter came up for discussion again, i agree with the hon. member for kirkcaldy (dr. moonie). in a perfect world, there is much to be said for freedom of choice up to 12 weeks, but thereafter abortion should be allowed up to 24 weeks but only for medical reasons. the trouble is that we do not live in a perfect world.\n if every young girl were intelligent, decisive, understanding, aware and rich and could effectively communicate with her parents, if every woman over 40 who became pregnant without wishing to do so realised immediately what happened, if every woman at times of stress could be rational, if the national health service were perfect, and if doctors were infallible in judgment and opinion, the restrictions to 12 and 24 weeks might be acceptable. but that is not the world in which we live. we live in a world in which some women of all ages are frightened, unwise, indecisive, uncertain, anguished, full of second thoughts, and impoverished, and in which the national health service and, occasionally, doctors are not perfect.\n a 12-week limit on freedom of choice would be too restrictive and would be certain to lead to more illegal abortions. a 24-week limit for medical reasons could rule out a small number of the most necessary abortions.\n we have been reminded by the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) that, in any case, the 1967 act operates in conjunction with the infant life (preservation) act 1929. that act is the source of the 28-week limit and presumes that a foetus of 28 weeks is capable of being born alive. however, if it can be shown that a foetus of a lower age-27 weeks or even less—is similarly capable and is aborted, an offence would have been committed, because the life of a child capable of being born alive would have been destroyed.\n the 1929 act appears to me to be very strong. i have been reminded by the library that it draws a firm distinction between capable of being born alive and capable of surviving". it may be the case that, apart from healthy babies, some handicapped babies are capable of being born alive", but are not capable of surviving for more than a brief period. none the less, if they were capable of being born alive", an offence could be committed if such a foetus were aborted.\n the 1929 act is very strong. it should be a reassurance to those who are worried about apparently late abortions. furthermore, it should not be forgotten that, under the 1967 act, the minister for health can make regulations. indeed, the current regulations no longer license private clinics to carry out abortions over 24 weeks, and those carrying out abortions over 20 weeks must be specially approved.\n a doctor must, therefore, act with the greatest care in respect of any late abortions— probably those over 20 weeks—for fear of transgressing the law. in addition, if it is judged necessary, it is always possible for the dhss to introduce still more stringent regulations.\n thus, it seems to me far better to leave well alone. the grounds for abortion set out in the 1967 act are, in my judgment, much more precise than the grounds in this bill. the flexibility of the 1967 act, coupled with the 1929 act, provides a balance between the interests of the mother and those of the unborn child. i shall, therefore, vote against the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.91', 109, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is a most unsatisfactory bill and a most unsatisfactory debate because the bill is fundamentally and deeply dishonest. it is put forward by hon. members who are anti-abortionists and want to remove all rights to abortion in this country, but they do not have the honesty to put forward that position. they know that it is not supported in the house or in public opinion, so they pretend that it is a bill to prevent late abortion. it is not a bill to prevent late abortion. the overwhelming bulk of people opposed to the bill want to do everything possible to prevent late abortion when it is preventable.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.92', 6, 'uk.m.10034', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.93', 72, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way in a moment.\n there are all sorts of things that we could do. these matters are currently being considered in the house of lords, and i appeal to anyone who thinks that he wants to consider the 24 weeks option not to support this muddle and to wait for that other more rational bill to come to the house when it has been thoroughly examined in another place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.94', 38, 'uk.m.10034', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i fail to understand the logic of the hon. lady's argument. was not the 1967 bill, and is not the 1967 act, supported by people who believe that abortion should be more readily available than the act states?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.95', 489, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have no idea. i was not a member of the house when that bill was put forward and i have never met anyone who says that there should be an extension beyond 28 weeks. i do not understand the hon. gentleman's position.\n many people believe, in deep conscience, that abortion is always wrong. i respect that position. within the existing law, people who hold that view can exercise their conscience. no one is required to have an abortion if she thinks it is wrong. we are not talking about that position. we are talking about people who claim the right to impose their conscience on other people whose conscience says otherwise. there are people who say in conscience that there should be no abortion but who introduce a bill that says that abortion can be allowed up to 18 weeks. where are the morality, conscience and ethics of that? it is a fudge and a muddle, and it is leading to a debate that is bringing the house into disrepute at least some of the truth is coming out in the debate. hordes of members of parliament who are not here yet will come in later to vote for or against the bill and determine what will happen. the overwhelming bulk of them do not support the bill but say that they support the 24-weeks proposal. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has adopted a deeply duplicitous position. he had the right to draft the bill. he could have proposed a 24-week rule. he could have proposed an exception for foetal abnormality. but he has deliberately put in a provision that says that abortion would be al lowed up to 28 weeks only if the child would be born dead. the hon. gentleman has the cheek—because, as he tells us, he taught disabled children for one year — to say to women and parents who have borne, cared for and loved disabled children who died in deep pain after some years that they should not have the right to make the choice next time. how dare the hon. gentleman and others say that.\n may i say to this house of commons — this overwhelmingly male house of commons — that it should have more humility when approaching this issue. when i was 10 i thought that i was against abortion. i came from a large, happy, catholic family, and that was the teaching. it all seemed simple. then i started to grow up. i am a woman, and my body changed. some of my friends became pregnant because men sometimes misused them and walked away. every man in this house who has ever used a woman's body and walked away and did not know the consequence has no right to vote on the bill. women's bodies carry the consequences of such behaviour. if men in the house were honest, most would have to walk away.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.96', 79, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the hon. lady because at least she is putting the extreme case on the other side. i ask two questions. first, does she deny the right of men to have moral views on this subject? this is a matter of morality. secondly, does she recognise the great concern in society in general at the way in which freely available abortion has changed the nature of society? we are entitled to a view on that change.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.97', 618, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'everyone in the world is entitled to a view on every question, but some questions should be approached with more humility than others. i am personally deeply impressed by the arguments of people who have borne and cared for disabled children. i have not had that experience, but i approach with humility the experience of others. i suggest that men should approach this question with humility because the women bear the consequences.\n there is all this talk of care and love for disabled children. as has been said, residential homes all over the country are full of disabled children for whom no one cares. the divorce rate of couples who bear disabled children is high — and who is left to care for those children? the women.\n let us be clear about the existing law. there has been a lot of pretence and falsity about it. the law provides that it is an offence to abort a foetus capable of being born alive. as medical technology has changed and it has become possible to preserve the life of babies born very early, naturally the law and practice have changed. the number of post-24-week abortions has diminished massively as it has become possible to preserve the life of 24-week babies.\n i wonder whether hon. members really know about 24-week-old babies. only 15 per cent. of them survive, and a third of them are brain-damaged. those babies are on the very brink of life. the units that do such lovely work and care for those precious babies attempt to preserve their lives. the babies are kept in plastic boxes with tubes in their bodies. there is much evidence now that if they do survive they are emotionally hurt and damaged because they are not nurtured and cuddled in the way that babies need. they are on the brink of life, and medical practice already takes account of their survival rate.\n two thirds of post-24-week abortions are for severe foetal abnormalities. the bill does not provide for that, but we are told that it will be adjusted in committee. we are told about the other hard cases. many involve very young girls who have been sexually abused in their families. they do not know that they are pregnant, or do not reveal it until late, and so have abortions after 24 weeks. we are told about menopausal women who have brought up their families and loved them and do not realise that they are pregnant — they think that their periods have stopped because of the menopause. such women would be forced by hon. members who claim to know better about their lives, their bodies and their families to bear those children. it is a disgrace. let me say to hon. members who believe in a 24-week limit that we already have that limit with exceptions. that is the practice now. i should like to see some changes, as there is no doubt that late abortions take place unnecessarily.\n i should like to say something about private clinics. in my region, which is one of the worst in the country, many doctors and nurses in the national health service refuse to perform abortions to which women are entitled legally, so women go to charitable clinics to get their legal rights. no one makes any profit whatsoever, and the work is done with care, in the interests of the lives of those women. the cheap, snide remarks about people performing abortions for profit are not true. the issue is too important for such cheapskate lies to be thrown about the house.\n as for foreign women, many come from northern ireland, where the law is different, and from the 26 counties of ireland.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.98', 27, 'uk.m.10411', 'uk.p.SDLP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. lady implying that the constitutional arrangements for northern ireland have changed? is northern ireland still to be regarded as part of the united kingdom?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.99', 95, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member knows my view on that. i thought that he shared my view that northern ireland should not be part of the united kingdom. i look forward to the day when there is a united ireland. i know that northern ireland is not always treated as part of the united kingdom. the law is different in all sorts of respects. the law on obortion in northern ireland is different from that in the rest of the united kingdom. therefore, northern ireland women come to britain to get their rights under the existing law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.100', 5, 'uk.m.10411', 'uk.p.SDLP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.101', 162, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. the hon. gentleman should know that this is a serious argument and not a cheap debate.\n women travel to britain for abortions, from ireland, northern ireland and from other parts of europe where the law is different from ours. there is nothing wrong or immoral about those women. if the law in their countries is not right and they come to britain and go to a clean, charitably-organised clinic for an abortion, there is nothing wrong with that. we are extending a freedom to those women to which they are entitled. let us not pretend that there is something disreputable in that.\n i am puzzled that all the polling evidence shows that an overwhelming majority of hon. members support the existing law, yet the overwhelming bulk of tory members seem to support the bill, which restricts the right of abortion. i have thought about that carefully and i wonder why it is. the hon. member for pembroke (mr. bennett) is wrong.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.102', 8, 'uk.m.18715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is strangling her own argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.103', 408, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am making the point i wish to make—the hon. gentleman can make his.\n i am perplexed by this. the underlying reason is that the new right in america goes around bombing abortion clinics, photographing women who go there for abortions and sending the photographs to their neighbours. that is the kind of crude behaviour that comes from the new right. the growing new right in britain is saying that women should stay at home and bear children and care for elderly and disabled people. they are not in favour of public expenditure; they want to push women back into a traditional role and deprive them of the freedom to control their lives— [interruption.] hon. members may laugh. they always laugh and sneer when we talk about the status of women and their freedom. the behaviour of hon. members is absolutely consistent.\n i appeal to anyone who is in favour of preventing late abortions not to vote for the bill. if the sponsor of the bill wanted a 24-week limit with exceptions and wanted to prevent late abortions beyond that limit, he would have brought in a different bill. there is much that we can do. we could have, as many other countries have, self-referral up to 12 weeks. many women have abortions post-12 weeks because of delays in the national health service. the health service should be required to plan for the number of woman who will come for abortions so that the current delays will be reduced. such things could be done to prevent late abortions. we have a 24-week limit, with exceptions for very hard cases.\n a bill is to come from the house of lords which will enable us to have that position. if today's bill is voted for, we will have an 18-week limit, which really means 16 weeks, with no exception for foetal abnormality unless the child would die. we are told that concessions may be made in committee, but if the bill is passed with a large majority the committee will be dominated by anti-abortionists and the concessions will not be made. the hysterical public campaign will go on and people who think they may switch their votes will be under enormous pressure. this is not a rational way to decide such an important question.\n i beg the house to vote the bill down and to look at the much more considered bill which will come from the house of lords.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.104', 677, 'uk.m.10270', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i would like to make one simple but important point. this matter is sensitive and controversial. the abortion act 1967 was of great importance, and the leader of the liberal party, the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) deserves full credit for what he did then. the act removed many social ills which we all hated and has given us 20 years of comparative stability in dealing with the problems and arguments that go on.\n hon. members can set an example on this matter by moving ahead with consensus. it is apparant that the debate on the bill is not producing that. it has been said that the various alternatives could be fully discussed in committee. we all know what happens with the composition of private member's bills committees—without any disrespect to the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton)—and we know the difficulties of taking up on report matters which have been fully debated in committee, but that is part of our constitutional proceedings. if the bill goes through second reading to committee, it will be extremely difficult to debate any other position in the house.\n we have a great opportunity to look at the problem from the point of view of moving ahead with consensus. the hon. gentleman has not disguised the fact that, because of his religious beliefs, he is entirely opposed to abortion. the position of the synod of the church of england has been mentioned. i am a member of the church of england and i understand that position, but i cannot help noting that there is much picking and choosing as to which view of the synod of the church of england one accepts on a particular subject.\n however, allowing for that, i am aware of the religious beliefs that are expressed and held most strongly. crusades do not always lead to the most desirable results, as we know from history. above all, they lead to considerable intolerance. it is essential that we in this house should be tolerant of those outside whose ethical and religious views do not coincide with our own, and on this subject, there are a considerable number of our fellow citizens whose views do not coincide with our own.\n the 1967 act was based on a combination of provisions from the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and new provisions. the way ahead on the basis of consensus is now very clear. the 1929 act could be amended to give a limit of 24 weeks, which would in fact mean 22 weeks. such a proposal would gain the support of the whole medical profession, as cited in opinion polls and on television. according to all my inquiries, the medical profession accepts that a limit of 24 weeks—in practice 22 weeks — would deal with the advances in medicine over the past 20 years and at the same time with the practical arrangements available for dealing with these problems. if the house had been able to give a lead with a bill containing that proposal, that bill would have gained overall agreement and we could then have moved forward to another period.\n the particular problems mentioned, such as that of private clinics, need to be dealt with in some other way. they are controversial in themselves and are not affected by the bill. the problem of private clinics can be dealt with separately, through the health service or, if the house so wishes, by legislation. my greatest concern is that, after 20 years of stability, we should now take advantage of the advances in medicine and the practical arrangements that can be made—which in some cases may be lacking—to take a further step forward. i wish that that had been the purpose of the bill. as it is not, i shall oppose the bill, although i shall strongly support any bill from another place that reduces the limit to 24 weeks—in effect 22 weeks. that would gain the overall acceptance of the medical profession, of whose advice the house should take great note.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.105', 1280, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'as has been very clear, this is an issue on which there are deeply held and totally conflicting views; it is correspondingly difficult for any minister to speak in a debate such as this. in his opening speech, the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), fairly acknowledged the difficulties of the subject. he also stated clearly, and i thought rightly, that the bill does not itself set out to challenge the principle of legal abortion. he rightly made it clear that he thinks that abortion should not be legal, but he recognises that it is; indeed, a large part of his case rested on the fact that he did not propose to reverse the basic position. the hon. gentleman presented the bill as one that attempts not to return to the pre-1967 position but to modify the working of the law to make it more acceptable to the substantial body of opinion—whatever its exact size, none of us can dispute that it is substantial —that is affronted by the scale of abortion in recent years, and particularly by abortion at a relatively late stage in pregnancy. he argued that the gain from achieving a change in the balance would outweigh the contrary arguments adduced in the debate.\n i would say to the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short) that the hon. gentleman is at least entitled to seek the judgment of the house on the proposal that he has put before it, rather than on what is in his mind but which he has not brought before the house.\n i think that the house already knows that which i must state clearly, that the government have no collective view on the merits of the proposal by the hon. member for mossley hill. the considerations involved are clearly both moral and practical. some hon. members will see the moral considerations as overriding, while others will see as paramount the practical considerations. i think it is fair to say that most hon. members who have spoken will not see the matter in such a clear-cut way, but will want to strike a balance between the two conflicting sets of considerations. at the end of the day, each hon. member will have to decide for himself or herself what the balance should be and how we should vote on the bill.\n in such a debate, my role as minister for health is not to speak for the government in the ordinary sense, but to set before the house such advice as i can give from the advice available to me, which i think might help hon. members to make a decision. i must necessarily concentrate on the practical issues, because being minister for health gives me no special status to advise others on matters of conscience or morality.\n first, i shall comment on the legal position. it has been clearly recognised in the debate that the bill represents a clear change in principle from the abortion legislation introduced by the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale and passed in 1967. that is because the abortion act 1967 contains no upper limit for the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed. it must be accepted as a matter of law that to introduce such a limit is to introduce a distinct and new concept compared with the present position.\n as hon. members have said, the infant life (preservation) act 1929 applies in england and wales and protects any foetus capable of being born alive. it also contains a rebuttable presumption, and the fact that it is rebuttable is significant. it is that a foetus of 28 weeks gestation is capable of being born alive. as the house knows, in the light of our capacity to keep very young infants alive, the government have given their support, and similar support has just been echoed by my right hon. friend the member for old bexley and sidcup (mr. heath), for a measure currently under discussion in another place. that measure seeks to reduce the gestational age at which this presumption is made from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. however, it is a proposition of a different kind from the one that is now before the house, because the bill before the house would make illegal all abortions after the 17th completed week of pregnancy, except in cases where it was necessary to save the life of the mother or if the life of the child could not be sustained.\n i shall make the point a little clearer. under the infant life (preservation) act—this is why i emphasised the word "rebuttable" — it is open to a doctor who has performed an abortion outside the limits thought to be provided by the infant life (preservation) act to prove that the child was not capable of being born alive. the onus of proof at that point is shifted; the house ought to bear that significant point in mind.\n i know that many hon. members wish to speak and i shall try to keep my speech brief. i had intended to spend a few moments advising the house as clearly as i can on the views about the current capacity of a foetus to be born alive. i shall say only that i am advised that the 22nd gestational week is considered by doctors to be the earliest time at which there is the slighest possibility of a foetus being born alive, because before then the lungs are not mature enough to function, even if ventilated.\n the house will be aware that the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, as well as the british paediatric association, the royal college of general practitioners, the royal college of midwives and the british medical association, produced a report in 1985 on foetal viability and clinical practice. that report recommended that the age at which a foetus is considered viable should be reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. earlier this year, that recommendation was confirmed by that same group of organisations when they looked again at their 1985 report.\n alongside the support that i have already said the government have extended to the proposition in the form of a bill—not a government bill—introduced in the other place, the department has taken a number of significant steps effectively to implement the recommendation about 24 weeks. we have done that in two ways. first —this has already been referred to, but i should make it clear — we have made it a condition of approval for private sector nursing homes that no abortions are carried out after 24 weeks. the position is less clear in the nhs, but the department has arranged for the report to be drawn to the attention of the fellows and members of the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists.\n as has been said on several occasions, the number of abortions after 24 weeks is now very small. on the latest figures for 1986, there were 29 at the 25th week or above. hon. members will have their own views about whether a number as small as even 29 is to be dismissed, bearing in mind that we are talking about individuals who will have their own views and circumstances, including in a large number of cases the fact that by then they will know that their baby is likely to be born handicapped. however, i think all hon. members will accept that on those figures, and with the continuing likelihood of a further decline in the number of abortions occurring so late, the practical effect of introducing a 24-week limit into the abortion act would be small, according to our current experience.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.106', 40, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'can the minister tell us how many of those 29 abortions were carried out under section 2 of the act — in other words, that were related to foetal abnormalities— and how many were carried out under the main section?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.107', 55, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i do not have the breakdown of those 29 with me. however, i understand from a point made earlier that the figure is about 70 per cent. i think that that is right, but if it is wrong, i shall ask that some message be passed to me so that i can correct that later.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.108', 59, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'before the minister leaves that point—he is, of course, right — does he therefore recognise that inserting a 24-week rule will not make any difference if people are concerned about abortions on eugenic grounds? what does the minister have to say about late social abortions, 92 per cent. of which after 18 weeks are performed on perfectly healthy children?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.109', 334, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i shall come to that point in a moment.\n i have already made it clear that it is important that to understand that the practical effect on reducing the number of abortions of a time limit of 24 weeks would be small. nevertheless, there are some who would see establishing the principle of a limit as a significant gain. hon. members must judge those issues for themselves. i shall not try to give them a steer, as a minister, on how they decide to vote.\n there has been a good deal of reference to the statistics involved. i shall set them out as clearly as i can, although i fear that they do not add much to what has already been said. if such a bill had been in force in 1986, about 8,000 of the 172,000 abortions that were performed in that year in england and wales would not have taken place.\n the hon. member for mossley hill pointed to the fact that many abortions at 18 weeks and over are performed on foreign women. the exact statistic is that, out of the 8,276 abortions in england and wales at 18 weeks and over in 1986, 3,688 were to non-residents. for this purpose, non-residents include women from scotland, northern ireland, the channel islands and the isle of man, as well as women from foreign countries. abortions performed on women resident in foreign countries amounted to 3,461, which was 42 per cent. of the total. the vast majority of those women came from france, spain and the irish republic.\n that reflects—in one case it would be more accurate to say that it reflected—the difficulties that women have in obtaining abortions in those countries. in eire, abortion is illegal. in france, abortion is available on demand up to 10 weeks gestation, hut is severely restricted after that. however, in spain a law legalising abortion in certain circumstances was passed in 1985. the numbers of women coming to this country from spain are now dropping rapidly.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.110', 67, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with regard to foreign women, can my right hon. friend defend a practice whereby we are effectively breaking the law of other countries? perhaps more importantly, from the point of view of those women, what guarantee is there that a quick abortion at a london clinic will be followed up by the aftercare that is absolutely essential, psychologically and medically, for women who have had an abortion?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.111', 200, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'as a matter of common sense, all of us would accept that it is less than desirable for women to be crossing international boundaries in order to receive medical treatment of that sort. undoubtedly, many hon. members on both sides of the house will take the view that it is wrong for women to come to this country for abortions when they cannot obtain them in their own country, and that view will be held partly for the reasons adumbrated by my right hon. friend the member for castle point (sir b. braine). that is something about which i must leave hon. members to make up their own minds.\n others will take a somewhat different view of foreign women coming to this country. for women to contemplate visiting another country and experiencing an unfamiliar health system in order to have an operation of this sort is an indication of the great pressure that develops for a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. therefore, to some extent it suggests that, if the limits are made too restrictive, the same consequences may follow for some women in our country, whether in terms of seeking to go abroad or returning to back-street abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.112', 59, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we should also look at that bearing in mind that there are clear financial links. there is a business contract involving foreign women coming to this country. is it not the case, as shown by the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, that 60 per cent. of late abortions carried out in private clinics were performed by 11 doctors?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.113', 289, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i have inquired about that, and i am told that the department is not aware of any evidence to that precise effect. the department monitors carefully, on the basis of unannounced visits apart from announced visits, the operation of private sector clinics. if we find evidence of abuse, we act to deal with it.\n that cross-boundary international flow raises the question what will happen when women with an unwanted pregnancy find themselves denied an abortion in their locality. that has to be considered by hon. members.\n i am not in a position to do what the house might like me to do, which is to make any sort of estimate as to what the possible effects would be in relation, for example, to illegal abortions if the bill is passed in its present form. one of the happiest facts — i accept that there are unhappy facts too—of what has happened since 1967 is that the number of deaths from criminal abortions has dropped to nil in recent years. it is equally the case—i want to recognise this clearly — that because the bill would not affect the vast majority of abortions that take place in this country, and because there would undoubtedly be added difficulties in undertaking illegal late abortions, it is unlikely that the passing of this bill would lead to the sort of back-street abortions that we saw in the early 1960s and before.\n against the background of the number of women who go to great lengths in order to obtain an abortion, it would be rash to say that there would be no risk of some degree of return to abortions outside the law. that is something the house will have to bear in mind.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.114', 27, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister accept that the delay in provision in some parts of the country might be responsible for the demand for late abortions in some areas?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.115', 99, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'it is very difficult for me to assess the various factors that may be involved. i am not in a position to confirm the proposition that the hon. gentleman has put to me.\n the hon. member for ladywood has mentioned that one of the difficulties is the variable availability of nhs abortions around the country, for reasons that i, at any rate, would frankly not wish to disturb. whatever else we may disagree about, we surely agree it would be wrong to compel consultants and nurses, who have a conscientious objection to the performance of abortions, to undertake them.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.116', 5, 'uk.m.10443', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the minister give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.117', 15, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am happy to give way, but i am anxious about the pressure on time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.118', 65, 'uk.m.10443', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister has said that consultants should be free not to carry out abortions or late abortions if they find that repugnant. however, he is missing the point that those consultants may also appoint staff within their areas who agree with their views and that that may have a major impact on the availability of early or late abortions on the nhs in such areas.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.119', 329, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i readily recognise that that is a matter on which there are a number of insoluble problems and many dilemmas. i stick to my fundamental proposition, that i would not wish to be a minister for health who is in the business of seeking to compel clinicians to undertake procedures of which they conscientiously disapprove.\n some reference has been made to particular cases that have been highlighted by the bma concerning the possible implications for young girls who do not recognise or who attempt to conceal their pregnancies, and menopausal women who fail to recognise that they are pregnant until it is too late. to help the house to judge those points, and in recognition that they need to be balanced against other views, i can inform the house that, out of a total of 8,276 abortions at 18 weeks and over, 2,865, or over one third, are to women under the age of 20. a further small proportion, about 3 per cent., or 253 abortions at 18 weeks and over, are to women aged 40 and over. again, hon. members must make their own judgment about the significance of those figures.\n there is one other category that has not been referred to in the house and for which i cannot give any statistics or evaluate in general terms, but which should be mentioned — the possibility of women whose infection with the aids virus is not recognised until a late stage of pregnancy. clearly, under present circumstances, that problem will grow. i emphasise that it is for hon. members to weigh all of these factors against many other considerations.\n the last major point upon which i feel i ought to seek to offer some information and guidance to the house relates to the many references that have been made to handicap and, in particular, the tests and the timing of the tests that can presently or prospectively be available to discover handicap and allow choice to be made.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.120', 132, 'uk.m.22183', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'when my right hon. friend gave us some figures just now, i thought that he would refer to the approximately 4,800 abortions per year at over 18 weeks that are carried out on women from england. he has not said what proportion of those abortions are carried out by the nhs for which he is responsible. the minister and his colleagues have made us well aware of the immense pressures due to the increased demand on the nhs and thus the demand on its operating facilities. in view of that, how can it be argued that someone who is waiting for an operation — there are many people, some in pain, waiting for operations of all sorts on the nhs—should have a lower priority than the late abortion of a healthy baby?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.121', 524, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', "i note my hon. friend's views. however, given the views implied by his question, i do not think that i would want, in return, to express an opinion about the particular needs of particular people without knowing rather more about the circumstances in which they find themselves and what has led them to request a particular form of medical attention.\n it is important to say something about the handicap issue and the question of tests. obviously, completely new tests may eventually become available that may alter the position, but, as i am advised, the position on the main tests currently available is as follows. the first test, serum alphafetoprotein, is usually done at 16 weeks. it is a test on the mother's blood to identify women who are more likely than average to have a foetus with an open neural tube defect, particularly a proportion of spina bifida cases. the test usually shows up as abnormal in an encephaly. amniocentesis is normally done at 16 weeks. it is used to assist in confirming the presence of a foetus with open neural tube defect, or to give cells that can be cultured to determine whether there is a genetic or chromosomal abnormality if there is reason to suspect that they may be present.\n that cell culture takes two to three weeks, and if it fails, as it sometimes does, the test may need to be repeated. abortion stemming from the findings is seldom possible much before 20 weeks, and in latter tests it sometimes may be as late as 24 weeks.\n untra sound scanning is mostly carried out at 16 to 18 weeks. the later it is done, the more accurate it is in assessing foetal abnormality. its main uses are to assist in determining the gestational age, which may be important in interpreting other tests for foetal abnormality, to detect multiple pregnancy and to see abnormalities of foetal structure.\n the test that has perhaps been referred to most in the debate, and in which there is most interest in the future, is chorionic villus biopsy, which is normally carried out at the earlier stage of between 8 and 12 weeks gestation. it is a relatively new procedure and can be used as an alternative to later examination of cells in amniotic fluid obtained by amniocentesis at between 16 and 18 weeks. it is used for the detection of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities if there is reason to suspect that they may be present. i am told that it is not an alternative to the procedures of alphafetoprotein testing or ultrasound scanning.\n the house must bear in mind that, as yet, chorionic villus biopsy is not universally available, and that its safety and accuracy are still being studied. clinical experience so far shows that, in general, results are accurate, although a small percentage of chromosome abnormalities need to be confirmed later by amniocentesis. there may be a problem regarding safety, in that miscarriage after amniocentesis is between 1 and 2 per cent., whereas after chorionic villus biopsy it appears to be twice that figure. sometimes, there is the further problem of infection following this procedure.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.122', 64, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "interpreting what the minister has just said, will he confirm that at present—other tests may be developed in the future—it is essential to give a choice to mothers who may be passing genetic defects? those defects may lead to severe disability. does the department have a view of the implications of the bill in those terms, given the minister's responsibility in regard to disability?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.123', 180, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i hope that the hon. gentleman will allow me to proceed with a carefully noted piece. i shall cover the points that he has raised.\n if the indications of accuracy and safety are confirmed by research, and no other hazards of the chorionic villus biopsy emerge in the study, obstetricians may be expected to want to offer a choice of chorionic villus biopsy or amniocentesis when women whose previous family history shows the need for genetic or chromosome studies present early enough in pregnancy. women would be likely to be told that, although there are occasionally problems with accuracy and a somewhat higher miscarriage rate, chorionic villus biopsy can provide a good indication of whether the foetus has chromosomol or gene abnormalities that are otherwise detectable through amniocentesis.\n it can do so early in pregnancy, thus making possible .the option of a safer and less unpleasant termination before 12 weeks for some groups of women. there are indications that a majority of women would choose chorionic villus biopsy, but that a substantial number would opt for amniocentesis at 16 weeks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.124', 100, 'uk.m.10534', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the figures that the minister has given are interesting. my wife and i lost our first baby because it suffered from hydrocephalus spina bifida after a full-term pregnancy. for the next four healthy children that we had, we were under a great deal of strain. for the first two there were no tests, but for the last two they were available, and we had the option, which we would have taken if we had had a severely disabled child. what worries me profoundly about the bill is that parents such as myself and my wife will not have that choice.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.125', 231, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i am sure that all hon. members will wish both to extend their sympathy to the hon. gentleman for his experience — it has been interesting to hear about that experience—and to take it into account in deciding what their view should be.\n in considering these tests, there are one or two further points that i must make. first, in dating a pregnancy, the margin of error either way is commonly as much as 10 days. secondly, if a foetal abnormality is detected by one diagnostic method, a further method may have to be used to confirm the diagnosis, and that can mean some delay, especially if the woman has to be referred to a different hospital. thirdly, delays in systems can sometimes occur for a variety of reasons, whether staff absences, equipment failure, because the woman is ill, because a relative, perhaps a child, is ill, or because of something as mundane as transport difficulties.\n all those matters must be borne in mind, but they lead to the conclusion that, as the bill stands, with the provision that only a child likely to be born dead or with physical abnormalities so serious that its life cannot be independently sustained, would be excluded from its working, there is likely to be some increase in the numbers of severely handicapped children born, whose mothers might otherwise have decided to have an abortion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.126', 52, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the minister saying that, if the 8 per cent. that fall into the category that he has described were to be excluded by an exemption clause in committee, he would accept the ovewhelming burden of evidence that the 92 per cent. who would be perfectly healthy children, should not be aborted?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.127', 94, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i hope that i have made it clear that i am seeking to put factors before the house which hon. members should bear in mind and that i do not attempt to press my judgments upon them. i am sure that it is right for me to stick to that position. in view of the reference to the fact that more than 90 per cent. of abortions at 18 weeks and over are for reasons other than foetal abnormality, which is undoubtedly correct, it is also fair for me to put before the house—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.128', 41, 'uk.m.19305', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my right hon. friend aware that professor stuart campbell said on tuesday that he would stake his professional reputation on the fact that there are far more class 4 terminations than are recorded, because of administrative failures in the system?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.129', 232, 'uk.m.18597', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Minister for Health', 'government', 'i note with interest what my hon. friend said, but that is not a matter on which i shall attempt to make a judgment.\n the house should also note that the proportion of abortions done on grounds of foetal abnormality increases considerably with gestational age. at 18 weeks, the proportion is 6 per cent.; that rises to 21 per cent. at 24 weeks and to more than 70 per cent. above 24 weeks. at least that is something which the whole house will wish to bear in mind.\n i have probably said as much as i can usefully and helpfully say to the house as minister for health. i emphasise again that, neither in that capacity, nor in my capacity as a member of a collective government, am i advising the house and hon. members in any way as to how they should vote on this bill. the house is perhaps entitled to know, and perhaps it is right for me to say, that in my capacity — i emphasise this strongly — as an independent member of parliament with his own purely personal views, i would be more than ready to support the introduction of a clear legal time limit for abortions. but i do not find myself conscientiously able to support the passage of the bill in the precise form in which it has been presented to the house today.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.130', 408, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that most right hon. and hon. members who were in the house in the 1970s will remember that this is by no means the first attempt to restrict the abortion act 1967. i well recall, as if it were yesterday, the first attempt, in march 1975, because it was almost a year after i had entered the house; that was the james white bill. it was followed somewhat later by the bill sponsored by the hon. member for milton keynes (mr. benyon), and then later by john corriels bill. all those bills were fought off by the strength of public opinion and by the common sense and sense of justice—i use the words advisedly—of the house of commons.\n now, in 1988, it is 20 years since the 1967 act, during which back-street abortions, as the minister said, have completely disappeared and a new generaton of young women and men has grown up with a law that has allowed women — often with difficulty even under the present act and often with unnecessary delays—to obtain a termination safely and legally.\n let me dispel two myths that have been referred to here and in the press during the past few weeks. the first myth is that the present act gives women the right to choose. it does not. two doctors must agree, and the need to obtain an abortion must comply with one of the provisions in the act. abortion is not another method of contraception. that is another thing that is widely said, and quite untrue. anyone who believes that can have no idea of the agony of mind that all women undergo before making the momentous decision to have an abortion.\n the second myth is that women opt for an abortion on trivial grounds, such as that it would restrict their social activities or affect their figures. they are much more serious people than their critics give them credit for. certainly an unintended pregnancy, often as a result of contraceptive failure, will give many women much to think about. the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight) referred to the choice that women have of being able to take contraceptive pills or use contraceptive devices. i am sure i do not have to remind her that there is such a thing as contraceptive failure, and that quite a number of women have had to resort to an abortion in the end because of it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.131', 28, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i said that contraception has never been so widely disseminated, that there has never been so much education about it, and that it has never been so good.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.132', 617, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i can recall a number of studies done in the past two or three years which have put much fear into the minds of women about the effectiveness of the contraceptive devices they are using — of the pill, for example. what about the cuts in family planning services that are being made? i was in stevenage about 10 days ago and visited its family planning clinic, which is faced with a 50 per cent. cut in resources over the next 12 months. that will mean an increase in the number of women who may become pregnant as a result of not having proper treatment.\n whatever the reason for an unintended pregnancy, it affects the mental and physical health of a woman in terms of her children or other family responsibilities, adding further strains to an already over-strained household income. damp, overcrowded housing conditions or homelessness may well be factors that must also be considered. social research has proved many times that those factors have a direct impact on mental and physical health.\n the british system of support for pregnant women is not all that good. indeed, it is about the worst in western europe. we have cut the maternity grant for all but the most needy and deprived — those on supplementary benefit—and even that is insufficient to provide the required diet for a pregnant woman. girls aged under 16 are not given even that meagre benefit.\n one of my constituents is a simple parent with a violent husband. she has three children, the oldest of whom is aged l4½. they live in a freezing, hard-to-let house. the house is so cold that they live effectively in one room. last december, the 14-year-old daughter gave birth to a premature baby. the baby is ailing. the local hospital cannot keep it in, although its health demands that it returns to hospital frequently. that baby has been born and is physically perfect, although it is weak. some people have tremendous stresses and strains on their lives. they might have forgiven that 14-year-old girl, and her mother, for having an abortion in those circumstances. i certainly would, and i hope that hon. members who do not always agree with me would. that baby is loved, and i hope that it will survive.\n i do not like the suggestion that those of us who opposed the bill do not care about disabled people. our record of care and concern for disabled people is as good as that of anyone else. i hope that no one will run away with the idea that there is any difference.\n many hon. members have mentioned amendments that might be tabled to the bill in committee. it is said that a limit of 24 weeks might be acceptable. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has hinted that amendments might be accepted in committee. but he drafted his bill with remarkable precision. had he been thinking about extending the time limit, he would not have tried to define the limit almost to the day. i beg the house to consider the words of the bill. it is not an 18-week bill, but a 17-week bill. it says: a woman's pregnancy may be terminated in accordance with section 1 of the abortion act 1967 at any time up to the beginning of the 18th week of gestation. that is the seventh day of the 17th week. i do not know how anyone could be so precise about the period of gestation. if the hon. gentleman now believes that a later limit may be acceptable, or that he could live with it, he should have introduced an entirely different bill, or introduced none at all.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.133', 60, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i fully understand the hon. lady's view that this may not be the exact moment to fix the limit, and i have said that that will be a legitimate argument for the committee. but every other country in western europe fixes an exact date for an upper time limit? if it is possible there, why can we not do it?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.134', 85, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall tackle the point about which the hon. gentleman is dismayed. he realises that that may not be the exact time. that point worries me, too. in committee, we may talk about 22 or 24 weeks. perhaps we will not. perhaps some hon. members will want to put forward 12 or 14 weeks. there is no guarantee that we will pass the bill stating 17 weeks precisely, go into committee, and come out with the bill that we want. that is not on offer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.135', 4, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have report stage.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.136', 1076, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "we have report stage if amendments have not been properly discussed. normally, mr. speaker will not accept the repeat of a matter that has been properly discussed in committee.\n let me consider the remainder of the bill and the way in which it is worded. clause 1(2) allows terminations up to the end of 28 weeks. thank goodness for something. however, it is restrictive in the extreme. it allows abortion to save the life of a mother. it allows abortion if a child is likely to be born dead or with abnormalities that are so serious that life cannot be independently sustained. in the briefing that he circulated to all hon. members, the hon. gentleman listed 11 types of handicapping disorder to demonstrate how his exemption clause will affect each group. i am informed by professor marcus pembrey, mothercare professor of paediatric genetics at london university, that over 2,000 different conditions can now be detected during pregnancy. who will decide which conditions will be exempted?\n hon. members who attended professor pembrey's presentation in the house a few weeks ago were visibly shaken by the examples of severe abnormality and multiple handicap that the professor assured us will fall outside the exemption as it is phrased in the bill. how can, say, 16 or 20 hon. members sit in committee and decide? we are not doctors. we have some doctors in the house, but they are not necessarily specialists. how can we, as lay people, decide between different kinds of handicap, the names of which we probably cannot even pronounce, let alone understand? i would much rather leave that decision to informed medical opinion. that is where it should be left.\n the hon. gentleman has done one service for us. practically everyone in the country now knows what an amniocentesis test is, that it cannot take place until the 16th week and that results are not available until 20 weeks. perhaps, as a result of the debate that has gone on in the country, many more women will want to have an amniocentesis test because they have now heard of it, particularly if they are in any doubt about their pregnancies. we have the amniocentesis test, and the ultrasound screening to which the minister referred, but it does not provide certain results until the 18th to 20th week, or even later.\n there are known cases in which abnormalities or lack of development appear to be indicated by early ultrasound screening. if the pregnancy is continued with careful screening and back-up, further tests can reveal and have revealed that such abnormality has disappeared. if the bill is passed with a much earlier upper time limit, it is entirely possible that, because they are cautious and worried, doctors will unnecessarily abort and that women will unnecessarily lose children whom they want. that is another reason why 18 weeks is a ridiculous time to put into the bill.\n i am sorry that those hon. members who take a restrictive view of abortion were not present on tuesday last in the grand committee room to hear the moving and humbling testimony of mothers who have had abortions because they decided not to continue with their pregnancies after foetal abnormalities were detected. some hon. members were there. we heard from mothers who have since had or are going to have perfect babies. they said that if, because of the law, they had been forced to carry on with their earlier pregnancies and were now, against their will, trying to cope with handicapped children, they would never have risked having another child. they still grieve over the loss of their first baby, but they are all glad that the back-up of screening and our present humane and compassionate laws gave them the opportunity to make their individual choice and to go on with confidence to have more children. who will sit in judgment on the first such woman to seek an illegal abortion, if the bill is passed?\n nothing has been said this morning about mental handicap. it is specifically excluded from the bill, because the hon. member for mossley hill has excluded the reference to mental health which is in the original act. there are approximately 160,000 severely mentally handicapped people in this country and almost 1 million mildly mentally handicapped people in england and wales. as a society, we try to support their desire to live an ordinary life within the community, and that is right. that includes allowing them and helping them to develop relationships with the opposite sex and, for some, at some stage, marriage. sadly, it also means being at risk or being exploited by others in the community.\n the diagnosis of pregnancy in mentally handicapped women is often very delayed because of their unawareness of their condition and because they fail to seek medical advice. a child born to a mentally handicapped mother runs a high risk of being mentally handicapped and of having other congenital defects of varying severity. pregnancy, delivery and fostering or adoption can have devastating effects on a mentally handicapped woman and her partner and, more commonly, on her aging parents who have devoted all their young lives to the care of their child. any reduction in the upper time limit for therapeutic abortion would have a traumatic effect on this small but important group of people.\n i wish to refer briefly to another group of people. i received a letter, dated 4 january, from dr. lindsey allan, senior lecturer in paediatric cardiology at guy's hospital. she says that, since 1980, her unit has specialised in the detection of congenital heart disease in early foetal life. with present technology, the optimum time for foetal cardiac examination is about 18–20 weeks gestation. major heart disease can be accurately detected from this time on. at least 25% of children born with heart defects will die in the first 10 years of their life, often after a restricted existence, chequered with repeated hospital investigation and major heart surgery. those children would certainly be excluded under the exclusion clause of the bill because they would be born alive and, in other respects, able to exist independently, but they would die before they were 10 years old.\n dr. allan goes on to say: faced with the prospect of a very poor long-term prognosis for their child, the majority of parents elect termination of pregnancy — 32 of a possible group of 40 parents made this choice in 1987. \n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.137', 2, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.138', 230, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not give way to the hon. gentleman, but i should have liked him to deal with cases involving mental handicap and heart disease which will not be covered by the clause. much has been said about chorionic villus sampling; the minister has said that tests are going on at present. it will be quite a long time before these will be universally available, however.\n we have talked about amending the bill in committee. i hope very much that we shall not get to that stage, but that we shall defeat the bill today. we must keep repeating that 18 weeks is on offer — not 20, 22 or 24 weeks. several permutations have been offered around, but we do not want to go down that road.\n all informed opinion is against the bill. i have a list of organisations, as i am sure do others, that have appealed to the house to vote against it. there are lists of royal colleges and organisations for the handicapped. it was somewhat sharp practice for those hon. members—one of whom is not listening—who referred to the poll of gynaecologists to talk about 62 per cent. of gynaecologists being in favour of a much lower time limit. let us be frank: there are more than 3,000 gynaecologists, only 40 per cent. of whom replied. that is a small sample of informed opinion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.139', 6, 'uk.m.22350', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.140', 164, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sorry, but i shall not give way. the hon. gentleman has time to make his own speech.\n in 1975, 9 per cent. of abortions in tower hamlets were performed at 17 weeks and above. in 1977, peter huntingford opened a day-care abortion service and, by 1981, 1.8 per cent. of abortions were carried out at 17 weeks and above. with proper day care, the number of late abortions can be reduced, and that is the way to do it. in 1981, when i proposed a ten-minute bill to place a duty on all health authorities to make such provision available equally to all women, the hon. member for mossley hill voted against it. he consistently said throughout the argument before this debate that he favoured a much better and more evenly spread provision of national health service facilities. the hon. gentleman voted against my legislation, and so did every other sponsor of this bill who was in the house at that time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.141', 70, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is absolutely right—1 did vote against it. i am not in favour of earlier abortions. i am in favour of better care, better love and better resources—many of the things about which the hon. lady has talked. that does not mean to say that we should favour abortion. the most repugnant part of abortion is late abortions, and that is all that my bill specifically deals with.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.142', 212, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is not any kind of answer to imply that one's concern for better and more even provision of nhs facilities is connected with the bill and with abortion facilities and now to say that one is just concerned for general resourcing across the board.\n we were all pleased that the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel), the original sponsor of the 1967 legislation, was able to spare time to speak today. the good, courageous pioneers—there are many in the strangers gallery listening, including the abortion law reform association—who campaigned for the 1967 legislation within the framework of the infant life (preservation) act 1929 and sought to help women and protect them against the dangers and exploitation of back-street and self-inflicted abortion. i remind hon. members of the practices that claimed 95 women's lives in the one year alone that preceded the 1967 act.\n the minister has said that he doubts very much whether, if the bill is passed, there will be a wholesale return to back-street abortions. there may not be a wholesale return to the back streets—i hope that we will never find out — but there will probably be a return of some sort. i would not wish to see a return to those days.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.143', 6, 'uk.m.17176', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.144', 26, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n i remember those days. i am of the generation when knitting needles, coat hangers, turpentine and iodine were used, resulting in a number of deaths.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.145', 36, 'uk.m.10407', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i nursed one of those statistics. i spent the longest night of my life looking after a young woman who died at the age of 23. that is what a return to those days would mean.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.146', 147, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend, who i know has personal experience of such matters.\n as the minister said, there has not been one death from abortion in the past three years. today, hon. members will be searching their hearts. i beg them to think very carefully before voting for such a draconian and ill-thought-out bill, which will do nothing to help deprived women and families, and everything to confuse the law and criminalise women. i hope that the bill will be defeated.\n if another bill comes from the other place, we shall have to consider it and come to a decision. in the meantime, i prefer to keep the existing abortion act with the flexibility of a 28-week upper time limit, so that we do not criminalise women who are in pain, terror and worry, and so that we do not criminalise doctors. i ask\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.147', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.148', 62, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. it will be evident to the house that many hon. members on both sides of the house still wish to speak, and that varying views are held on both sides of the house. i strongly appeal to any hon. member who is called from now on to be extremely brief, in the interests of other hon. members who wish to speak.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.149', 421, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i support the bill. i am motivated by the fact that it endeavours to do what the 1967 act lamentably failed to achieve. it tries to define where life starts, and the rights of one individual over the life of another.\n we all accept that if someone is born perfectly healthy and then, through illness or a major accident, becomes grossly handicapped, that person still has the right to live and is classified as a separate human being with full civil rights. we all accept that if a child is damaged because something goes wrong at birth, such as oxygen failure, that child is a human being with fully established civil rights, and has the right to live, no matter how handicapped.\n we do not allow a woman to choose whether to continue a pregnancy when she is more than 28 weeks pregnant. we already say that there must be some restriction of one individual's right of determination over another's right to live. i support the bill because it asks whether we have that right, and, if not, why not, and what should be the correct limit. the bill has been described by various hon. members who oppose it as muddled. i maintain strongly that the 1967 act was a muddle. the 1967 act said that what is in the womb is not life because a woman has a right of abortion under certain loose circumstances. it also said that perhaps it is life, and perhaps we should protect it, so we shall define the circumstances in which a woman can have an abortion, be they ever so loose. it fudged the issue. we must decide when life is life and must be fully and absolutely respected, as hon. members would respect each other's lives. it has been widely accepted that babies survive at 24 weeks, although it would be conceded by my hon. friends, that it is a massive struggle and only a minority survive, but they survive.\n i find it deeply objectionable— i will not use a pejorative word such as obscene— that we have a law that permits two babies to leave their mother's womb at 24 weeks; one is cherished while its life is fought over, and all the medical resources in the country are poured into saving it and its parents desperately want it to live, while the other is wilfully destroyed, being taken from its mother's womb unnaturally at the same age. i find that impossible to accept as a mark of a civilised society.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.150', 6, 'uk.m.10001', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. member give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.151', 562, 'uk.m.10634', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with respect to the hon. member for hackney, north and stoke newington (ms. abbott), we have had four speeches in a row from the opposition benches on her side of the argument, and i would like us to have a little say. that is said with respect, because i know that she feels very strongly about this subject.\n i find it unacceptable that we should have those two completely separate attitudes towards a child of the same age. it is even reflected in our language. i have never heard a woman who lost a baby prematurely say that she lost her foetus; she says she has lost her baby. yet when we decide that we will wilfully destroy a 24-week-old baby, we call it a foetus. that is a dual standard. i am concerned that the abortion act 1967 legislated for that standard, and i want to see a revision.\n where do we draw the line? is it at the presently recorded lowest survival rate of 24 weeks for permanent survival and 23 weeks for temporary survival, or at the point where we think medical science will move in the foreseeable future, or do we recognise as life the time when a child is fully formed, is sentient and can feel pain and react to stimuli? we have all reached different decisions of conscience. the bill is a valid attempt to set down a line, and i support the line that the bill has set down.\n i recognise fully that other hon. members have different opinions. for the sake of the 92 per cent. of healthy children who are aborted over the age of 18 weeks, i would not stick doctrinally to a position where the exceptions were so narrow that the bill would be lost through that. i would rather compromise, even if it goes against what i personally believe, in order to save that 92 per cent. i am sorry that my hon. friend the member for berkshire, east (mr. mackay) is not here to hear me say this, because his major concern was that he did not trust the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) to put together a committee that would be capable of absorbing that compromise. as an anti-abortionist, i will face that compromise if by doing so i can save unborn life, and many of my hon. friends would take that view.\n the same goes for the line we draw. to be perfectly honest, i would draw the line below the one that the hon. member for mossley hill has drawn, but if in order to save a certain proportion of unborn life i must accept a slightly higher line, i will, with reluctance but straightforwardly, accept that line. all that i ask is that this important bill, which fills a gap that the 1967 act left unaddressed and attempts to define the rights of individuals who cannot speak for themselves, should have a chance to be fully examined and to return to the house for final approval or disapproval. i would say to my hon. friend the member for berkshire, east : let us not shut the door this morning. this matter is too important. we must keep the door open because what finally emerges will be a wise, humane, just and civilised bill; and the present legislation fulfils none of those criteria.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.152', 1063, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) set out graphically the nature of the compromise that we are required to support if we wish to reduce to some extent the number of abortions that take place annually.\n this bill is not an ideal bill and was never advocated as such. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton)—my hon. friend for the purposes of this debate—came top of the ballot. if every hon. member had the right to introduce a private member\'s bill, we should not be faced with the dilemma that confronts my hon. friend the member for mossley hill. he believes in a principle. he won the place in the ballot; it was not me or any other hon. member.\n my hon. friend had to say to the organisations outside the house, "if you wish me to place this matter before parliament, you will have to accept that, in framing the bill that i propose, i shall not be able to compromise on one matter." that matter was the question of handicap. my hon. friend was imprisoned in that position because of his experience of teaching handicapped children for six years. my hon. friends may find that difficult to stomach, but they must understand that if one cannot secure any other route to abortion reform, one has no option but to accept offers from hon. members who are prepared to offer their private member\'s slot for reform that meets our objectives.\n before i speak to the bill in detail, i should like to say something about the labour party and what has happened in the past few weeks. we have been told that the labour party has exerted pressure on its members. i want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. i address myself to those outside the house who have misrepresented this debate and this argument in a most grotesque way when i say that the letter from the general secretary, mr. larry whitty, was a fair and reasonable letter setting out the labour party\'s policy. he was absolutely right to send that letter, and he said, as the great majority of members of the party would say, that it is for hon. members to decide for themselves.\n then we were told that the labour chief whip had sent out a letter over christmas issuing instructions. that is not true; it never happened. i received the letter, which pointed out that two important private members\' bills were to be debated at the beginning of january and expressed the hope that there would be a substantial attendance for those debates. i say again to those who have misrepresented these matters outside the house that that is the truth, and i say it as a supporter of the bill. i hope that that information will be taken back to groups around the country.\n let me deal with the so-called demand for a three-line whip. i have not heard a demand for a three-line whip. it has never been part of the argument that there should be a three-line whip. but i understand why, in certain circumstances, there should be a three-line whip. if the labour party takes a position, it is entitled—although it has not done so to date—to demand a three-line whip on such matters. hon. members who want to be true to their conscience have the right to decide what they want to do if they find that a three-line whip has been imposed upon them. that is their right, and my right and it is for me to decide whether to vote aye or no. if i believe in something, i shall apply what is for me an honourable tradition of the house and cast my vote accordingly.\n one of the fiercest opponents of the bill, my hon. friend the member for preston (mrs. wise), voted, against a three-line whip, on a very important measure in 1978 — the finance bill. she expressed her view according to her conscience and judgment and was not penalised for so doing. if the party thinks that in these matters voting should be whipped, i do not take exception to that. i say to people outside the house and to people in the strangers\' gallery that this is a matter for one\'s conscience but that even a three-line whip allows one to follow one\'s conscience.\n no one will ever drive me into a lobby in support of a measure with which i do not agree. some hon. members who support the bill, but particularly some of those who oppose it, are quick to flex their muscles when speaking about matters in which they think conscience is important.\n i joined the labour party for a specific reason. in the mid 1960s i built my socialism on my perception of life and on the importance that i gave to life issues. i opposed hanging and was in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. that was one of the things that brought me into the labour party. i supported life issues from my first days in the party, and that was one of the crucial building blocks on which i built my socialism. for many of us, that is an immutable position. as long as we remain in the political process and are able to advocate these matters we shall cast our votes in favour of reform of the law on an issue of this nature. that is because we believe in a principle. however, that does not detract from our right to recognise that some hon. members, such as the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe), feel equally fiercely about such issues. she has the right to put a compromise before the house, knowing that it will be heard throughout the house for what it is.\n i have outlined my building blocks, but they are also the building blocks for people throughout the labour movement. many people in the movement believe in the life tradition and support my position. in the last few weeks they have written to me and said that, although the party has taken a decision that they cannot accept, they are still socialists. in formulating their case those people have drawn on exactly the same strands in their philosophy as those strands in my philosophy that hold me together politically. they are faced with the same conflicts.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.153', 6, 'uk.m.10532', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.154', 637, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no. my hon. friend has just arrived in the chamber. if he had been here throughout the debate, i would have given way to him.\n as i have said, those people are confronted by conflicts. on the one hand, we believe in a principle while, on the other, we know that thousands of women simply cannot find the courage to face the social difficulties that arise and have to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy. i strongly blame the government for that. my hon. friend the member for cynon valley (mrs. clwyd) said at a dinner the other night that she sat through a bill or some meeting at which reference was made to an amendment moved in a committee dealing with social security reform. she said that conservatives had refused to accept the responsibility for funding families in which children were in their earliest years.\n that is the contradiction for us in the labour party who believe in the life tradition. we want reform of the law, but the other side of the argument is that many women come to us asking how we can possibly want reform of the law when the very framework and nature of the society that is developing under the government does not provide the essential support services to ensure at least some help for families who find themselves in this position. that is the conflict that confronts us. in the letters that i have received in the last few weeks, people, especially labour people, have repeatedly spoken specifically about these matters.\n i have heard references to the photograph which was circulated in the newspaper advertisements that we placed in the national press and which was portrayed on hundreds of thousands of postcards that were sent throughout the united kingdom. i suggest that my hon. friends who oppose the bill were distressed by the photograph because it was so graphic in its detail. it was a beautiful photograph of an 18-week foetus. it was clear, precise in colour and produced by the swedish photographer nielsson.\n the campaign concentrated on that photograph because we wanted to draw the attention of the british people and, indeed, of hon. members to the fact that we are not talking in grey abstract terms; we are talking about a child who is fully formed in the womb. there was no other way in which we could express, in any detail, what the debate was about. that is why the photograph was used and why the lobby decided that that was the way in which the campaign should be presented. — [interruption.] if there were any words to which my hon. friends might have taken exception, i do not know what they were. however, during the campaign all sides may have used words that we may later regret. indeed, one such phrase was "foreign woman." i used it. i regretted that from day one because it denoted disrespect, but i have heard it used again in our arguments today. however, i agree that some language should have been modified or not used in the way in which it was.\n my hon. friend the member for barking (ms. richardson) referred to a bill that she brought before the house in 1981. i agonised long and hard over that bill. i am convinced now that in principle she is right. if we are to bring in legislation that will draw women into earlier abortions, we must set up the arrangements to facilitate that. every time that a young woman is stopped from having an abortion in a clinic in, say, birmingham, we cannot see that as a gain for the life movement. it is not a gain—it is cheating around the rules. we must ensure that, in the event that we set in place legislation—i hope—that the bill goes through—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.155', 1, 'uk.m.10001', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'unamended.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.156', 4, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'unamended—go on say it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.157', 167, 'uk.m.10090', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, i hope that the bill goes through unamended. but i know that it cannot go through in that form. i believe that the bill will go through in the way in which the hon. member for mossley hill has suggested if amendments are successful.\n in the event that the bill is accepted, i believe that it should be followed rapidly by legislation, or whatever is necessary, so that throughout the united kingdom abortion is made available within the law as it exists at the time. equally, there should be proper counselling services whereby woman are given the opportunity of advice so that they are able to make a balanced judgment. it seems utterly wrong that in one part of the country a woman is able to secure a service, which is her right in law, but that in another area she can be obstructed by the medical profession. that seems totally wrong. part and parcel of the debate on the bill must be about that provision.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.158', 309, 'uk.m.17180', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall make my position on this issue clear straight away. i am in favour of the bill because i see it as a first step to no abortions whatsoever. i say that to the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short), who is now leaving the chamber, and who asked us to be honest. i am being honest about this, because there is no point in behaving in any other way.\n in saying that, i am aware of the implications for ladies who have been raped, and the implications relating to incest and for the handicapped children who might be born as a result. nobody has felt more strongly about the impact of rape on ladies than i have, and nobody takes a stronger view about child abuse in the home.\n we have heard a great deal today about women\'s rights, but nothing about women\'s obligations. the minute a lady takes part in a sexual act, other than by force, she loses the right to control what happens to her body, because at the time of conception there is the beginning of another life inside her. that second life has rights that have to be recognised.\n i shall now deal with disabled and handicapped children who may not be born. for children to enjoy life, they do not have to have the speed of an athlete, the body of a bodybuilder or the agility of a gymnast. the book entitled "the dam-burst of dreams" about christopher nolan shows that. that young lad has no physical coordination and no normal body movement, but he can perceive life through his words and thoughts clearer than many of us sitting in the house now. he, if anybody, represents the right to life no matter what the handicap. he has the right to life, irrespective of what his mother may have thought.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.159', 2, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.160', 604, 'uk.m.17180', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i will not give way.\n fortunately for christopher nolan, he has a mother who wanted him and who has been a great help to him. he has made a major contribution to our lives in this country and elsewhere. there are many examples of handicapped children who have grown up to make contributions to our society.\n i am being quick because there are others who want to speak, but i should say that this debate has caused me a great deal of heart-searching. fifty years ago, a mother of 40 had a child who was born a spastic. that child was me, the member of parliament for hayes and harlington. i am concerned because i believe that, if the technology that is available now had been available 50 years ago, a doctor may well have said to my mother, "you are 40 years old and you are carrying a disabled child. there is brain damage. please have it aborted." opposition members may wish that had happened; i do not know. i am saying that my right to life came about because the technology was not available to help a doctor advise my mother about whether to allow me to live.\n i am a spastic. of course i am nowhere near as bad as christopher nolan, but i have to cope with the stresses and strains of minor disability. however, there was loving care from my mother in my home. by the age of nine, she had taught me how to do up my shoelaces because i could not use my hands properly. she told me that i could take part in sport and lead a normal life. she told me that, if she had her way, which she did, i would make some sort of success of my life. i suppose that having arrived here as a spastic with cerebral palsy is a measure of success.\n i have dealt mainly with handicap because people have said that mothers should have the right to decide whether to have a handicapped child. we are talking about a life inside a woman. the doctors advising that women could he wrong. that child could be born, survive and understand what is going on. christopher nolan represents the reason why we should not have any abortions at all. however, i understand and am concerned about incest and rape and the implication of a child being born as a result. i do not know the answer, but i do know that life is important from the minute that conception takes place. of course ladies have rights and we must consider them, but they also have obligations and responsibilities that they have to face up to.\n the hon. member for barking (ms richardson) raised the issue of the mentally handicapped having children. perhaps in this enlightened society we should be thinking about telling such people that they should not have children and helping them to enjoy a full life. we cannot say that they have the right to have children and then say that they can have an abortion. that is inconsistent.\n by its very nature, abortion is wrong. abortion at any time is wrong. i support the alton bill, if i can call it that, because he is making a move in the right direction. please let us not use handicapped or potentially handicapped children inside a woman\'s womb as a reason for taking a particular point of view. they have a right to life. in many ways, they lead a more fulfilled life than we do. i am convinced that that applies to christopher nolan, in his own way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.161', 2, 'uk.m.10635', 'uk.p.PC', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.162', 13, 'uk.m.17180', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg people to support the alton bill, perhaps as a first stage.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.163', 1010, 'uk.m.22641', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'sadly, in the twisted society in which we live, it is often impossible for a woman to say, "yes to life", to the life of the embryo growing within her, without damaging her own life and the life of her existing family.\n the whole question of abortion is closely linked to other campaigns that women have been fighting for many years. indeed, it has already been said that not only did we have to campaign for legal abortion, but we have had to campaign continually against repeated attacks on our abortion rights. the bill represents the thin edge of the wedge; if it is passed, it will lead to further attacks on women\'s right to legal abortion.\n if we were to win those other campaigns for which we are fighting, we would have a more civilised society, there would be few abortions, and late terminations would all but disappear. to achieve that end, we need improved sex education. we need contraceptives of all kinds, freely available and free. we need better housing and employment and training opportunities. we need safer childbirth—our record is not among the best in the advanced world. we must do away with some of the more recent "conveyor belt practices" connected with childbirth in hospitals, which have a traumatic effect on the baby during birth. we want nursery provision for young children. we want money for medical research into foetal abnormalities to discover them at an earlier stage. we need money for disabled people and money to provide facilities for them. we need money from the government. as of right, for women who are carers of children, the disabled, the sick and the old.\n if we win those campaigns, women will be able to have their children and we shall have a civilised society in which the rearing of children will be the joy that it should be. nowadays, all too often the birth of an unwanted child leads to child abuse, and that is something we should not forget.\n last week, i sent the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) a copy of a letter that i had received. i received many sad letters, but i was especially struck by this one, perhaps because it came from an old man. perhaps it was naive of me to send a copy of that letter to the hon. member for mossley hill, or perhaps it was a reflex action after 40 years of teaching, to try to make people face up to the consequences of their activities. that old man told me that he had for many years been looking after his handicapped son of 35, who is mentally disabled. the father was bitter and told how his wife had died in her fifties; he put that down to the strain of looking after their handicapped child. he was sad, he was tired, he was despairing, and above all he was haunted by the fear of what would happen to his handicapped son when he died. i have met many people with handicapped children who are haunted by that fear. it is another factor that has not been considered in this debate.\n but the central issue, the most important question to consider, is whether women should have control over their bodies—the right to decide what happens within their bodies—or whether they should be controlled by others. earlier in the debate, a conservative member raised the question of class. money gives one a lot of rights. those women, who have a lot of money and education, have the right to get round the restrictions of any kind of bill. if this bill is passed, such women will be able to find abortionists and will find a way to have their damaged foetuses aborted even at a late stage. however, poorer women would lose their rights. i am concerned for the rights of poorer women not only to have abortions, but to have children. those two things are connected.\n some years ago, i was in a women\'s hospital for a check-up. i was shocked to see the number of women there for sterilisation operations. an unduly large proportion of them were black or asian women. i went all round the ward asking the women why they were having this operation, and most of them had been advised by their doctor to have it as a form of contraception. it is because of my experiences as a young woman, long before 1967, that i am in favour of abortion on request in an adequate health sevice. it would solve almost all the problems of late terminations.\n i do not know whether some hon. members understand that no woman approaches abortion lightly. for the first few days after a woman has had a baby, her body trembles when she hears the baby cry. that is nature\'s way of tying the mother to the baby. this bonding starts from conception, so it is physically impossible for any woman to approach abortion lightly. they approach it after giving serious consideration to the factors involved.\n we have all heard about the pre-1967 period and the gin, hot baths, quinine pills, knitting needles and soap suds. we know that the best doctors—those who were caring and kind—were often criminalised and struck off the register.\n however hon. members may not appreciate the constant shadow that was cast over the lives of women, both married and unmarried, by the fear of unwanted pregnancy. every month, my generation and my mother\'s generation worried about becoming pregnant, especially if their period was late. they felt caged, trapped and frightened. they wondered what to do and where they would find someone who would give them an abortion if they could not cope with, or afford to have, another child.\n the bill will lead to the criminalisation of women and doctors once again. hon. members who are wavering about how to vote should think about their wives, girlfriends, daughters and granddaughters. they should vote for their choice to have control over their bodies; they should vote against this bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.164', 720, 'uk.m.10471', 'uk.p.DUP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one fact has emerged from the debate about which there has been no controversy—92 per cent. of all late abortions are of healthy babies. there is common ground on that fact, and it has been accepted and confirmed by the minister.\n people have rightly raised their convictions about womenfolk, handicapped children and other matters. they are entitled to do so, but surely we are entitled to speak for voiceless, defenceless, inarticulate healthy babies. the house must concern itself with that matter.\n the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has made his personal convictions clear. the hon. member for rochdale (mr. smith) said that he was not a roman catholic. i need not tell the house my religion [laughter.] we all have personal convictions.\n the hon. member for maidstone (miss widdecombe) made it clear that our prime interest is healthy babies who should not be aborted. a strong voice should be raised in the house for those who cannot speak for themselves.\n for more than 40 years, i have been a pastoral minister in a working-class district of east belfast, and i know the anguish. i speak as one who has had the experience of sitting with young women faced with this problem. i have tried to counsel them and tell them that everything will not be over when they have an abortion. i have in my hand a poem which one of them sent to me, and it is the saddest communication that i have ever received. a young unmarried women who became pregnant decided that an abortion was the best way out for her and two months later she wrote: there is no more happiness any more those days belong now behind a closed door darkness and despair now take its place i hate being a member of the human race that young woman\'s heart was completely broken.\n therefore, there is another side to having abortions; there is an aftermath and a harvest. i emphasis that those who adopt the same position as i do feel deeply and understand with compassion the heart-rending decisions that are being made by those people, but there is a more excellent way.\n the purpose of abortion must be questioned. is it for the convenience of others or for the good of the child? that is the prime question that must be asked. it is simply not enough to say in reply that children are unwanted, so should be destroyed. no one has the right to adopt that attitude. the gruesome act of abortion as it has been delineated here today has been repudiated, and it has been said that those facts should not be brought into the debate. but we are talking about a child—a real person—who is being destroyed. that a child should be destroyed within the mother\'s womb in that way is something about which we must righteously protest.\n those who are ardent campaigners for women\'s rights indict anti-abortionists as taking from women the right to exercise control over their fertility, but that is another matter from control over life itself, and that must be emphasised. easy-going tolerance has contributed much to the current vague estimation of the value of life. it does not occur to many that what they call tolerance is in reality a sheer lack of conviction.\n it is not particularly significant if a person with no great convictions says that he or she is tolerant. tolerance is a virtue only if a person believes in something strongly, yet respects the rights of another to disagree. true christian tolerance does not play footsie with the truth. a good law will not make good people—and we all know that—but evil law not only legalises evil but prevents the development of good and tears down the nation\'s morality.\n the old saying that one cannot make men love by law is true. but christian realism is not content with that, because it knows that love in social terms is expressed in justice for all, and that "all" includes the unborn child. the bill calls for an immediate and definite response. the three avenues along which we make our decisions are intellect, conscience and emotion. i contend that in each of those three areas, support for the bill is the most responsible line that we can take for our society.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.165', 390, 'uk.m.10411', 'uk.p.SDLP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i want to pay tribute to the promoter of the bill, the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton), for the time and effort that he has spent on it and for the amount of abuse that he has had to take because of it. we all know that he exercised a self-denying ordinance by refusing himself the right to be liberal chief whip during these exciting times of trial. for that also he should be praised.\n i have two points to make, one of them in response to the question asked by the hon. member for birmingham, ladywood (ms. short), who implied that those of us who oppose abortion are somehow being hypocritical by supporting the bill. that is a valid and understandable criticism, which must be answered. anyone who believes, as i do, that abortion is wrong must surely take every opportunity to reduce its incidence, even if the step taken will save only one, four, ten or a hundred lives. the decision to compromise with one's own conscience will thus have been rewarded in the most practical way possible.\n one thing that has been clear throughout the debate and that will always be clear in such debates is that the issue is not to do with the peripheral matters that have been raised, or with the emotions and anger that have been shown. the subject of our discussion has been variously called a child, a baby, a foetus, a person and a thing. perhaps if we settled for a proper name, a proper terminology, that might help many of us to make up our minds. i suggest that we substitute the term human being. if we do, there remains one fundamental question to ask and answer as we vote today. what precept of morality, legality or civics can justify the death of 7,000 human beings in this country under a piece of legislation that was sanctioned on the floor of the house? that is the only serious question for the legislator. we shall answer it today. i repeat it because it is stark, harsh and real, and we shall choose our answer to it when we choose which lobby to enter. how can we justify in political, legal or civil terms the taking away of life from 7,000 people if we accept the name human being?\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.166', 350, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have listened with great interest to all the arguments deployed in the debate. one aspect that has been neglected is the consideration of whether we should dignify the bill that the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) has brought before the house by making it law. the hon. gentleman seeks to introduce the heavy hand of regulation into human behaviour. human conduct is largely defined by habit and arises spontaneously to be tested and refined in our courts of law. whenever this issue has been tested in a court of law, the court has come down on the side of the woman. it has not accepted the precedence of an unborn child over the mother. in the latest case in which this was tested, when a young man brought a case against his girl friend who was some 20 weeks pregnant, the court ruled in favour of the young woman, so we are not a society that has no organisation or laws apart from those decided in this house.\n the campaign that has been conducted by the hon. member for mossley hill is largely based on emotion and on some very unpleasant, aesthetically revolting suggestions which have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house. if those conditions apply to abortions, i am sure that we all deplore them, but they are no reason for denying a woman the right to have a termination if, after consulting her family, her doctors and, where appropriate, her religious advisers, she decides to have an abortion. it ill behoves the house to remove that right from her.\n i appeal to my fellow conservative members, who are prevaricating on an issue of personal rights. the conservative party takes great pride in having reduced the role of the state in people's lives during the past decade. we are rolling back the state, yet the bill would push us back decades into the darker realms of human conduct to the time when the most common cause of female mortality was badly conducted abortions.\n british women are solidly against the bill—\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.167', 1, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'rubbish.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.168', 22, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'all the polls and surveys that have been sent to us show that the majority of the population is against the bill—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.169', 3, 'uk.m.17973', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'they do not.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.170', 481, 'uk.m.10236', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "if hon. members can mention the biased poll conducted by gynaecologists, we can also mention the show of hands on a television programme yesterday, which showed that 90 per cent. of a balanced audience was in favour of a woman's right to choose. it should be noted that every responsible medical society opposes the bill, including the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists, the royal college of midwives, the royal college of general practitioners, the british medical association, the british paediatric association and the clinical genetics society. they are not back-street abortionists making money out of foreign women, with whose plight i sympathise; they are some of the most responsible bodies in the land and they oppose the bill.\n many other people oppose the bill. with some of my colleagues—far too few—i attended a moving meeting conducted by parents of handicapped children who have had to live with the problem. i shall not repeat the arguments about physically and mentally handicapped children. suffice it to say that some of those parents consider it a mercy that children born with appalling difficulties, who live their lives in pain and sorrow and who die young, are now capable of not being born. that is not just my view; it is the view of the parents who attended that meeting.\n many times, the hon. member for mossley hill has trotted out examples of handicapped people who have lived and who are pleased to have lived. i am sure that we all take pleasure in that. but we heard from a young woman with a genetic disorder whose blood must be changed several times a month, who has a pump under her skin to keep her going, who develops extremely painful lumps in her stomach and who is constantly in pain. she told us that she would rather not be alive. for every case that the hon. gentleman raised, there is another case. i agree that it is only part of the argument, but it is an extremely potent and important point.\n it is a matter of civil rights. it is a matter of a woman's right to decide her own future and her own fertility. this chamber should not lightly take that right from her. those who consider that abortion is wrong should test their prejudices in a court of law. abortion matters should be decided in a court of law, not in the house, where our prejudices and religious attitudes are being used in a variety of ways in an attempt to influence the bill.\n the hon. member for mossley hill poses as a caring progressive. his bill will bring misery and suffering to thousands of families. those who really care, those who work with the situation, those who have lived with the situation, and even those who were born in the situation oppose him. i beg the house to oppose the bill.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.171', 753, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i waited for the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) to deal with the detail of his bill. in particular, i waited for him to define what he meant when he said that a woman\'s pregnancy may be terminated up to the beginning of the 18th week of gestation. i waited for him to tell us what the 18th week of gestation is and how he would go about proving it. there is no legal definition of pregnancy. as a legal matter, the 18th week of gestation does not exist. how would the hon. gentleman define it? the hon. gentleman may ask how we define 28 weeks. in practice, we do not; it is not necessary.\n the present state of the law is not that abortion is legal up to 28 weeks. section 1(1) of the infant life (preservation) act 1929 states: any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony". the term is: a child capable of being born alive". the law in such cases is applied case by case. a doctor who performs an abortion after 24 weeks must be ready to justify in the courts that the child was not capable of being born alive. this bill would not allow a case-by-case analysis. it is a general assertion that there is a particular day on which an abortion will become criminal. the hon. gentleman does not tell us which day.\n which day represents the 18th week of gestation? supporters of the bill do not know. doctors do not know. the woman concerned does not really know. in any case, the woman is in the best position to say, and she is the one to be criminalised, so she cannot be expected to be co-operative.\n at the moment, the law is flexible. it puts a medical matter in the proper position to be argued medically, even if it has to be done in the courts. the bill destroys that. if hon. members pass the bill, we will criminalize thousands of women and their doctors and be careless of the capacity to prove what was being asserted. that would be irresponsible.\n we have been told a great deal about the possibility of amending the bill in committee. i listened carefully to the hon. member for mossley hill, and i shall tell hon. members what he is offering. he said that it would be "proper to examine" how to "rationalise the law". he said "examine", not "agree with you". he said that if it would result in a "useful measure", he would not be intransigent, but he also made clear that his view of a useful measure is not likely to be that of the house or of the people outside.\n in the past, when we have sought to use the procedures of the house to examine in detail proposals for changing the abortion laws, we have been accused of procedural abuse. i have served on committees of the house which have dealt with abortion. i have been guilty not of procedural abuse, but of trying to examine the nature and detail of the bill. i do not believe that the house will give a second reading to the bill, but, if it does, and we come to consider the matter in detail, we shall be abused.\n my hon. friend the member for workington (mr. campbell-savours) says that the matter will be considered in committee and that it is a matter of compromise and give and take. the quality of his intervention in this matter can be judged by his comment earlier today that, from the beginning, he regretted the introduction of the subject of foreign women. i have a letter from my hon. friend, dated 17 october 1987, which states: the reasons we have chosen 18 weeks are as follows. the concluding sentence of his first paragraph states: over half of these abortions are on foreign women. he did not regret the matter sufficiently.\n the offers to amend the bill, being made so generously in the house today, arise for only one reason. the sponsors have calculated that they cannot win with the bill as it stands at present, so they are trying to make us believe that the bill, which was not published until 18 december 1987, will suddenly, by 22 january 1988, be subject to wholesale change.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.172', 48, 'uk.m.10540', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this issue is crucial to many hon. members. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) said that if it were amended and still useful, he would continue to support it. he did not say that he would support any amendment to allow abortion for foetal abnormalities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.173', 424, 'uk.m.10649', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for mossley hill clearly said that he is against abortion per se, whether early or late. that is why he voted against the attempt of my hon. friend the member for barking (ms. richardson) some years ago to make better provision for early abortion. we are being offered merely procedural gambles. it is a procedural ploy to persuade us to give way because its supporters cannot push through the bill they have actually presented to the house.\n this is a most important matter. we are dealing with the lives and happiness of many people and we should not subject them to a mere procedural gamble in the house. it is also very difficult to get matters which have been considered in committee back on to the floor of the house. we do so by all sorts of ploys, such as slightly changing the words. how can we change the words "24 weeks"? they do not lend themselves to that sort of ploy.\n the supporters of the bill say that they are pro-life. i want to protest on behalf of everybody who will vote against the bill. we are pro-life, but we do not neglect the fact that people also have a right to happiness. unlike the sponsors of the bill, on tuesday, in the grand committee room, we listened to the parents of handicapped children. they said that they had their abortions out of love and described watching their children die. the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (dame j. knight) says that those women have a choice—to remain childless. that will happen if the bill is passed. we say that women should have the choice of termination of pregnancy and then to go on to bear a healthy child if possible.\n i am not ducking the issue of those terminations that are not the result of foetal handicap. women can be driven to desperation for reasons other than foetal handicap. in addition to the list of those who have said that the legislation is wrong, the faculty of community medicine tells us —if hon. members have read the brief—what happens to babies who are unwanted.\n the remarkable consensus on this issue stretches from every woman labour member right across to the conservative women\'s national committee. that consensus arises not because we have suddenly all become the same sort of people, but because as women we share some life experiences. hon. members must be careful in riding against this broad, strong view of women who, day after day, act out of love.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.174', 441, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have had a debate lasting more than four hours which at times has been heated and emotional, as is right when we discuss such a subject. some 23 right hon. and hon. members have spoken. i trust that, because of the limited time left to me, the house will forgive my not referring directly to every contribution.\n not all the bill\'s supporters are religious zealots, as has been suggested by the media. in fact, i have not been able to spot one. my hon. friend the member for billericay (mrs. gorman) suggested that we are all religious zealots. many who supported the bill would not support the abolition of abortion, so may we please have that on the record. we are told that we are all anti-abortionists. that is not true. there is much support for the bill in the house and throughout the country by people who would not wish to see the return of back-street abortions. the hon. member for liverpool, mossley hill (mr. alton) is, as he said, a liberal and a catholic, yet we have seen during today\'s debate and previously that the bill attracts support, and opposition, on both sides of the house and among people of all religious and christian backgrounds.\n in 1966 the right hon. member for tweeddale, ettrick and lauderdale (mr. steel) said: we want to stamp out the back-street abortions, but it is not the intention of the promoters of the bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on request. i wonder whether that is still the case today. later, the right hon. gentleman said: there is a clear statement in the bill that nothing in the bill affects the protection afforded by the law to the viable foetus." —[ official report, 22 july 1966; vol. 732, c. 1075–77.] can we honestly say that that is the fact today? perhaps not.\n britain\'s current limit of 28 weeks is the single reason, as we have heard repeatedly, why so many women from foreign countries come here for abortions. some 43 per cent. of those seeking abortion in recent years have come from other countries. in short, we are becoming the foetal dustbin of europe. the house should not let that continue.\n it has been mentioned that this week the irish writer christopher nolan was awarded a literary prize. that is a grand example of how disability can mask a great talent hon. members realise that that young man lacked oxygen during birth, causing his disabilities. we are not suggesting that he was a disabled foetus. however, we can learn a lot. from what christopher nolan has to say — [interruption.] \n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.175', 18, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'this has been a very quiet and. serious debate. i hope that it will end in that way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.176', 414, 'uk.m.22624', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "perhaps the house will give me a moment to refer to a very short passage from christopher nolan's book in which he talks about his own life and says that the future for babies like him never looked more promising, but now society frowned upon giving spastic babies a right to life. now they have threatened to abort babies like him, to detect in advance their handicapped state, to burrow through the womb and label them for death, to batter their mothers with fear for their coming. and yet the spastic baby would ever be the soul which would never kill, maim or hate brotherhood. why, then, did society fear the crippled child? that is a timely lesson to us all.\n i know that time is not on my side and i cannot say many of the things i would have wished to say. the house is now undecided about whether it should be allowed to legislate on issues that affect women, but that has been happening for centuries. there has always been a male-dominated house of commons legislating for women. why should that change today? now, in 1988, there are more women in the house than ever before, so why should we change the rules? of course, we should like there to be more women in the house, but at present we must put up with the number that is already here.\n all too often, abortion is billed as a battle between the rights of the mother and those of her unborn child. the bill is designed to provide a choice for mother and child. that is why i support it.\n we make many claims to be a civilised society. how can such a society allow the dismemberment of human beings without anaesthetic for removal from the womb, followed by the careful rebuilding of the dead child in some hospital sluice room to check that nothing has been left inside the mother? the living unborn deserve better than obscene and macabre games.\n it is important that the bill should be debated more fully in committee. we have heard many reasons why it should not reach committee. i ask hon. members who support the bill to vote for it today to ensure that it reaches committee so that many of the objections, worries and concerns that have been expressed today can be examined in much more detail and voted on by the house at a later stage. i commend the bill to the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.177', 22, 'uk.m.21717', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n question put, that the question be now put—\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.178', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4.1.179', 35, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i wish to be quite clear that the house appreciates the question that i put. the closure has been moved, and i put the question on the closure. i will put the question again.\n ', datetime.datetime(1988, 1, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1988-01-22.4']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT)']
[['uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10.1.1', 1264, 'uk.m.16469', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in a bill to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks. i apologise to the house for bringing before it yet again an issue which many people may feel has been well aired. i remind hon. members that we have spent a great deal of time in this session discussing a matter that concerns many people in this country, and have failed to change one section, one comma or one full stop of the abortion act 1967. yet, when the house debated the subject, it was quite clear that many hon. members on both sides felt that there was room for change in the 1967 act. because of the almost obstinate view of people on both sides of the argument, that they will not give way or compromise at all, i feel that no progress has been made in achieving any sort of reasonable compromise to deal with the problems that many of us feel should be tackled.\n i do not believe that a ten-minute bill of this kind will fundamentally alter the reasons why women are forced to have abortions, and i am convinced that as a society we must do something about the stigmas that are attached to one-parent families and to those who feel that it is impossible to cope with having a child and who are driven into the hands of the abortionists. i also believe that the contraceptive services which we offer leave a great deal to be desired. but the fact that there is now one abortion every four minutes in this country must surely convince right hon. and hon. members that the time has come to look again at the way in which our legislation is working and to challenge the sort of suppositions upon which it has been based.\n whether or not this bill is given the opportunity of being debated further, i am sure that many hon. members will continue to have sincerely held views either for or against abortion. however, i am certain that there cannot be many hon. members whose views have changed since we took a vote only a few weeks ago on whether the length of pregnancy at which an abortion can take place should be reduced. that is the matter to which i want hon. members to address their minds. i am certain that there is a need to reduce the time at which an abortion can take place from the present 28-week limit. personally, i should like to see it lower than 24 weeks, and i voted accordingly. however, when the question was put to the house, the vote was lost by 298 to 120, a majority of 178. when a further vote was taken on the 24-week limit, it was agreed to by 275 to 172, thus demonstrating that a clear majority of the house was in favour of a reduction from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. that is why i believe that we must introduce a series of one-clause bills in order to amend the legislation, and i make it quite clear to those who hold views that are the opposite of my own that this is not the end of the argument.\n indeed, the minister himself accepted that if further evidence is brought forward it may be necessary to look at a time limit lower than 24 weeks. therefore, there can never be an end to this argument, and my bill will not stop hon. members from introducing further amendments and further bills. i believe that there is room for this bill, which the majority of hon. members supported just a few weeks ago. in evidence, i refer hon. members to the lane committee, which said: numerous organisations and individuals have recommended an upper limit on the period of gestation at which abortion may lawfully take place. their principal reasons for so doing may be summarised as follows:— | (1) to encourage early application for, and performance of, abortion and thus to avoid or minimise the risks of the operation, which increase substantially after the first trimester of pregnancy. | (2) to spare the patient and the medical and nursing staff the revulsion and distress occasioned by later abortions, such reactions becoming progressively more severe as the fetus assumes an increasingly human form and movements may be seen. | (3) to avoid the destruction of a well-developed fetus and particularly one which might survive termination of pregnancy." | mrs. justice lane had this to say in her recommendations: informed opinion is, and the committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of twenty-eight weeks for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born infants. viability must be a question of fact in each case but, while it may be theoretically possible for a fetus to survive at twenty-four weeks\' gestation, in practice there is little hope of survival at a gestational age of less than twenty-six weeks. an upper limit of twenty-four weeks\' gestation for abortion should afford protection for any fetus with a real chance of survival independently of its mother. further research may justify a reduction of this period". indeed, that is one of the reasons why in the amendment, which he accepted and supported, the minister talked in terms of exceptions being made and the possibility of further reductions in the future. the committee recommended that the abortion act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy and not thereafter". a leader in the times , commenting on that, said: there is still room for medical argument about whether it is necessary to stipulate 20 weeks to secure that objective, or whether 22 or 24 weeks would do; but there should be little disagreement about the objective itself. the guardian newspaper said of abortions: two out of every 1,000 are carried out on women who have been pregnant for over 24 weeks. about 200 in a year. but both mrs. justice lane\'s committee, which spent three years reviewing our abortion procedures, and the world health organisation have recommended a limit of 24 weeks. in opening, i said that a number of right hon. and hon. members had tried to amend the legislation since my right hon. friend the member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) introduced the 1967 act. i must say that i opposed his views then within the political party of which i am a member, and i have consistently taken that view. however, i am pleased that today both he and i are sponsors of this bill, which demonstrates that there is support on both sides of the argument for the change.\n since 1967, many attempts have been made to change the legislation. on 15 july 1969, the right hon. member for chelmsford (mr. st. john-stevas), now leader of the house, failed to get a first reading for his bill by 210 votes to 199. the abortion law (reform) bill in the 1969–70 session, in the name of the hon. member for rye (mr. godman irvine), was talked out on second reading. numerous other attempts were made, but i shall not go into them as my time is running out.\n i believe that there is a need for this change. i hope that hon. members will support the bill, which seeks to amend the law on abortion so as to enable registered medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies which have lasted for less than twenty-four weeks. \n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 4, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10.1.2', 15, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i understand that the hon. member for york (mr. lyon) wishes to oppose the motion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 4, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10.1.3', 1019, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is no prerogative of moral concern on this issue. there are those such as the hon. member for liverpool, edgehill (mr. alton) whose moral principles make them oppose abortion in all circumstances. there are many whose moral principles make them believe that it is for a woman to choose whether she wants to have an abortion. i have never taken either of those extreme views, nor did the house in 1967. it came to a balance of the moral concerns, between concern for the life and health of the mother and the life of the foetus. we thought then that we had achieved an appropriate balance.\n the arguments that i advance today are addressed not to those who are confirmed in their view on either extreme but rather to those in the middle who accepted that balance but who may consider that, in the light of events since then, it is time to change. to those who argue that perhaps we ought to do so in order to give finality to the argument, i must point out that the hon. member for edge hill has already destroyed that argument by indicating that his bill would not be the last enactment upon the subject, and that those who are opposed to abortion would continue to introduce bills in the future.\n i suggest that those hon. members who want finality vote strongly against the bill today so that the house can show to the country that the balance which was achieved in 1967 was the right one and ought to continue.\n i address most of my arguments to the point that has been made in favour of the bill, namely, that, because it is now possible to save a foetus at a much earlier period than it was in 1967, we ought to reduce the top limit in order to avoid the circumstances in which, because of an abortion, a child may come into the world who was capable of living but who was then put to death. i want to make it as plain as i can that that has never been the law. it will not be the law if we pass the bill. indeed, there has never been an occasion when it has been permissible for a viable foetus that is capable of living to come into the world and for it then legitimately to be put to death.\n it would be an offence under the infant life (preservation) act, and it would be an offence of murder if it were done deliberately. it would be an offence of manslaughter if the consultant or doctor who brought that child into the world were to neglect it, and thereby imperil its life. for that reason, since 1975 the regulations for carrying out abortions have insisted that whenever an abortion takes place after 20 weeks gestation it should take place in circumstances where there is the machinery to resuscitate the foetus if it is capable of living.\n we are not discussing the question—so emotively put in much of the propaganda—whether foetuses will be put to death after they have been born. if a foetus is capable of living, it must continue to live. the argument about a 28-week limit is misconceived. no limit is laid down in the abortion act 1967. the limit of 28 weeks is laid down in the infant life (preservation) act 1929. it is stated there that it is an offence to kill a child capable of being born alive. if an abortion takes place after 28 weeks of pregnancy the presumption is against the accused, that the child would have been borne alive, and the accused has to refute that presumption. that has always been a rebuttable presumption, and from 1965 onwards it was always possible for legitimate abortion to be carried out after 28 weeks, which was not an offence under the infant life (preservation) act.\n the difference between the corrie bill—if i may so call it—and this bill is that that arguable presumption was removed. any abortion carried out after 24 or 28 weeks would have been an offence. if people argue about whether that offence is desirable, they should then consider the circumstances. at present, very few abortions take place after 24 weeks. only 183 such abortions took place in 1977, and of those the majority were dictated by the circumstances of the life or health of the foetus or of the life or health of the mother. some people now say that we should shift the moral balance so that the time limit is held at 24 weeks or less. incidentally, this bill does not say that the limit should be 24 weeks or less. it says that the limit should be less than 24 weeks, which means 23 weeks, and when the two weeks that consultants allow as a buffer period are taken off, the limit is 21 weeks. if we say that the balance must be held at 21 weeks we are shifting the balance of moral concern from the life and the health of the mother, and the life and health of the other children, towards the foetus.\n given the circumstances that i have indicated, i do not believe that a foetus that is capable of being born alive will ever be destroyed, and that that is the right balance to hold. it means that we would stop the abortion of a foetus that would be born dead, and we would do so merely on the grounds of the moral concern of some people against the interest of the health and life of the mother and other children and towards the foetus. i do not believe that that is a desirable thesis.\n we should now say to the country as a whole, and to all those who campaigned against the 1967 bill, that we struck the right balance in 1967. it is the right balance for us now and we should hold to it in the future, and we should tell our constituents that. let us now vote against the bill in order to make that plain.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 4, 22, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-04-22.10']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1974-06-14.14.1.3', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'object.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-14.14'], ['uk.proc.d.1974-06-14.14.1.4', 6, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the motion is not agreed to.\n ', datetime.datetime(1974, 6, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1974-06-14.14']]
['ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2.1.2', 252, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i should like to put to you, or perhaps through you to the minister, a point of order about today's business on which clarification might help the house. the fourth item on the order paper, proposing the appointment of a select committee, touches closely upon the private member's bill which the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) will, i hope, shortly seek to move.\n i do not know whether the house has had an opportunity fully to study the statement by the leader of the house on business yesterday, but there are certain points about the proposed select committee arising from it on which we need, and would welcome, detailed, or at least some, information from the government before we can proceed to an orderly debate on the first item of business. the composition and balance of the proposed select committee, the time that it is expected to take gathering evidence, particularly its terms of reference and scope, at which the leader of the house undertook to have another look, are matters about which we need to know more as early as possible if we are to have a constructive debate and come to a sensible conclusion.\n therefore, may i through you, mr. deputy speaker, ask whether the minister intends to give the house any information on this innovation in parliamentary practice which is being thrust upon us today and whether he will do so at an early stage in the forthcoming debate?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2.1.3', 83, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i am at the disposal of the house, mr. deputy speaker. this is private members' business. it may be for the convenience of the house for the hon. member whose bill it is to move the second reading and for me to speak whenever the house wills it. if hon. members wish me to speak rather earlier in the debate than is normal in private members' business to explain the situation, i will do so if that suits the mood of the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2.1.4', 40, 'uk.m.19156', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i think it would be the will of the house, and it would certainly help many hon. members, if the minister would intervene at an early stage to clarify the situation.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2.1.5', 11, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'it looks as though we may start on a good note.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.2'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.3', 1085, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be now read a second time.\n i hope that the house will allow me to leave the explanation of the clauses and subsections to my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), who has given me great help and assistance, together with the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine).\n the bill is an amending measure to the principal act, the abortion act 1967, which was sponsored by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel). i do not want to waste the time of the house by going through the small print, because my hon. friend the member for pontypool, with his legal knowledge, will do a much better job.\n it is fair to state at the outset that had i been a member of this house in 1967 i would have voted for the original abortion bill. i take no hard line on abortion. however, i would have been in that lobby to get that legislation put on the statute book. therefore, i want to make it clear that, although there has been some talk about what is intended, i take no hard line on abortion. until such time as the "new jerusalem" comes along with no bad housing, no poverty and no alcoholic husbands, i insist that abortion must be made available for women with problems.\n i first became aware of the problems of the previous act in the 1970 election, when, although a liberal member had introduced it, the backlash fell upon the labour government. the labour government have some responsibility for the act because of their generosity in giving time for it to be debated. what concerns most people is the abuses which have come about because of the act. this is now a public scandal, especially in scotland. since the house was responsible for putting through the act, it is its duty to see exactly how it is working.\n the act has been working now for seven or eight years and public opinion demands that we look at it again. i recognise that many hon. members will think that i am not going far enough, and that many people with strong religious beliefs want the act repealed altogether. i and my fellow sponsors could not agree to that. however, on the other side of the coin, many people want abortion on demand. we hear the shrill voice of the guardian demanding this, but many people do not want it. we have tried to steer a middle course between the two contending lobbies and to produce a consensus bill. we can do a great deal to assuage public concern and perhaps end this persistent controversy. i wish to contain it, not to inflame it.\n the abuses which cause so much public concern operate largely in the private sector. most of the profound misgivings in the wider community, whatever view might be held about abortion, relate to late abortions. we must also consider the position of the live foetus or potentially live foetus and how it is disposed of, whether for research or even perhaps for commercial purposes.\n the base of commercial operators is the growing number of foreign women who are lured into britain in the knowledge that for cash a group of doctors will perform illegal abortions on request, totally ignoring the criteria of the act. i must stress this foreign traffic, not because i am anti-german, anti-french or anti-italian, but because of one of the comments in the lane report. i disagree with a good deal of the report, but i agree with it when it says: it would undoubtedly be more difficult, if not impossible, to ensure their implementation in respect of non-resident women". the reference there is to counselling, after-care and making sure that these women get the attention they should have.\n we are not talking here about a marginal number of cases from abroad. the figures show that in 1971 the notified number of foreign women coming here was 30,000; in 1972 it was 49,000 and in 1973 it was 56,000. the house is too sophisticated, i think, to accept those figures. the lane committee had no doubt that they were incorrect. in paragraph 126, it said: because we are convinced that within the private sector some abortions are performed without any certificate being completed or without notification being given, we recommend that expert advice be taken as to the improvement of forms of certification and notification and as to the recording of these, so that an efficient check upon them may be made. the minister will no doubt give his views on that important matter, but there is general agreement that the figures for abortions for non-residents represent a gross understatement.\n investigations by the metropolitan police, reported in 1973, suggest that these figures represent only half the number of abortions carried out. they believe that the traffic in these clinics is worth £10 million a year. many of these women are treated worse than cattle. nine or 10 days ago, when the house debated the slaughter of animals, there was great emotion. i am delighted to see that so many hon. members have stayed today for this important bill.\n we are not concerned only with foreign women. we want a tighter control on these clinics, to ensure that skilled and ethical medical staff work in them. that is why the bill would provide for a precondition of approval of clinics by the secretary of state, with an adviser who was or had been a consultant approved by the secretary of state and with experience in the national health service. this would ensure that someone at a clinic had direct responsibility for supervising clinical procedures and for the appointment of doctors.\n women who go into these clinics are entitled to feel sure that they are properly conducted medically and surgically and that they are within the law. women are entitled to proper privacy, and to feel sure that they have had a genuine pregnancy test; society is entitled to be satisfied that the clinics are charging proper rates, keeping proper accounts and paying tax. the bill seeks to ensure that the survelliance and conduct of these private clinics accords with the standards i have mentioned.\n apart from the clinics themselves, the bill seeks to deal with parasitic pregnancy advising and referral bureaux which have acted as agents for existing private clinics. many are run by touting taxi drivers, former taxi drivers or spurious charities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.4', 1, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'touts.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.5', 514, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes, touts. there is evidence that all but two are run by non-medical people. the police have said that criminal gangs are suspected of having an interest. hijacking by touts and package deals for terminations have been practised by many of these agencies. the bill does not attempt to abolish them. what it does is make certain that only doctors and bureaux approved by the secretary of state will be permitted to give advice for payment and it lays down the proper criteria which would be required before approval could be given.\n it is, however, useless to seek to ensure the security of women, whether at private clinics or at bureaux, unless we alter the law to overcome the serious enforcement difficulties which at present exist and ensure that the will of the house operates properly in the private sector. there is no hidden intention behind the bill. the pro-abortion lobby has been talking about clauses of which it is suspicious. i and my fellow sponsors give our word to the house that no tricks are being played. we want to make the 1967 act work as it was intended to work.\n the other overriding aim of the bill is to end the situation in which it is possible for unborn children to be slain even though they have reached a stage at which modern techniques might enable them to survive. the whole of scotland was deeply shocked on 19th and 20th january 1969 when we were about to burn a live baby. i can repeat what a jury in the glasgow high court unanimously recommended—that in all cases, an infant approaching or of viable age must be subject to resuscitation, and secondly that legislation should be introduced prohibiting abortion when the foetus is approaching or has reached a state of viability. this matter caused great abhorrence in scotland.\n the house will readily agree with me that there should be no abortion after a gestation period of 20 weeks. we have taken this advice from sir john peel's report. he presided over a group of distinguished scientists and lawyers who were directing their attention to public concern about experiments on the foetus or foetus material. the other recommendations made by the peel committee we have placed in statutory form in part iii of the bill, as we believe that it will be the general wish that such sensitive experiments should be carried out under a proper code of conduct.\n i recognise that a bill of this kind put forward by a private member is bound to be ambitious, perhaps even over-ambitious. i know, too, that it is important on this occasion that we get amending legislation. if, therefore, i receive what i regard as an appropriate undertaking when the minister speaks later, it is right that i should tell the house immediately that i have it in mind, at a later stage in the debate, to ask the leave of the house to withdraw the bill. i am quite sure that the house will agree to this with the promises coming from the government.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.6', 121, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i want to make a friendly intervention, because i support the principles of the hon. gentleman's bill. equally, i feel that there would be considerable advantages in a select committee looking at the bill. evidence could be given by the interests on either side. i wonder whether the hon. gentleman has had an assurance from the government that if the house accepts a select committee, it will not be a device for postponement. has the hon. gentleman got a commitment from the government that, if the house accepts a select committee, legislation will be brought forward speedily following the deliberations of that select committee, which would help the house—and it would certainly help me—in deciding on its attitude to the bill?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.7', 147, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i expect that when the minister has made his remarks he will have satisfied the whole house. i do not think anyone present today will be under any illusion that there is not very strong feeling on this matter. i am delighted that the government have offered to set up a select committee. the time is long overdue when this country must take another look at the matter. there is an awful lot of talk, scandal and abhorrence about the way in which the act has been carried out.\n i must make it crystal clear, however, that i want my hon. friend the minister to give an assurance that if the select committee does not report by the end of this session, that select committee will be carried forward into the next session. i am sure that the government will be prepared to give us these assurances.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.8', 62, 'uk.m.10134', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has rather disappointed some of us with his last remarks. if there is to be a select committee—i do not oppose that in principle; i am totally with the hon. gentleman—it must be a select committee which meets and conducts its business with considerable dispatch, because neither the house nor the country will tolerate this situation persisting much longer.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.9', 136, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i could not agree more with the hon. gentleman. i am sure we shall find the government very accommodating.\n the government have already made some pronouncements on this matter, such as licences for only three months instead of a year. my hon. friend the minister remarked two or three weeks ago that the government were not happy about how the abortion act was working out.\n i do not want to take any more time as many hon. members want to speak. i am very grateful to my fellow sponsors of the bill. i am more obliged than i can tell to my hon. friend the member for pontypool and the hon. member for essex, south-east. i hope today that we shall get what we are after—a close look at the working of the abortion act 1967.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.10', 74, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. in view of what has been said by the sponsor of the bill—i am a co-sponsor and i have great sympathy with most of what my hon. friend has said—would it be in order now, following the intervention of the minister, that we should be able to discuss the select committee motion with the motion for second reading? both motions seem to be inextricably tied up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.11', 81, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "i am afraid that it would not be in order to follow that course.\n i was about to say, before the point of order, that it will not surprise hon. members to learn that more than 30 members wish to take part in the debate. the debate could continue until 4 o'clock. nevertheless, it will require a great deal of discipline and restraint on the part of hon. members if we are to accommodate all those who wish to take part.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.12', 27, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i do not believe you were in the chair earlier in our proceedings, when i had from the chair—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.13', 13, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'obviously there are not two occupants of the chair at the same time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.14', 166, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "while the imagination of the house boggles at that thought, mr. deputy speaker, may i, without disrespect, go on to say that you would not, therefore, have heard what the minister said in response to my proposition that if we were not able to have a discussion on the principle or the relevance of the fourth motion on the order paper, the whole debate would tend to be rather fortuitous and unconstructive. in response to that, the minister said that it was his intention to intervene to make a statement in elaboration of the statement made yesterday by the leader of the house and the thinking underlying the government's motion.\n i hope very much, mr. deputy speaker, that you would not rule the minister out of order if he sought to do that at an early stage in the debate, particularly in view of the importance we attach to this matter in the light of the remarks of the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white).\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.15', 44, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i apologise to the house. i misunderstood the nature of the point of order. i understood that the hon. gentleman wanted to dispose of something which would not strictly be in order. but i have no intention of ruling out discussion of both motions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.17', 529, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'whatever the different views may be on the merits of the bill there will be almost unanimity in the house that we should be grateful to the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), because he has enabled the house at long last to have a full debate on the working of the abortion act 1967. for that reason, and following the spirit in which the hon. gentleman introduced the bill and the indication he has given that, subject to what the minister says, he intends to withdraw it, i do not propose to go through the clauses and criticise the bill in detail. i hope that the house will allow me a certain amount of indulgence, because i would rather review the working of the act, having been its original sponsor.\n i should like to think, mr. deputy speaker—you may not personally agree—that i have established a reputation for making short speeches and rarely speak for more than 10 minutes. however, i may transgress a little today as there is much to be said on this subject.\n first, we should try to get the facts of the situation since 1967 clearly established in our minds. i want to remind the house that one of the main reasons why parliament passed the 1967 act was that we were determined as a house to stamp out from this country the scourge of criminal abortion. we can look back over the official figures of deaths of women in this country from abortion. we can see that they have been falling steadily from the high point of 62 in 1960, before the act, to the very small figure of 12 deaths last year from abortion, of which only six were from criminal abortion.\n there is ample evidence from the medical profession that criminal abortion has been virtually eliminated from britain. some members who met members of the medical profession in a room downstairs earlier this week were told of a renal dialysis unit which was set up in a hospital in london just before the 1967 act specially to deal with the after-effects on women who had taken drugs in an attempt to abort themselves. happily, that unit is now closed through lack of patients.\n we were told of the eye consultant who finds that in his practice he no longer has to deal with the effects on women who have either partially lost or in some cases wholly lost their sight through overdoses of quinine. such cases no longer come to him. we were told by a general practitioner in north london that in the course of his ordinary practice he used to have four or five patients a year who were tragic cases of sterility or were suffering from severe physical damage as a result of criminal abortion. he no longer has such cases.\n the official home office records show that there has been a drastic reduction in the number of criminal prosecutions each year for abortion offences. all of this is on the good side. it is necessary for the house to take a balanced view of the good and the bad in the working of the 1967 act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.18', 2, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.19', 56, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way to the hon. member for burnley (mr. jones) because of the great interest he has taken in this matter. however, i point out that i apologised in advance for the great amount i have to say. if i give way a lot, i am afraid i shall make a very lengthy speech.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.20', 26, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'was the hon. member informed by the medical profession of the increase in the number of psychiatric cases since the 1967 act, particularly amongst young females?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.21', 489, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have not any figures or statistics on that subject. no doubt the hon. member will produce them later.\n we should note also the facts on what is the actual physical risk of abortion to women. in 1973 the overall death rate from legal abortion—abortion carried out under the legislation passed by the house—was 4 per 100,000, whereas the maternal mortality in the same year was 11 per 100.000. we must keep these figures in mind when looking at the overall picture following the passage of the 1967 act.\n no doubt there will be many references to the report of the lane committee. i quote paragraph 605 of the report: for the reasons we have outlined above, and which are much more fully dealt with in the body of the report, we are unanimous in supporting the act and its provisions. we have no doubt that the gains facilitated by the act have much outweighed any disadvantages for which it has been criticised. the problems which we have identified in its working, and they are admittedly considerable, are problems for which solutions should be sought by administrative and professional action, and by better education of the public. they are not, we believe, indications that the grounds set out in the act should be amended in a restrictive way. to do so when the number of unwanted pregnancies is increasing and before comprehensive services are available to all who need them would be to increase the sum of human suffering and ill-health, and probably to drive more women to seek the squalid and dangerous help of the back-street abortionist. again, we must not overlook that fundamental conclusion of the lane committee when we are considering the criticisms which we must make, and i shall come on to make them, of how the act has been working.\n secondly, it is right that we should look at the level of abortion since the passage of the act. it is true that as facilities have been improving, both in the national health service and among particularly the charitable organisations operating in the private sector, the abortion figures in britain since 1968 have been on the increase. however, there have been those in the house who in times past have gone on forecasting that these figures are bound to go on increasing all the time and the time will shortly come when we have a quarter of a million abortions a year.\n it must, therefore, be with some relief that the house notes that in 1974 we saw the first downturn in the number of abortions under the act—163,000, a decrease of 3,000—in england and wales over the year before and that in scotland in two years running the numbers of abortions have decreased.\n it is not only the number of abortions that matters. the house is entitled to look at the figure of abortions in britain compared with the figures in other countries.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.22', 2, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.23', 12, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'with the same proviso i shall allow the hon. member to intervene.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.24', 45, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a brief point. the hon. member is giving us very interesting figures about the decrease in the number of abortions over the past few years. can he give us any figure for the net increase in abortions since the passing of the act?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.25', 25, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i confess that i do not understand the question. the figure i have given is the official figure which was released only the other day.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.26', 5, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what is the net increase?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.27', 333, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the hon. gentleman is asking me to tell the house what was the figure before 1967, he knows as well as i do that no such figures were available. some people estimate that 100,000 abortions might have been going on in this country; some say 200,000—nobody really knows. it must therefore be an estimate. what we know is that the figure of maternal deaths from abortion has substantially decreased since the operation of the act and, therefore, the criminal section must have decreased.\n i was coming on to say that the house must look at the law in britain in relation to the law in other countries. the standard method of measurement for this is the number of abortions as a ratio of the number of live births. one then gets a figure for the rate of abortion in britain compared with the rate of abortion in some other countries.\n the latest year for which i have comparative figures—they are taken from an american publication—is 1972, so i concede that the figures may be two years out of date and there may be some slight variation since. in 1972 the figure of abortions in england and wales was 154 per 1,000 live births. in norway in the same year it was 186 per 1,000 live births. in finland it was 337 per 1,000 live births. in japan it was 375. in california it was 369. in new york it was 650.\n if one goes behind the iron curtain to countries where there is no proper family planning provision, one finds that in bulgaria there were 985 abortions per 1,000 live births and in hungary the extraordinary figure of 1,228 abortions per 1,000 live births. in other words, the rate of abortion there was higher than the number of live births.\n therefore, the point i am making is that for people to use the very simple and attractive slogan "london, the abortion capital of the world" is totally at variance with the facts.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.28', 42, 'uk.m.21728', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that the hon. gentleman gave the figures for this country and for finland and other countries as well and also for new york. i do not think he gave the figure for london. can he give the figure for london?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.29', 528, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am sorry. the figure that i have is for england and wales. i have a figure for scotland, but i do not have a separate figure offhand for london, though i believe that a figure is available and is in a table that i have seen published. however, i do not have that figure handy.\n i am simply arguing that any references that we hear to the high rate of abortion in britain must be set against the overall international picture and then the picture painted of london will be seen not to be correct.\n then the house is entitled to look at what is happening to the state of the abortion law in other parts of the world since we ourselves made changes. i should like to give the house a few examples. in austria a new abortion law came into force on 1st january of this year. it permits legal abortion at the request of the patient in the first three months of pregnancy. in denmark since 1973 legal abortion has been available at the request of the patient during the first three months of pregnancy and thereafter on medical indications. in france a new law was approved by the senate in december and abortion will be available at the request of the patient during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, provided that she has consulted a doctor and a social worker.\n in west germany a new law has just been passed by the parliament and is now before the constitutional court. it makes abortion available at the request of the patient during the first three months of pregnancy. sweden further liberalised its law last year. abortion is available at the request of the patient up to 18 weeks and thereafter on medical indications. in new york abortion is available on request up to 24 weeks. in the netherlands the existing law is now interpreted to permit abortion at the request of the patient up to 12 weeks.\n already there are developments in other countries. in norway the state of the law is being considered. norway's existing law is similar to ours and a new bill is being introduced to make abortion available on request up to three months. in belgium the government have agreed in principle to liberalise the abortion law, but the terms of the new bill have not yet been published. in italy there is great controversy over a bill which was tabled last month, and there is considerable controversy within that country.\n while on the subject of italy, i think it right to draw attention to a report in the guardian from its correspondent there saying that in italy it is estimated that, because 2,000 women a year die as a result of illegal abortion, abortion being totally illegal in italy, there must be something like 2 million criminal abortions a year in that country. looking round the world in abortion terms, therefore, i think one can say that we are a less hypocritical society with our existing abortion law than one whose law pretends that abortion does not exist but which allows a scandal of that kind to go on.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.30', 55, 'uk.m.10247', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman agree that the theme of the evidence coming from other countries is very much in terms of a limitation period of 12 weeks or thereabouts as the maximum and that this is one of the crucial points in the bill before us today, being very different from the law at present?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.31', 5, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am coming to that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.32', 2, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.33', 245, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i ask the hon. gentleman to forgive me for not giving way. he is a sponsor of the bill, and i am sure that he will have an opportunity to catch the eye of the chair later. i am simply arguing that the house can be justifiably proud of the effects of the 1967 act in total, whatever criticisms one has of its working in various particulars.\n i turn now to the abuses of the 1967 act, and again i quote from the lane report, this time from paragraph 443: much of the adverse criticism is justified: in consequence of the abortion act a situation has arisen in which a very small number, of perhaps about 20 or 30 members, of the medical profession and those associated with them have brought considerable reproach on this country, both at home and abroad. i agree with that conclusion. it was never the intention of the house when we passed the act that we should have a situation in which commercial referral agencies would establish themselves in association with private clinics, and in which doctors on a moneymaking basis could advertise abroad, bringing people here and paying back-handers to taxi drivers, in order to make as much money as possible. whatever varying views may be held in the house on the abortion issue itself, this is a trade which is repulsive and repugnant to public opinion, and it is certainly far from parliament's intention in the 1967 act.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.34', 2, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.35', 575, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'again, i ask the hon. gentleman to forgive me. i know that he will try to catch the eye of the chair later.\n while it is the responsibility of the house to decide the ethical basis on which the law should rest, in my view it is the responsibility of the government, once parliament decides the ethical basis of the law, to ensure that the law is administered fairly and competently and without abuse.\n i think that one can sum up the basic ethical attitude to abortion both in the house and among the public generally in this way. there are, broadly, three views. there are those who equate abortion virtually with murder, who do not accept that abortion should be allowed under the law except to save the life of the woman. that is a view held by a number of hon. members, and it is reflected in much of the correspondence which we all receive. next, there is the extreme opposite view which says—particularly in international women\'s year—that abortion should not be a matter controlled or decided by the medical profession but that, up to a certain stage of pregnancy, it should be the right of the individual woman to decide for herself. that also is a view held by some hon. members and by some people outside.\n the view which was embodied in the 1967 act, however, was neither of those. it was simply the view—it is my personal view too—that abortion is something which should be judged in each individual case, being decided according to the facts in each individual case.\n if that remains the view of the house and we wish to project it forward in our law, this is an issue on which the government should remain neutral. but once the house has affirmed that as its wish and intention, the government cannot, i believe, remain neutral on the administration of the law.\n i have always held that view, and in 1969 i went to see the then secretary of state for social services, the late dick crossman, to discuss the abuses of the act. i suppose that i might as well get my version of the meeting on record before it appears elsewhere. the hon. member for west lothian (mr. dalyell), who was his pps at the time, was present at the meeting and will, no doubt, correct me if i am wrong.\n i put it to dick crossman that when the act was passed in 1967 one of its provisions was that the minister would approve private clinics for the time being. that was the phrase in the act. i argued with him that the intention of parliament was that the minister should have the right to withdraw approval from any place in respect of which he had reason to suspect that it was being operated against public or parliamentary opinion. he did not have to have any standard of proof. he did not have to have any particular reasons stated. he had total power under the 1967 act.\n dick crossman argued that he was advised to the contrary. i think that "advised" is the important expression, in view of what he had had to say about civil servants. he was, he said, advised to the contrary, and his powers were limited to matters such as making sure that the sheets were changed regularly, that there was the right number of beds per room and the like.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.36', 74, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'dick crossman is dead, and we are alive. i must remind the hon. gentleman of what was said by both the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) and myself. before he becomes too self-righteous, will the hon. gentleman acknowledge that what dick crossman told him accorded precisely with what the hon. member for essex, south-east and i had warned repeatedly in committee, which the hon. gentleman himself did not wish to believe?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.37', 178, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am coming to that. i entirely accept what the hon. gentleman says, that he argued that the safeguard was insufficient. i do not deny that, but the point i am coming to is that, to judge from the latest letters, there seems to have been a change of view in the department. i see the minister nodding, and i am glad that i am about to be proved right and the hon. member for pontypool wrong. the view of the department now, if i read its letters to clinics aright, seems to be that the minister may decide to set up a register of referral agencies—this was one of the lane recommendations—and that he may say to a clinic "if you take patients from agencies other than those on my register, i shall close you down". i can only say that, if that is the minister\'s intention now, it would be the sort of action for which the public and the house, i believe, have been waiting, and we shall look forward to seeing what is done.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.38', 23, 'uk.m.10152', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if my memory serves me aright, did not sir george godber, who also was present, take a roughly similar view at that time?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.39', 3, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'similar to what?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.40', 6, 'uk.m.10152', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "to the department's view at present.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.41', 556, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'frankly, i cannot remember whether that was his view at the time. if the hon. gentleman says so i shall accept it, but, of course, sir george godber was the person advising the minister.\n i recognise that i must draw my speech to a close, and i turn now to another matter of concern which is covered in the bill—the hon. member for pollok referred to it specifically—namely, the vexed question of the legal definition of viability. there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this. the 1967 act made no change in the law on this matter. the law of viability is established by the infant life (preservation) act 1929. the attention of the medical profession was drawn to that act and the principle was reasserted in the 1967 act. however, there is misunderstanding even about what the 1929 act says.\n the infant life (preservation) act establishes that it is an offence of child destruction and murder to destroy a viable foetus, and it then says that for the purposes of that act it is assumed that any foetus of 28 weeks\' age must by definition be viable. but there is no counter-assumption, there is nothing in the law saying that, therefore, any foetus of less than 28 weeks is assumed to be nonviable. this is an extremely important point. i very much agree here with the peel committee\'s report and the lane committee\'s report, both of which found that developments in medical science since 1929 obviously made it essential to say that the 28-weeks presumption in the 1929 act was out of date and that the period must be reduced.\n my submission is that that has nothing to do with the abortion act. the home office and the department of health and social security must make up their mind what the limit shall be, and this must affect a whole range of matters—abortion, registration of deaths, and so on—but that is a matter for government decision: and it is not for an inexpert house to decide what is the right limit to lay down. certainly i am not in disagreement with the hon. member for pollok when he says that, in principle, it is time that legislation—it must be by legislation—was introduced dealing with this matter.\n clause 1 of the bill would be retrogressive. i remind the hon. member that the adjectives "serious" and "grave" which he seeks to introduce were in the original draft of my bill when i presented it to the house in 1967. these adjectives did not appear in the act because of the advice we had during the passage of the bill. all of that advice was against those words.\n i quote from the joint submission of the british medical association and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists published in the british medical journal of 31st december 1966. this influenced the house. this is what it said: provided the above safeguards are incorporated it is both unnecessary and undesirable to frame the indications for termination too narrowly. the requirements that the risk has to be serious and the injury to health grave in clause 1(1)( a ) are capable of causing considerable difficulties in practice and may mean that terminations carried out on certain medical indications which are accepted under current medical practice would become questionable in future. \n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.42', 35, 'uk.m.10034', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my hon. friend satisfied that the intentions which led him to include the word "serious" and "grave" in the original draft of the bill have been satisfied by the act as it eventually emerged?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.43', 570, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "yes, if i understand my hon. friend's question correctly. i do not believe that it would be right to go back and reinsert those words.\n that is not only my opinion. the lane committee gave consideration to this matter and said in paragraph 202: we do not consider that any such alterations in the wording would result in a better implementation of the intention of parliament as we understand it to have been. prosecution for breaches of the act based upon an absence of medical 'opinion formed in good faith' would hardly be rendered any less difficult than it is now if other limiting words were substituted. accordingly, we do not recommend any relevant amendment of the act. one of the most serious criticisms of the bill is that the words in clause 1 have to be read in conjunction with clause 11. some hon. members will have received a memorandum from the haldane society of lawyers on this point. it says of clause 11, and i agree with it: clause 11 shifts the burden of proof on to a doctor to prove that the statutory requirements have been complied with, once it is proved that he or she has carried out or assisted at an abortion. this breaks the fundamental principle of our law, that it is for the prosecution to prove a defendant's guilt, rather than for a defendant to prove his or her innocence. i must tell the hon. member for pollok that what i fear, if the house were to approve the bill as it stands, is that the combined effect of trying to redefine the grounds set out in the 1967 act and clause 11—putting an onus of proof on to the medical practitioner—would be bound to cause a whole new area of uncertainty among the medical profession. it would be bound to cause a substantial reduction in the availability of safe, legal abortions under the national health service.\n it would be a paradox if the hon. member's bill became law and the result was, first, an increase in illegal abortions as people were turned away by the medical profession under the terms of the new act, and secondly even more ridiculous, if those who had been making money out of the 1967 act were to turn their trade in reverse and organise flights of women to other countries in europe where abortion is now more readily available.\n it is right that from time to time the house should reassess its view on the state of the law on abortion. it is just as right that it should do this as it was right that we reviewed a few weeks ago our minds and attitudes on the question of capital punishment. thereafter, once we have settled the matter and decided what the law is, the responsibility lies with the government to see that it is administered properly. if the hon. member decides to seek leave to withdraw his bill i hope that the house will grant that leave.\n i am not at all hostile to the select committee proposal. it may well be the right way to proceed. like another hon. member who intervened earlier, i want to hear what the minister has to say and i want to be convinced that there is a real case for a select committee as distinct from urgent and immediate departmental action which i believe should be instituted.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.44', 103, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. i know that hon. members are anxious to hear the minister's statement as early as possible in the debate. perhaps it will be helpful if i indicate that it is my intention to call two back bench speakers and then to ask the minister to make his statement. i hope that that will be acceptable to the house. i am sure that the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) will be interested to know that he has spoken for 27 minutes. if subsequent speakers take the same length of time, we shall have roughly eight speeches before the reply.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.45', 82, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if that is your intention, the house still remains anxious—its anxiety will have been reinforced by what was said by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel)—to hear from the minister. if, in your wisdom, you are to call two back benchers first, may there be a special plea that they should speak briefly, because we want as much time as possible to consider what the minister has to say?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.46', 11, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i hope that my appeal to the house will be heeded.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.48', 1064, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i take the point that has been made about short speeches but i think it is my duty to try to spell out a little some of the principles involved. all hon. members who have participated, as many of us have, in this abortion controversy over the years are painfully aware that there exist in britain two highly vocal minorities and two utterly irreconcilable lobbies. they are ceaselessly importuning public opinion, for ever seeking to influence and manipulate the media and hon. members.\n they have only one feature in common—they both represent only a small proportion of our electors. as has been said, on the one hand a small proportion believes in abortion on demand while on the other a small proportion believes that only a grave risk to the life of the mother can justify any abortion. the view that was confirmed by the lane committee, that only a small minority wanted abortion on demand, has yet again been corroborated in the figures proffered to us by gallup in the past fortnight, when only 18 per cent. declared a belief that abortion should be so available and 12 per cent. declared that it should not be allowed in any circumstances.\n both these minorities are passionately convinced that they are right. the abortionists claim that they are the liberators of women, bringing an extension of their freedom. the opponents of abortion declare that it brings them not freedom but enslavement to the selfishness of a narcissistic lover, fearful of taking steps towards potential parenthood and maturation, even as it enslaves a woman to the husband who treats her as a convenience to be periodically flushed out.\n the pro-abortionist speaks of women's rights; the anti-abortionist speaks of women's needs. the abortionist claims concern for the unmarried mother forced to have an unwanted child she cannot tend, while the anti-abortionist challenges that claim and insists that it masks a punitive victorian attitude, offering an unmarried mother the scalpel and not the social aid she requires.\n the abortionist pleads the case of the woman with many children living in intolerable housing conditions, while the opponent says that that establishes a case for better housing or vasectomoy for the husband. when the abortionists assert, as they do, the dignity of a woman's demand that she alone must have the option the anti-abortionist becomes the advocate of the right to life of the unborn child. the abortionist regards the operation as safe and usually as a triviality. the anti-abortionist produces evidence to establish that it is a trauma bringing the threat of subsequent sterility.\n both declare their opponents to be reactionaries. one declares the other adversary to be nostalgically yearning for the old restrictive morality that denied woman her equality. the retort is made that turning life into death is the ultimate hallmark of the reactionary and that a genuine progressive does not yield to defeatism but fights for the creation of a society where every child, whether born in a manger or a palace, can be warmly received.\n the abortionist points the finger at the delinquency rate and its link with the unwanted and the deprived child. the anti-abortionist denies the necessity for any child to be unwanted in britain and draws our attention to the long waiting list of would-be adopters. one insists that without untrammelled access to abortion a woman can be crushed by anxiety and the quality of her personal relationship severely diminished. the other insists that the ease of abortion coarsens our society and undermines respect for the sanctity of life and is the penultimate step to euthanasia and a hitlerian disregard for the disabled, the weak and the aged.\n the partisans on both sides in this issue are highly confident of the justice and morality of their cause. they yield not one inch to the other.\n it is my hope that the house will be impatient with those who, however well motivated, seek in this debate to detain the house with yet further rehearsals of all the well-worn and passionately held arguments. although the bill inevitably disappoints those at both ends of the abortionist spectrum, the sponsors of the bill, whatever their personal philosophies, religions or prejudices, have determinedly set out with the objective of eschewing, if possible, the old arguments. we recognise, however, if gallup is right, that the overwhelming majority of opinion of the nation generally believes that abortion is necessary but necessary only on particular grounds.\n the bill retains the existing grounds for abortion. i shall come to the point made by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel), the sponsor of the 1967 bill. i assert that the bill now before the house retains the existing grounds for abortion. in no way does it attack or modify the existing environmental clause. its objectives are clear and unmarked. first, it seeks to end abuse by ensuring that parliament's intentions of 1967 are genuinely carried out. secondly, it seeks to respond to the repugnancy that comes from the public against the abortion of late pregnancies and to ensure that when experiments are conducted they are not conducted upon what sir john peel's committee and most of us would regard as an unborn child.\n of course, there is a gap which must always exist between the intentions behind a bill and the fulfilment of those intentions in cold print. these dangers increase when a private member's bill is drafted without the sophisticated assistance of the skilled parliamentary draftsmen. inevitably errors or unintentional interpretations creep in that are often far removed from the wishes of the sponsors. but if there is no other method open to the sponsors they must plod on in the hope that in committee, as outside bodies make their importunings, a more relevant measure will be able to emerge to the house on report.\n inevitably, there is always a danger of such a bill becoming very much an ad hoc affair, as i well know from my own experience. i am sure that the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles will acknowledge that many of the problems we are now dealing with stem not from wicked intentions but from good intentions which have been frustrated. the evils of which we are largely complaining—a large section of the house complains of them—emerge from the interstices of the original act and from unintended gaps in the clause.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.49', 84, 'uk.m.19473', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend agree that there are parts of the bill now before the house that are nothing more than a masquerade? while it is the ostensible purpose of the bill to eradicate what is wrong in terms of the abuses of the present system, is not the hard core purpose to put shackles around the original act? does he agree that it would be far better for all concerned if we dropped this subterfuge and debated the honest truth of the proposition?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.50', 227, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "my hon. friend is challenging the motivation of the sponsor and myself. if i wanted to challenge the conditions which exist in the existing act i would do so. i am not exactly noted for not being able to come out in the open and declare unequivocally the views which i hold. i am making it abundantly clear to the house that i am acknowledging that there is often a difference between intention and what emerges in print. i am aware of what happened before when similar unintended gaps appeared.\n i want to be certain that we have an amending bill which is free from the marks of improvisation. like the whole house, i want to see an end to the controversy. i believe that the government's intervention is prompted—i trust that the minister will make this unequivocally clear because i am sure that he can feel the opinion within the house—because they recognise that there are abuses in the private sector that must be remedied. i believe it is recognised that the principle that lawfully exists in this country that abortions of 28 weeks can take place should not now continue. i believe that the government will make it clear that in principle they have no objection to the statutory implementation of the peel committee's recommended code of practice governing experiments on foetus and foetus material.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.51', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.52', 19, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i shall not give way any more. the houses wishes to have as short a speech as possible.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.53', 8, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'do not give misleading figures to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.54', 169, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i have not given any figures. i am certainly not going to give the right statistics to my hon. friend.\n i welcome the government's move. i believe that it is a bold one. in some senses such a move marks the end of an era when moral issues were regarded—in my view, overmuch—as the terrain of private members and something to be eschewed by the government. i am sure that the overwhelming majority in the house will accept that it is right that the government should assist by supporting the use of available machinery and for its own select committee to be seized of the proposals of this specific bill. the matter should not be left to an outside commit tee such as the lane committee. however hard-working it may have been, the lane committee lacked the exposure to public opinion that we possess and our worldliness. we have no illusions about the inexhaustible ingenuity of the evil men who for private gain will pray upon women in trouble.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.55', 11, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'neither did the lane committee have the right terms of reference.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.56', 1716, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that the select committee will consider the private sector in particular when it considers the principles contained in the bill, and will enable every stone to be upturned. i hope that it will be accepted by those in and outside the house who have campaigned for and supported the bill that the setting up of the select committee by this government means that the bells have began to toll. maybe the bells are tolling in the distance, but they are tolling for the avaricious who have sought to create a repugnant industry based on women in difficulty. if the government had not grasped the nettle it would have been necessary for me to go through the bill ad seriatim, but in view of developments i would rather pinpoint some of the matters that have aroused great controversy. some of them have already been identified. perhaps it will be of some assistance to the select committee to be appointed if i do so, because i am sure that all the views that are expressed in this debate will act as a sounding board for those members upon whom will fall the onerous task of sitting upon the committee.\n i begin with a point raised by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles on clause 1( a )(ii). he seemed to think that it was material to restrict the existing ground upon which an abortion can be given. that is not the intention. on the contrary, the passage is an attempt to ensure that the existing grounds are observed. at present the risk to the life of a woman or of injury to her physical or mental health has to be measured against the risk which would result if the pregnancy went the full term. that is the provision of the parent act. that measure was inserted not by the hon. gentleman but by the house of lords to assist the courts in deciding whether a criminal abortion had taken place.\n unfortunately, some people have used that insertion to frustrate the will of parliament. on public platforms a small number of doctors have said that it permits them to give abortion on demand. they have said again this week that the very small statistical risk to the life of a woman in childbirth is slightly higher than the risk to the life of a woman from induced abortion during the first 12 weeks, and they have used that argument to justify abortion on demand in any pregnancy.\n the figures of deaths due to childbirth and the figures of death due to medically induced abortion are not comparable, because deaths due to childbirth usually occur in women suffering from disease or other abnormality, whereas deaths due to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy would usually occur in a healthy woman—[an hon. member: "that is a specious argument."] if it is a specious argument, it shows how important it is that there should be a change. if the statistical argument is correct, it means that we have unwittingly given abortion on demand, and the present position adds considerably to the heavy enforcement difficulties which already exist.\n it is no use the hon. gentleman pointing out how few are the cases of criminal abortion. cases are not brought because the law, as it stands, cannot be enforced and cases cannot be proceeded with. that is the unsatisfactory feature of the whole procedure. one idiosyncratic professor made clear in the press conference which was given by the abortion on demand group this week that he has no qualms about interpreting the act in this statistical manner. he also said that if we altered the act he would defy the law.\n the serious point is not that a way-out professor takes that view but that the fact that the view can be held gives immunity to every shady abortionist doctor who may exist in the private sector. faced with that strategy to impose upon the house a wish contrary to that laid down, we have ended within the bill the measuring test and, instead, we have said that the risk to the life of a woman should be grave. the house may not like that but if we leave it as "risk" it is clear that the people who are using these strategems now will say "any risk". that would mean that we were back to square one. therefore, we put the view that there should be some qualifying adjective. we suggest that there should be a qualifying word—"serious" "grave", "substantial".\n the hon. gentleman used the phrase "substantial" in his bill to measure the likelihood of a child being born malformed or maladjusted, and the term "substantial" is used within the bill governing that aspect. so, whether or not we use that word, the fact is, if we are serious and say that we want to have abortion on certain conditions but not on demand, we are faced, and the select committee will be faced, with having to consider not limiting the grounds for abortion but complying with the will of the house, which is that those other grounds should not continue to be frustrated by people who are camouflaging their intentions by saying that they do not want change because they are able to so manipulate the bill that they can provide abortion on demand—demand with cash.\n the intention of clause 1( b ) has been wilfully misrepresented. it surely cannot be satisfactory that private clinics which are defying the law should have no one directly responsible who can be brought before the general medical council or be pinpointed as having responsibility for the proper conduct of a clinic. that is necessary not only for law enforcement but for the women who place themselves in the hands of the clinic. it seemed to the sponsors to be perfectly reasonable that a nursing home should have a consultant adviser who is perhaps on a part-time national health service contract or retired and who in his private capacity can be under contract with the nursing home to supervise clinical procedures, the appointment of medical staff, and the use of the clinic by other doctors.\n clause 2 was mentioned by the hon. gentleman. it deals with foreign women who come to this country for the specific purpose of having an abortion. the latest figures, which are well above 50,000, i view with some scepticism. i wonder whether there is growing alarm about this trade as we become more aware of it and public opinion shows its repugnance. is that leading to a decrease in notifications rather than a genuine drop? both the lane committee and the metropolitan police have made it abundantly clear that they know that the notifications are spurious. although we can depend upon the genuineness of notifications coming from within the national health service, we cannot depend on the figures coming from the private sector, which has one eye on the inland revenue and one on the ball. if the police are right, about 100,000 abortions a year may be performed on foreign women who come here for that purpose. are the sponsors right and is the country right in demanding an end to this trade, or are the complacent or defeatist suggestions of the lane committee the last word on the subject? the select committee will have to consider this.\n the lane committee put forward the view—which would not appeal to many of my hon. friends and fellow-countrymen—that we cannot do anything that would offend against common market regulations. that argument no longer stands, and in my judgment it never did as, since the publication of the lane report, france has passed a law not much less stringent than the terms of the bill to deal with women who come into france to have abortions.\n will this trade fade away? the lane report suggested that it would if there was legislation less strong than that proposed in clauses 4 and 5. would it fade away if advertising were controlled? with such a restriction, would it be more difficult for the agencies which lure women from the continent to this country? thirdly, the lane committee suggested that the law was changing in other countries and, therefore, we could be reassured that this trade would not continue.\n i think that is taking a very complacent view. if we look at the french law on these matters, it makes it abundantly clear that the french authorities will not permit an abortion beyond 10 weeks. even if this bill went through, the period in this country would be reduced to 20 weeks, so that there is a huge gap in that respect. therefore, it is naïve to believe that other countries will pass identical abortion laws to our own. there are so many different abortion laws being passed that, if we leave the law as it is, people who want to evade the laws in their own country will try to come here.\n people who talk glibly about the french introducing much more permissive legislation than ours have never studied the french act. under the french legislation a minor is prohibited from having an abortion at all. i do not know whether those who are so anxious to support the private sector and to keep those abortion clinics going ever study the facts. i do not want to see hordes of teenagers coming here from other countries to have abortions—operations which in their own countries would be regarded as improper.\n if the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles, instead of merely looking at his brief on this matter, takes a look at the french legislation, he will find that it contains far more stringent requirements. it provides that a woman must go to her doctor to ask for an abortion and will be provided with a dossier which she will have to produce to the social agency. the social agency will consider within that dossier all the alternatives available to the woman. the point i am making is that it is too complacent of people merely to believe that the passing of other abortion laws in other lands will automatically lead to a serious diminution in the number of girls who want to come to the united kingdom for abortions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.57', 6, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it was illegal in france before.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.58', 9, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i wish the hon. lady would not keep interrupting—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.59', 8, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'you will not take the point, will you?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.60', 41, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'since the hon. lady keeps interrupting, perhaps she will explain, having made many trips to eastern europe, why in many of those eastern european countries the laws in this respect have become much more restrictive than the laws in great britain.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.61', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'you will not listen.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.62', 416, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if there is to be a genuine effort to improve relationships between those countries and other parts of europe, the hon. lady should seek to make these matters clear. the hon. lady should not support a system under which people from the soviet countries she so likes have to come to this country to obtain something which they cannot obtain there.\n i hope i may be allowed to move on much more quickly. [hon. members: "hear, hear."] i do not want to deal any further with clauses 4 and 5. they deal with matters with which the hon. member for surrey, north-west (mr. grylls) valiantly tried to deal in his bill. he put before the house in a somewhat different form his proposals as to the way in which this matter should be dealt with. in clause 6 and in the schedule we have tried to follow the criteria which during the passage of the hon. gentleman\'s bill the government then indicated were desirable.\n finally, i should like to mention the question of conscience, which is not a matter within the bill. i do not believe anybody can be at all happy with the present position and all will surely want the matter to be reviewed by the select committee. i refer to the situation referred to recently in articles in the times as a result of correspondence with the department. the view appears to be coming into existence that if a man is at present in an appointment, that is satisfactory and the conscience clause goes. but it seems to be becoming the practice that the conscience clause is little used. in other words, men or women who apply for appointments find that because they have a genuine conscientious objection they cannot gain appointments within the national health service. i believe that this is profoundly disturbing. there are gynaecologists who believe that their rôle is to bring life into this world and who find it too repugnant that their task should include the ending of life.\n in previous legislation the onus of proof related to whether a man had a genuine conscientious objection. the onus was on the man who objected. this put a heavy burden on the individual, and i emphasise that a practice is now growing up where a man finds that he cannot obtain an appointment because of conscience. that surely is a situation of which the house cannot approve and it will have to be dealt with by the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.63', 27, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend has made a serious allegation. he has a duty to the house not to make those allegations by hearsay but by producing his evidence.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.64', 162, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "what i am trying to say is that the correspondence with the minister, and ventilated by mr. ronald butt, leads many of us to conclude that the situation i have described appears to be happening. certainly if there is any ambiguity in the situation it should be dealt with by the select committee.\n i believe that apart from a minority of members who believe in abortion on demand, or even no abortion, the majority of people want to see a system which is operated in a genuine way. we certainly want to see a law operated in the way intended by the house. the bill which is now before the house has sought to achieve those objectives. but, since the government have unequivocally indicated by their motion on the order paper that they are prepared to allow a select committee to examine the situation, i support my hon. friend's ultimate intention to ask the leave of the house to withdraw the bill.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.65', 41, 'uk.m.22558', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'why is it necessary to withdraw the bill? should we not give the bill a second reading and then agree to a motion under standing order 40(2) to commit the bill to a select committee rather than to a standing committee?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.66', 196, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not doubt that such a course would be open to the house, but i suggest that since the government have now put the motion on the order paper we should allow the situation to go ahead and the subject to be investigated. the sponsors of the bill do not want these matters to be left at large. we did not want to leave the matter to be decided by a debate in which there will be all sorts of confusion. the situation is that if somebody objects to the motion today it will have to come before the house again on tuesday, when we can vote upon it. if somebody is so wayward as to object to the motion to-day—[ interruption. ] i say "wayward" because i believe that people genuinely want the act to work in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the 1967 act. they certainly have nothing to fear by sending the matter to a select committee. the only people who have anything to fear from a select committee are those who are attempting to defend all the evils and abuses which at present exist in the private sector.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.67', 117, 'uk.m.18741', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is not a question of anybody being afraid of a select committee. under standing order no. 40(2), after second reading a bill can be committed to a select committee. no notice is even required and any member may move such a motion. if there is a complete commitment, what has anybody to fear by following such a procedure? it was suggested that that would meet everybody's wishes and provide the necessary safeguards. i hope that the hon. gentleman, as a prominent sponsor of the bill, will think seriously before he substitutes for a clear procedure laid down by the house one which seems to me to have no advantages over it and which may have disadvantages.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.68', 124, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the hon. and learned member for his intervention. i have already indicated that if the matter were left at large, as would be the case if the course suggested was taken—because it might not be so committed—it might be that in the confusion of the moment the full implications would not be understood. why should the house resist the proposal when a copper-bottomed guarantee has been given by the government, which i am sure the minister will reaffirm, that the government will put down the motion again next tuesday, when the hon. and learned member will have the full opportunity of discussing it? he is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that back-bench members prefer a bird in the bush—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.69', 4, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'what a freudian slip.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.70', 85, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i frankly state my preference. however, in this case i prefer the bird in the hand to that in the bush.\n in the circumstances we would be wise to accept the reaffirmations of the government. we can be certain that the matter will go to a select committee. we shall be able to show the country that we have produced a solution which shows compassion to women in trouble whilst in no way undermining a belief in the overwhelming importance of the sanctity of life.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.71', 20, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) will be interested to know that his short speech lasted 34 minutes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.72', 60, 'uk.m.10647', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in addition to the hon. member who presented the bill, there are 11 other sponsors each of whom has received considerable evidence from both sides of the argument. will you, mr. deputy speaker, give an assurance to the house that you will do your best to call the sponsors of the bill in the time that remains for this debate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.73', 14, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i shall do my best within the limits of the period of the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.75', 694, 'uk.m.17616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i trust that i shall reverse the dangerous trend where speeches seem to be getting longer rather than shorter. if my interpretation of your ruling is right, mr. deputy speaker, i wish to reverse the trend. i shall do my best to ensure that that happens. this is a somewhat unusual friday. my brief experience of private members' bills is that more often we are encouraged to speak longer rather than shorter for certain well-established procedural reasons. however, today is different.\n the speech by the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) was useful to the house because it gave us a resumé, obviously from his own point of view, of the workings of the act since 1967. i think it was useful to set the scene for this debate.\n i agree with the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) that the abuses known to hon. members who have taken an interest in the subject must be removed, that that is the demand of public opinion and that the sooner it is done the better. if i may use his analogy, i do not think i shall follow him any further into the bush now.\n there is widespread agreement that changes must be made. since 1967 there have been three attempts at closing one of the particularly unpleasant loopholes which i believe everyone agrees should be closed. my hon. friend the member for ravensbourne (mr. hunt) introduced his medical services (referral) bill in 1972 to try to have the referral agencies and bureaux controlled by charitable bodies. he found that he was in difficulties with that bill.\n i tried on two occasions to introduce my own private member's bill to tie up this area more tightly and to bring it within the control of the secretary of state. i welcome the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) to the club which is trying to deal with this area, because in clause 5 of his bill he makes a very sincere attempt to do so. my only doubts about the bill concern two clauses. but the hon. member for pollok should be congratulated on giving us the opportunity to debate this subject.\n there has been a common feeling in the discussions since 1967 on the three private members' bills to deal with this loophole. it may be that in many ways it has been concentrated on because it is a simple one to close. therefore, i think it is an even greater pity that it was not done before.\n in my last private member's bill i managed to obtain support from people on both sides of the argument, from both the pro- and the anti-abortionists. that was perhaps useful. the need to end the scandals going on in this area is a matter about which the house should seek urgent action to be taken quickly.\n the fact that totally unscrupulous people, even though probably only a few, are still operating in this area brings into disrepute the whole work done by the referral agencies and the excellent work done by the charitable british pregnancy advisory service, with branches in liverpool, brighton, leamington and in other parts of the country. they have done a great deal of work in helping people, charging a modest fee of £50 for termination, including the stay in hospital. the unscrupulous bodies need to be brought under control quickly. this area has been described as the unacceptable face of the abortion world, and i think the house today wishes to see it dealt with very quickly. i support that.\n i note that the hon. member for pollok proposes a number of refinements. he has gone a little further than i did in my private member's bill. that is to be applauded and is a matter at which the house should look. the tragedy is that if only parliament had passed one of those three private members' bills—it does not matter which, but mine preferably because it brought them all together—those loopholes would have been closed and this unattractive traffic would have been stopped. however, that is past history. we must ensure that we deal with the problem now.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.76', 24, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman confirm which lobby killed his bill and, therefore, which lobby kept these abuses in being for the past six months?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.77', 819, 'uk.m.17616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "hon. members must study the record of the committee proceedings and make up their own minds. i do not seek to divide the house on this matter. i seek, perhaps undramatically, to bring the house together on the one theme that i believe is common ground. when i started to do something about amending the abortion act, i recognised that if we went too far—as perhaps the hon. member for pollok will see if his bill goes forward—we would find ourselves in the most awful muddle and would have to fight the battles of 1967 all over again. perhaps that would end only in stalemate.\n i hope that the house will decide to set up the select committee and pay great attention to its report. i hope that the select committee will take evidence from the good charitable agencies such as the bpas, and i hope too that its members will go out and investigate some of the bad aspects. they should see the taxi touts and take evidence on the ground, if they can. only by going around—as i have found it possible to do—will they see what is happening. this bill, however, seeks to go a little further, and there are two matters on which i wish to concentrate.\n clause 2 deals with foreigners. when i came to consider what amendments should be made to the abortion act, this was an aspect which struck me at the time. everyone has been worried for a considerable time—certainly worried in the superficial sense—about the fact that our capital city is coming to be known as the abortion centre of the world. however, the more one considers the problem, the more difficult it is to deal with, the more illogicality begins to creep in and the more we get into what might be described as a cat's cradle situation.\n is there any fairness in saying that british people can have abortions legally in this country but that foreigners cannot? in any event, how do we establish who is a foreigner? as far as i know, doctors do not ask their patients for their passports. the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin), as a distinguished member of the profession, will confirm, i am sure, that it is not the practice to ask patients for their passports. we do not have identity cards.\n such a provision would throw up immense administrative difficulties. what is more, it would throw an immense burden of enforcement on to the medical profession. linked with the administrative difficulties there are moral difficulties in deciding whether it is right to say that foreigners can no longer have abortions legally.\n then there are practical linguistic difficulties. a great many foreigners have become naturalised. many of them from european countries still have guttural accents. with a provision of this kind in the abortion legislation, they would be assumed to be foreigners. if they protested and said that they were naturalised, they would be asked for their papers. that is not the kind of imposition which we want to put upon the medical profession. i understand the views of those who say that there should be such a provision. however, i say that it should be considered in practical and moral terms.\n perhaps the most difficult problem relates to clause 7. the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles dealt very well with the difficulties involved in the 20-week upper limit.\n we all agree that since the passing of the 1929 infant life (preservation) act medical science has advanced. foetuses born very early which in 1929 would have died can now be preserved in an incubator.\n the problem is whether we can take a decision of this kind in a private member's bill, and that is one aspect which troubles me slightly. if we had consultations with the medical profession, my guess is that no one would expect any unanimity of opinion about what the upper limit should be. in any event, such consultations could be undertaken only under the auspices of the secretary of state for social services. when we are dealing with a tricky matter of this kind, i do not think that it is possible for it to be done by a private member's bill. certainly i would not seek to judge whether it should be 20 weeks or 24 weeks.\n in a lay sense, i was convinced by what the lane committee said about it. it came down in the end in favour of 24 weeks. but a select committee can consider that and call evidence about it, and in the end the government will have to have consultations. after all, the government are the doctors' employer. the right hon. lady can send for the doctors. we cannot. i accept that a select committee can do so, and it may be that that would be one of the advantages of adopting the procedure suggested by the government.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.78', 25, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on the subject of late abortions, will the hon. gentleman accept that in 1973 only 0·1 per cent. of abortions were done at 24 weeks?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.79', 294, 'uk.m.17616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "that is a very relevant point, and i have no intention of attempting to shoot it down. it is a matter which has to be considered, and in the end, after the select committee has made its contribution, the government should deal with it.\n so what are we to do today? do we refer these proposals to a select committee? i think that this must be right. all of us who want to see the law improved should be grateful to the government for their proposal.\n the problem of giving this bill a second reading is that the select committee may recommend much more than the bill includes. it may go much further. it seems to me that if a select committee is to consider the working of the abortion act, it will want a pretty wide writ.\n when the sponsors of the bill indicated that they would be prepared to withdraw it on receiving the government's assurance that early action would follow the report of the select committee, my initial impression was that that would be a practical and sensible course of action. however, i do not want to get into the realms of the rules of the house. i content myself with expressing the view that the select committee should look into and take evidence about the proposals in the bill. if that is done, the abuses referred to by the hon. member for pontypool will have a better chance of being sorted out satisfactorily than if we push through this bill without the evidence that a select committee can collect much better than a committee stage can.\n i congratulate the hon. member for pollok and i hope that the house will decide to proceed in the way that the government suggest.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.81', 413, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) has not only presented the house with a detailed bill for amending the 1967 abortion act. he has also given the house a much needed opportunity to debate the lane report.\n abortion is a subject on which there are strongly held and sincerely held views on all sides of the house. it is a subject on which there is no division on party lines. traditionally, legislation in this sensitive area of human responsibility is decided by a free vote in this house—by individual members of parliament exercising their own independent judgments. i stress, therefore, that the government have no collective view, and ministers are as free as any other members to vote as their consciences dictate.\n my task as one of the ministers responsible for the day-to-day administration of the act is to try to put the facts before the house in a way that will help the house to reach a sensible decision. on the order paper, as the house knows, is a motion in the name of my right hon. friend the lord president to establish a select committee to examine and report on the proposals contained in the bill presented by my hon. friend the member for pollok, and i shall now give a few of the assurances for which i have been asked. if the motion were objected to, it would be put down again and there would be an opportunity for a full debate.\n the right hon. member for crosby (mr. page) was right to refer to the standing order procedure. that is a procedure which has been used in the past. the problem is that it happens at the end of a debate, often without warning. we felt that on a very major issue such as this the house should know what was proposed, that there should be no deals done at four o'clock and that we should put down a motion, having explained that this was our intention. we discussed this procedure with the sponsors of the bill. however, they felt that there was advantage in having a firm commitment. their fear was that if we said that we wanted to bring forward a proposal of this kind straight away, there might be a fall-off in their support.\n what we have here is a government commitment and a decision that the best way to proceed on the bill is to refer it to a select committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.82', 107, 'uk.m.22558', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "surely the hon. gentleman could have put down a motion for committal, using all the language which appears on the order paper except the reference to considering the proposals of the bill. it would have then have been possible to consider the bill itself.\n why is there this obsession on the part of the government that no private member's bill shall go through on a friday? that is what we gather from the government. every friday so far the government have fought private members' bills. let the sponsor have his second reading and then adopt the normal procedure of the house to commit to a select committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.83', 128, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "this is private members' business, and the government did not impose this solution. they discussed this in a sensible way with the sponsors of the bill, and for a variety of reasons they decided this was the procedure they wished to adopt. i regard it as a most sensible step.\n i have been asked to give other assurances. the house has made known its view. it wants no delay in dealing with this matter. it wants this subject to be dealt with speedily, and what we are proposing is not a delaying tactic. should the eventuality arise that the house goes into a different session before the bill is considered, the government give the commitment to the sponsors of the bill that they will re-establish the select committee.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.84', 82, 'uk.m.22486', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "to follow up my earlier intervention, may i say that i am in favour of the general principle of what is proposed. it is wise to have a select committee to consider the matter, but may i have an assurance that this is not a device to delay? may i have an assurance that, following the select committee's report on the subject, either the government themselves will bring forward legislation or they will give a fair wind to a private member's bill?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.85', 147, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i have said that this is not a delaying device. the fact of life is that there are six private members' bills ahead of this one. hon. members know the procedure, and they realise that there is a possibility that the bill will be delayed. the truth is that it is more likely to reach the statute book more quickly through adopting the proposed procedure. not only is a pre-legislation select committee a good principle, but it is a sensible way in which to proceed in a difficult area. when the select committee reports, it will be open to hon. members to put forward legislation in the normal way or for the government to consider whether they themselves should put forward legislation. a lot depends on the degree of unanimity in the select committee and the way in which it expresses the overall view of the house.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.86', 37, 'uk.m.17616', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'dealing with the narrower area on which i concentrated, may i ask whether, if it is so recommended by the select committee, the government will bring in their legislation straight away and not delay in doing so?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.87', 345, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "i have given as much of an assurance as i can. the house knows that it is for the lord president of the council to decide the priority of government business. the government supported the hon. gentleman when he put forward a bill as a private member. we made our position and support clear then, and it will become clear again as i give the government's overall position and deal with our general attitude.\n we are dealing with a sensitive and complex issue. private members, without the drafting expertise of the government and without the formal process for consulting all the interested professional and other bodies, are often necessarily forced to present a bill—this measure falls into this category—which is not, for wholly understandable reasons, in a reasonable and fair state to be referred to a standing committee. that is the view of my right hon. and hon. friends who were consulted, and the government believe that the bill should have the benefit of sustained scrutiny by a select committee.\n it is to the credit of my hon. friend and his co-sponsors, in particular my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), that when i pointed out to them the many detailed technical and other objections to the drafting and form of the bill they recognised that a reference to a select committee was the best way to proceed. a select committee will be able to take evidence from the professions and other interested parties who have not been able to be consulted on a number of these detailed proposals.\n the house knows that the lane committee made recommendations for legislation. those recommendations are incorporated in the bill in one way or another, except the recommendation that the chief medical officer of health should be empowered to disclose to the president of the general medical council information furnished under the regulations and a statutory amendment to the certification procedure so that the notification form is correct and shows the requirement for examination. both these recommendations can be dealt with by amendment to the regulations.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.88', 142, 'uk.m.18741', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think there is a danger of getting at cross-purposes on the wrong ground. the minister is saying that he wants this to go to a select committee, and i think everybody agrees with that. i have not heard anybody dissent from that proposition. my right hon. friend the member for crosby (mr. page) and i are saying do that by all means, but do it under standing order no. 40(2). the minister says that he does not want any delay, and nor do we. if the procedure laid down in that standing order is used there will be no delay. the motion will be moved immediately after the second reading, and there will be nothing to delay it. there is a vehicle by which the recommendations of the select committee can be pursued without any delay.\n if there is any delay—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.89', 32, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. nearly 60 hon. members wish to take part in the debate, and long interventions which are almost in the nature of a speech are unfair to the rest of the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.90', 24, 'uk.m.18741', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there is a third thing on which clarification is needed, and i ask your permission, mr. deputy speaker, to get it from the minister.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.91', 19, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. and learned gentleman made a long intervention in seeking clarification. i hope he will be brief now.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.92', 31, 'uk.m.18741', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "if the bill is delayed in the queue of private members' business, we shall all wish to do something to speed it up. that is where government assistance would be helpful.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.93', 3259, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i have covered that point. this is private members\' business, and we have been very honest about the position. we put the matter to the sponsors of the bill, and what is proposed is their decision.\n i have had recent experience of the difficulty of getting private members\' legislation on complex social issues through the house. this proposal for a select committee offers a way of ensuring that any future legislation to amend the 1967 act will be soundly based.\n i now deal with the lane committee\'s report. it was received at the end of 1973, and there has been extensive consultation on many of its recommendations. it is a major report, and it deserves detailed study by the house. the lane committee concluded that by facilitating a greatly increased number of abortions the 1967 act has relieved a vast amount of individual suffering. in the committee\'s view the act has also helped to focus attention on the paramount need for preventive action, for more education in sexual life and its responsibilities and for the widespread provision of contraceptive advice and facilities. i am glad to say that the government are now embarking on the introduction of a free and comprehensive family planning service—something which i must say to the house in my view is long overdue and should have preceded and not followed the 1967 act, but that is no fault of the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel).\n the committee has rightly drawn attention to the strain imposed on the national health service by the increased number of women seeking legal abortion since the passing of the act and the marked inequalities over the country in the provision of services, and this worries many hon. members. the committee recognised that shortages of resources are only one of the reasons for this and that inequalities in provision cannot be abolished altogether. this is an inevitable feature of legislation that requires the exercise of medical discretion and clinical judgment.\n the point about conscience, which my hon. friend raised, is a serious one. the letters were quoted only in part, and i should be happy to place copies of them in the library. discussions have taken place with the medical profession, and we have an agreed procedure. this is a complex issue and it is one of the matters which the select committee might wish to examine.\n i come now to the immediate issue before the house today, namely, private sector abortions. the committee acknowledges that the private sector has enabled many patients to have treatment in privacy and with the amenities they want and has compensated to a considerable extent for deficiencies in the provision of services by the nhs. at the same time it points out that the private sector has contributed to the inequalities of which many responsible people complain. it concludes that a small number of doctors and their financial backers have used the act to make large sums of money, that there have been instances of gross irresponsibility in private medical practice, and that in some parts of the commercial private sector the provisions of the act have been flouted and abortion on request has been provided. the committee is convinced that these abuses have been confined to a small number of doctors, but these are serious charges and the government have taken action on them.\n since taking office my right hon. friend and i have made a rigorous reappraisal of the whole approval system. we are both convinced that the private sector has not operated in the way that the act intended. we have already taken action to tighten up on abuses in the private sector, and i shall deal with these in some detail. we will certainly not rest until all exploitation of patients has been stopped and abuses of the act curbed. we intend using our existing powers to their utmost to control the activities of the private abortion sector, and we do not intend waiting until any new legislation is recommended by the select committee. on the principle of the need to prevent abuse in the private sector, the government agree with the sponsors of the bill and are ready to consider legislation.\n it is, however, fair to point out that in the lane committee\'s view the great majority of the abortions which have been carried out in the nhs and many in the private sector have been fully justified under the act.\n the sponsors of the bill have seen the prevention of abuse in the private sector as one of their main objectives. clause 5 of the bill picks up the main provision of the private member\'s bill sponsored by the hon. member for surrey, north-west (mr. grylls), who has just spoken. it adds some other provisions, some of which need to be examined in depth, but the government supported the previous bill and it was recommended by the lane committee. apart from some detailed points, the government support the principle of legislation in the important area of pregnancy advice bureaux. we will see what by administrative means we can do about the matter in the meantime.\n clause 6 lays down statutory conditions for approval of private clinics. this is at present dealt with administratively under section 1(3) of the abortion act. there are some strong arguments for retaining the flexibility that comes with the administrative means, and the lane committee recommended continuing with the existing system. but if the select committee decided to recommend legislation the government would be content to have statutory powers, though they would like to retain as much flexibility as possible to respond rapidly to meet changing circumstances and any new potential abuse.\n there is, therefore, considerable common ground between the sponsors and the government and, indeed, the lane report on the need for legislation to cover the private sector. from the con tributions that have already been made, i think that the majority of members of the house want to see an end to abuse in the private sector, whatever views they take on the 1967 act. we have, as i have already said, taken vigorous action to toughen up our administrative procedures only recently.\n firstly, we have registered only until 31st march private clinics where abortion is a major aspect of their work. a letter was sent on 3rd january to the 28 nursing homes with six or more beds, or more than 25 per cent. of their total beds, approved under the abortion act. the letter asked for information on such matters as the facilities and treatment provided for patients, the fees charged, relationships with pregnancy advisory bureaux, and the intake of foreign patients. nursing homes were also asked to comment on a list of proposed conditions for pregnancy advisory bureaux. replies have now been received from all but one of these nursing homes.\n on the same day a letter was sent to some 70 bureaux and referral agencies known or believed to be giving advice and aid on obtaining abortions setting out proposed conditions. less than half of these agencies have replied. obviously we cannot approve those who have not.\n the nursing homes concerned fall into a number of broadly distinct types. many clinics regard themselves as providing facilities for consultants to treat their private patients, although there may be a fairly small number of such consultants who use the clinics\' facilities regularly.\n we already have a fairly effective system for keeping medical and surgical facilities and practice under surveillance. in fact we can stop an abortion taking place in a private operating theatre, but we have little power to stop the gastrectomy or another more major surgical operation in the same private operating theatre. this is something which we shall have to look at as part of an overall policy to the private sector of medical care. fees are an obvious area for exploitation in the private sector, and reports of some fees have been absurdly high.\n the government will now consider, after consulting the medical profession, specifying for each nursing home a fair fee for a termination or for provision of facilities as a condition for continued approval under the abortion act.\n we may also decide to go further and require all approved nursing homes to quote a fixed comprehensive fee. this move would help to standardise charges and to ensure that prospective clients know approximately how much an abortion costs. i would naturally wish to discuss such a proposition with the medical profession but i thought that this example would give an indication of the areas and ways in which we could possibly act by administrative means.\n in general, the clinics which employ their own medical staff also provide counselling and assessment. the clinics which provide only facilities receive most of their patients from independent consultants. the smaller agencies appear to exist by referring clients to these consultants.\n well-conducted nursing homes would almost universally welcome an approved list of approved bureaux and would be willing to give assurances that they would not accept patients referred by bureaux which were not on this list.\n many of the bureaux which replied to our letter wished to apply for inclusion on an approved list and were prepared to operate under conditions required by the department. the complete list of conditions has not been finalised, and some points will need further consideration, but we are determined, in any period which will elapse before legislation is enacted, to tighten up considerably on pregnancy advice bureaux. there has been some argument about our powers under administrative means. no doubt interpretation differs but, given the general feeling of the house, it seems that we would be well within our powers in taking these measures.\n i come now to perhaps the most controversial aspect of the abortion act and the lane committee\'s report—whether or not there should be any restrictive amendments made to the grounds for abortion. this matter is also raised by the present bill. the lane committee, at the end of two and a half years—i think i owe it to the committee to make this quotation, although it has in part been quoted before—concluded: we are unanimous in supporting the act and its provisions. we have no doubt that the gains facilitated by the act have much outweighed any disadvantages for which it has been criticised. the problems which we have identified in its working, and they are admittedly considerable, are problems for which solutions should be sought by administrative and professional action, and by better education of the public. they are not, we believe, indications that the grounds set out in the act should be amended in a restrictive way. to do so when the number of unwanted pregnancies is increasing and before comprehensive services are available to all who need them would be to increase the sum of human suffering and ill-health, and probably drive more women to seek the squalid and dangerous help of the back-street abortionist. the committee was unanimous in its conclusion that there should be no restrictive amendment to the grounds for abortion set out in the act.\n my hon. friend\'s bill makes a provision which, if implemented, would remove from the criteria for abortion the balance of risk between pregnancy and termination of pregnancy and qualify the risks as "grave" or "serious".\n the effect of the provision is restrictive and is therefore contrary to the central conclusion of the lane committee that there should be no restrictive amendment of the grounds for abortion set out in the act. the lane committee reports to this house and legislation is framed in this house. it is right that a serious report recommending legislation should be considered first by a select committee and then by this house as a whole.\n the full import of this provision is not apparent unless it is read with the provisions of clause 11 which places upon the doctor the onus of proof that he has complied with the requirements of the act. the words in section 1(1)( a ) of the present act, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated", were inserted as a result of an amendment moved by the then lord chief justice, lord parker. he argued that, as there was always some risk involved in either terminating a pregnancy or allowing it to go to term, what was needed was some means of balancing those risks. he argued further that, given that this was the test in each case, qualification of risk such as "serious" substantial "or"real" was unnecessary, though he could see a case for the addition of "substantially" before "greater" in his amendment.\n lord parker also put forward the argument that a particular patient might exhibit, for example, a blood or respiratory condition which might make the risk of termination and pregnancy very great and that in such a case a balance of risks was essential.\n at the time of the passage of the present act there was no statistical evidence as to whether the relative risks involved in pregnancy or termination of pregnancy, without sterilisation, before three months of pregnancy carried less risk of fatality than that of completing the pregnancy.\n on the other hand, the risks of fatality from operative methods associated with later terminations are greater than the risk involved in allowing a pregnancy to go to term. thus it has been argued that for terminations in the first trimester the balance of risk in the present act has defeated parliament\'s purpose as there has been reliance by some doctors on the statistical arguments alone in deciding whether the grounds for abortion are satisfied.\n although the lane committee thought this practice unacceptable, it did not consider that the deletion of the words "greater than if the pregnancy were terminated" or that the addition of adjectives describing the risk would result in a better implementation of the intentions of parliament. the adjectives used in the bill now before the house are, in the opinion of some lawyers and professional bodies, so vague as to be meaningless. i must stress that i believe this provision needs to be very carefuly examined by the select committee. it appears from many comments both today and and at other times—although it is a matter for the house to decide—that the bill would be far more acceptable if these parts were to be substantially redrafted. i welcome the readiness of the sponsors to consider this aspect of the bill.\n the lane committee made a recommendation that an upper time limit for abortion should be set at 24 weeks gestation without exception. this recommendation is directly relevant to clause 7 of my hon. friend\'s bill. this clause seeks to enact a time limit for abortion of 20 weeks, subject to one qualification, where the limit would be 24 weeks. i think it is relevant for the house to be aware of the size of the problem in discussing this issue. later terminations are rare; less than 1 per cent. of all abortions are performed at 20 weeks or more gestation, and less than one-fifth of 1 per cent. at 24 weeks or more.\n views have been put to us by the medical profession both for and against some reduction of the time limit from the present 28 weeks, but we have received no unanimous view as to what should be considered as the minimal gestational age for foetal viability. for example, the lane committee, as i have said, recommended an upper time limit of 24 weeks, and the peel advisory group on the use of foetuses and foetal material for research recommended that the minimum limit for viability for human foetuses should be regarded as 20 weeks. in addition, the world health organisation is considering setting an international definition of viability. in view of the need for time to consider carefully all the factors involved and the possibility that on the question of the age of viability we may find ourselves out of step with international practice if we take a decision now, the government\'s view is that the select committee might wish to have evidence on this before reaching a decision on how to legislate in this area.\n we do, of course, appreciate and share the concern expressed by many responsible people about late terminations. we are considering whether it is within our administrative powers to go some way to meet this concern, particularly in respect of the private sector. one possibility, for example, that i would wish to discuss with the medical profession is to restrict late terminations—that is, later than 20 weeks—to nhs hospitals where the full obstetrics and gynaecological facilities are always available.\n i come finally to the extremely difficult question of restricting abortions for foreign women. abortions on foreign women are almost always carried out in clinics in london and the south-east in which foreign women form a majority of the patients. these clinics in the main provide facilities for doctors rather than a comprehensive service and are, therefore, uninformative on the routes of referral of such patients. it is within this area that abuses of the 1967 act undoubtedly do take place, and the introduction of an approved list of advisory bureaux, together with a requirement that nursing homes provide a comprehensive service at an approved cost, should do something to curtail such abuse. at least, i hope the house will feel that we are doing our best.\n furthermore, the drawing up of this approved list of bureaux, together with a requirement that nursing homes provide terminations at a fixed comprehensive cost, should also do much to standardise the facilities available for women seeking abortion, to reduce the number of small-scale agencies, and to limit the areas of exploitation of patients. the question is, however, whether there should be legislative controls. clause 2 in conjunction with clause 7 of my hon. friend\'s bill will prohibit foreign women receiving treatment for abortions in this country. clause 7 makes the upper time limit for abortion 20 weeks and clause 2 lays down a residence qualification of 20 weeks.\n to ban foreign women coming to this country for abortion was considered by the lane committee but on balance was rejected. it would be to single out this form of therapeutical treatment for discrimination whilst allowing foreigners to come here for every other form of medical treatment. therapeutic abortion, like sterilisation and certain forms of contraception, is regarded as being medical treatment, and doctors consider their first duty to be to the patient, regardless of nationality and, some would say, residence. it would be for the doctor to decide whether or not the person satisfies the residence test—a difficult burden to ask a doctor to attempt to enforce. the select committee will almost certainly wish to examine the new french legislation, which envisages some restriction on foreign women but the exact method is not yet clear.\n there has been a continuing trend towards the introduction of more liberal abortion laws in some countries, and for the first time since the abortion act the number of foreign women here needing abortions fell in 1974. there is clear evidence that once a country passes an abortion law numbers from that country and sometimes surrounding countries appear to fall. france since 1972 has always provided the largest single group of patients: in 1974 it was 36,541. to many people this is a very high figure which raises serious questions about the need to have a statutory ban, but it may well drop considerably following the introduction of the new laws.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.94', 54, 'uk.m.19156', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'could the minister deal with the point of view expressed by his hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), which i share? does the department accept the validity of these figures or does he think, as many hon. members do, that for various reasons—fiscal, criminal or whatever—the figures are very much an underestimate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.95', 327, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', "there are questions about the notification procedure. we rely on that procedure to give us our statistics. i have always been ready to consider any examples of abuse in that procedure and will readily take them up. it is hard to give evidence and to be certain of this, but i know that many hon. members feel that it is an underestimate. i have no evidence that it is, so i can only work on the evidence i have.\n i hope that the bill will now be studied by a select committee. i hope that this will be agreed by the house. the sponsors have generously said that they will wish to withdraw the bill. the government have given the house ample warning of their intention to set up a select committee.\n the bill's esential provision is to prevent the abuses which we all know have existed in the private sector. speaking personally, i deeply regret that such abuses have been allowed to continue for such a long time. i profoundly wish that my own profession had put its house in order. i wish that, immediately following the passage of the act, when the abuses were at their height, successive governments had used administrative measures to prevent abuse.\n however, i believe that sensible legislation now for the private sector will strengthen, not weaken, the 1967 act and that in time the house and the country will be grateful for the initiative taken by my hon. friend.\n i have not, i fear, dealt with all the issues but i hope i have said enough to indicate that a select committee on this bill has a major task ahead of it. there is, i believe, much common ground in a wish to ensure that the abuses of the 1967 act in the private sector are stamped out and that legislation has a part to play. i think that a select committee could be invaluable in preparing for such legislation.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.97', 404, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not detain the house long because i recognise that this is a private members\' day.\n i congratulate the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) and his hon. friends on their initiative in taking advantage of their luck in the draw in this way. the minister has now made a helpful statement which will certainly make it possible to debate the issues. i am sorry that we could not have got to it rather sooner, but we have it on record. some of the things he said will call for study and perhaps further probing at a later date.\n in saying that, i do not intend to suggest that the hon. gentleman\'s statements are not welcome. the house will have been glad to hear the ways in which he is seeking to take action by the administrative means that are open to him and his denunciation of the abuses with which the house and the country have become all too familiar and increasingly disgusted. if those words give him any support, i hope he will derive encouragement from them.\n as to the 1967 act, it has been conceded for some time that administrative action alone will not be enough. the minister reiterated that point in his closing words. my right hon. friend the member for leeds, north-east (sir k. joseph), who was secretary of state in 1971, recognised the extent of public concern by his decision to set up the lane committee. in our february manifesto last year, we accepted that there should be legislation to implement recommendations of that committee, and we have not moved from that position. but, while we favour legislation without any unnecessary delay, we share the view expressed by the minister on behalf of the government that the decision is essentially one which hon. members must take on a free vote and in the light of their consciences and the opinions which they have formed on the evidence available to them.\n i confine my remarks only to testing the efficacy of the procedure which the government have now proposed—with one preamble. much attention has been given, rightly, to articles which mr. ronald butt wrote in the times recently. in his article of 30th january there is a statement upon which i should be grateful for the minister\'s comment. this concerns the reference to the director of public prosecutions of certain allegations in the book "babies for burning".\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.98', 2, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.99', 40, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "it is reported there that an official of the minister's department said that such a reference had been made. i hope that i can take it, from the assent which i think the minister is indicating, that this is so.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.100', 33, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i can confirm that as soon as this matter was brought to our attention it was referred to the director of public prosecutions. it is a very serious allegation and should be investigated.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.101', 1225, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am glad to hear that the minister takes that view, and i entirely concur with him. i am sure that the house will hope that the dpp's investigations will not be prolonged.\n we have before us today a bill which admittedly may have flaws, and they may be flaws of principle as well as of detail. hon. members who have spoken in the debate, the minister among them, have touched upon the question of the 20-weeks' provision which the bill seeks to substitute for the present 28 weeks. there was certainly some evidence in what the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) was saying that we in this country are somewhat out of line with international practice in going so far over the three-month limit. i know at least one doctor who, having practised in this area for many years, takes the view that 14 weeks should be the normal maximum permitted limit for termination of pregnancy. but this is not a matter on which we, as lay people, should be dogmatic, nor can we form any useful view without hearing a good deal of evidence.\n on the question of administrability—[ interruption. ] i am not trying to be dogmatic. on the administrability the bill, particularly the part applying to foreigners, i share some of the doubts about the way in which the provisions could be enforced as they are defined, and the way in which they could be further refined if that was thought necessary. it may well be that there is something there which would detain any committee which was to consider the proposal—as might the particular proposal concerning the burden of proof. here there are, as in almost any bill, matters for debate and discussion which would no doubt take a good deal of time away from the floor of the house, where we discuss the desirability of the bill as a whole, into some sort of committee.\n but the house must now judge whether the government's proposition in their motion is the best way of proceeding in the way that we want to move. i thought that the recommendation of this procedure by the leader of the house yesterday on the ground that it had been found very useful in railway legislation in the nineteenth century was not the strongest i have ever heard. perhaps there are better precedents. the house will have to make up its mind about this matter. it will also want to know the time scale. we have had an assurance that the government will find time for debate on tuesday if objection is taken at the intervening stages today and if the present motion were put down again on monday. that at least is good news. however, i must press further and ask when the selection of the membership of the select committee will be made, and, if objections were taken to that—as is conceivable—would the government be equally forthcoming with time for a debate?\n the house may agree with me that the balance of representation on this relatively small committee might be a matter of contention and could be thought to have a bearing on the likely unanimity of any report which the committee might produce, or the time taken to produce it. in that there may also be scope for delay if the government were not wholly forthcoming, as we hope they might prove to be.\n looking specifically at the government's motion, i find it possible to find flaws in that, because we are not really left with a clear injunction upon the committee in terms which all of us would accept as being a reflection of the urgency we attach to this matter. we have had an assurance from the minister that the government would be sympathetic to carrying the committee over into another session if that need should arise. i would far sooner see an injunction laid upon the committee that it should seek to report in this session. the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) shakes his head. it may be because he foresees that the committee could find itself embroiled in taking a very large quantity of evidence. when the leader of the house commended the government's motion to the house yesterday, he said that it would be possible for the roman catholic church to give evidence to the select committee. this led me to have a look at the evidence which the lane committee had taken. i detect that the catholic interest was represented at very powerful levels in the evidence to that committee. the committee took a mass of evidence, written and verbal. it took a great deal of time—two and a half years, as we have been reminded.\n it would be an insult to a select committee to suggest that it is as capable, as someone once said of royal commissions, of taking minutes and wasting years. but i wonder whether the government's motion is close enough to the point to reflect the wishes of the house. i should like to see a motion which enabled the select committee—if that is the decision of the house—to take account of evidence which has already been given, perhaps even to confine its own further taking of evidence to testing the evidence which has been given, and not to going again over all the ground or inviting a whole number of people to repeat their evidence. i put this point to the house as one which it may want to bear in mind in the decision that it takes.\n again, i wonder whether the minister is right in his understanding of the likely terms of reference of the select committee. he told us that he thought it possible, for instance, that the matter of conscience was one on which the committee could taken evidence. my understanding is that the scope of the committee is not so wide. it seems to me that if the committee is enjoined to report on the proposals in the bill before us—and there is no mention of the matter of conscience in the bill—it would be outside the power of the committee to take evidence or to report on that point. if the minister thinks that this is an important point—i gather that he does; if so, i share his view—i hope that he will agree that the government may need to consider drawing the terms of their motion a little more precisely so that there is no room left for doubt.\n the correspondence exchanged between the minister and my hon. friend the member for hornsey (mr. rossi) is a matter of considerable importance. i am glad that the whole exchange is to be placed in the library. i know that the concern it has caused will remain until there has been a further and more detailed probing of the exact state of affairs. but it would be a most unfortunate state if the select committee—if it is to be set up—were not able to go over that ground as well.\n so i must ask the minister, or whoever is responsible for putting government motions on the order paper—we see some very odd motions tabled from time to time—whether they might not consider that if they have to return with another motion on tuesday it should be drawn slightly more widely.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.102', 46, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i am advised that, apart from anything else, it is for a select committee to establish its own procedure, and that the terms of reference on the order paper are fully wide enough to cover all those points. there is no doubt about that at all.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.103', 219, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is the advice the minister gives. yesterday his right hon. friend said that the matter of the ability of the committee to consider the lane report, and the lane evidence thereby, was something on which he would have to take a second opinion. if that was the second opinion, i am sure that the house is grateful for it.\n the point i come to now, however, has already been raised, quite understandably, by some of my hon. friends. that is: why could not the government have taken over the bill? that has happened previously. the standing orders provide for it, as my hon. friends have reminded us. the minister referred to difficulties in getting a private member\'s bill through by mentioning his own experience. his experience should have taught him that a private member can get a long way with help from the government, because when his children bill—which did not reach the statute book under his name as a back bencher—was going through the house, it is fair to say that he got a considerable amount of assistance. [ interruption. ] the minister says "not at all", but others, i think, would say that. if the minister says "none at all", i can only say that we may have to return to that point on another date.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.104', 153, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i find it extremely irksome and difficult for back benchers to be present for this debate, which has been going on now for some time, which started as a back benchers' day, and in which the minister had to intervene and in which my hon. friend the member for woking (mr. onslow) did not have to intervene, at least until all the back benchers who might be expected to get in had in fact got in. there are at least 10 back benchers who will not have a chance of getting in. i happen to know that i shall succeed in catching the eye of the chair, so i am not being selfish.\n i should have thought that my hon. friend would have had sufficient regard for back benchers, one of whom he was for long enough, not to go on and on and on.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.105', 37, 'uk.m.17479', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have already rebuked another hon. member. that is not a point of order. hon. members will remember that right at the beginning of this debate i made an appeal that speeches be as brief as possible.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.106', 367, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am in sight of my ending. if my hon. friend the member for yarmouth (mr. fell) will contain himself, i may reach the end in three minutes. i will not comment on the length of time for which my hon. friend has been a back bencher, because i do not regard that kind of coinage as particularly suitable to debate.\n i return to the point i had reached. the house will need to be sure of the genuineness of the offers which have been made before it decides how it will vote at the end of the day, whatever proposition the sponsors of the bill may put before us. i hope that it would be wrong of me to suggest that the reason this procedure, which is unusual, is being brought before the house is that there is a lack of sympathy within the department for legislation in this field and legislation soon.\n there were moments during the minister's speech, when he spoke of sustained scrutiny and implied that the process must be a lengthy one, when i was inclined to interpret his words as suggesting that this is a matter which will take a year or two yet to resolve. if that is so, it may be that hon. members on both sides will take the view that they wish to proceed more urgently, that they wish to take the chance that a bill or parts of a bill to amend the present law can be hammered out in standing committee in the usual way.\n this is essentially a matter where the initiative comes from outside the house, and from the back benches on both sides, bringing pressure upon the government for action. i hope that the minister is under no misapprehension about that. i hope that in all the ways by which the government respond to these pressures and the offers they make they are genuinely seeking to get what the hon. gentleman himself described as sensible legislation now. if that is his objective, it is one that i endorse. i for one have no wish to be party to or to vote for anything which has about it the character of delaying action.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.108', 131, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend the minister rightly described this area as being a very sensitive and complex one. it certainly is, though in some of the speeches by hon. members who have spoken already there was not very much sensitivity shown to a very sensitive and complex subject.\n it is, above all, a subject that concerns women. practically all the women on this side of the house support the original 1967 act and oppose this proposed amendment. i am sorry that there are not women on the other side of the house who are apparently anxious to take part in this debate, for this is a matter that concerns women very much indeed.\n i speak for women both in the house and outside. when i say "outside" i include the organised women—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.109', 6, 'uk.m.10107', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. lady give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.110', 865, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, of course not. i have not even started.\n i was saying that i speak for women in the house and outside. when i speak about women outside the house i refer to women in our own organised movement in the labour and trade union movement who also support the act for which the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) was responsible, who are on record as doing so and who very recently welcomed the publication of the lane report and supported its proposals.\n my hon. friends are concerned with the abuses in the private sector, as we all know. it is very interesting to see that conservative members are now prepared to come out and speak against the private sector. we have not noticed very much enthusiasm for that when we have been urging the secretary of state to proceed with the elimination of private practice.\n we are very concerned that the government shall have regard for the clearly expressed view of women who are working class women, who are by and large the main beneficiaries of the 1967 act. this is tremendously important, because it means that since that act was introduced working-class women are able to get what better-off women have always been able to get. better-off women have never been inhibited when they have wanted to remove an unwanted pregnancy for frivolous reasons. i do not believe that our women are concerned with ending unwanted pregnancies for frivolous reasons, but better-off women have always been able to do this.\n since the beginning of time women have always been able to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies, though one would think from listening to the longwinded speeches of the sponsors of the bill, making their comments both inside the house and outside, that this is a new development since the act was introduced and that this is an example of the permissive society that the act has brought about. this is not so and it has no foundation in fact.\n the principal sponsor of the bill, my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), said very little in his introductory speech about his bill. perhaps that is not surprising, because not only is it full of drafting failings but it is very clear that the intention of this amending bill is to undermine the original act to such an extent as to make it unworkable and more draconian for women. that is one of our major reasons for opposing it.\n i shall not say anything about page 1, because that was well ventilated by my hon. friend the minister. on page 2 my hon. friend the member for pollok seeks to prescribe which consultants shall be involved. he does not clarify the sort of consultant whom he thinks might be able to preside over premises. it could be a geriatrician, i suppose. i wonder whether my hon. friend would be satisfied with that, because he merely says a consultant within the national health service". paragraph ( c ) states: a registered medical practitioner approved by the secretary of state as being of like status to such a consultant". a consultant is a consultant or he is not a consultant. what is a person of like status to … a consultant"? i do not understand it, and my hon. friend did not attempt to explain it.\n clause 2 would seem to prohibit foreign women from coming here and having terminations in this country except after a period of 20 weeks had elapsed. that seems to be an extraordinary aim. one of the aims and objectives of a sensible, liberal, safe abortion policy is to have terminations carried out absolutely as soon as possible.\n clause 2, if it were accepted, would mean that a foreign student or au pair girl or a foreign woman of any kind who came to this country, say, 15 weeks pregnant would have to wait another five weeks or more before she could have her pregnancy terminated. she would not be eligible until then. so what would happen to her? would she then be sent back? how would she be dealt with? how would the doctor examine her credentials—passport, or other documentation—to satisfy himself? is this a burden which should be placed upon doctors in the carrying out of their professional work?\n the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles has already spoken of the more liberal abortion laws introduced by many countries since 1967. it is the catholic countries which are supplying the largest number of women coming to this country for termination of pregnancy. they come from ireland—in fact, from both parts of ireland—and above all from france, which last year gave us the largest figure, 36,000 from spain and from italy.\n italian women are now pressing for an abortion law themselves, and it may well be that they will get it. they have managed to get divorce law reform. i am sure also that the introduction of the french act will lead to a reduction in the numbers. indeed, from all these areas there will, i believe, be a dramatic fall in the numbers coming here by the end of this year.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.111', 65, 'uk.m.10647', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will not the hon. lady acknowledge that the very clause which she is now discussing is intended to discourage foreign women from coming to this country to take advantage of our medical services, which, i am sure she agrees, are thoroughly overstretched, and it will at the same time prevent their being tempted by the very private clinics to which she is so much opposed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.112', 43, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is not clear whether the hon. gentleman is concerned about the private clinics or about the overstretching of national health service hospital resources. in fact, none of the foreign women are treated in nhs hospitals; they all go to the private sector.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.113', 2, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.114', 149, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i want to get on and make my speech in my own way.\n the overwhelming majority of terminations today take place before the thirteenth week of pregnancy. this is why the speech of my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) was so utterly misleading, as is a great deal of the literature sent to members of parliament during the past few weeks. over 80 per cent. of terminations in all sectors take place before the thirteenth week. this is a development which we should all welcome, since it means that the terminations can be carried out fairly simply, by new and simpler methods, without the risks attached to termination at a later stage.\n only less than 1 per cent. of the total number of terminations take place after the twentieth week—between the twentieth and the twenty-eighth week. so what are we making such heavy weather about?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.115', 2, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.116', 915, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "what! pontypool? i treat pontypool as pontypool treated me.\n as i say, this is a development which can be greatly welcomed, and that is why clause 2 is so unacceptable.\n i am concerned also about clause 5(2), a provision which could well interfere with the work of the charitable trusts, which all, i believe, accept as filling the need which ought to be met by the national health service. only because of the shortcomings of the health service are private clinics able to function. because of the abuses in the private sector, the expensive sector, the british pregnancy advisory service, for example, set up its clinics and nursing homes. these services are helping a large number of women who have legal grounds for termination. i emphasise that. they are women with legal grounds under the act who are unable to have termination carried out in the national health service because of the religious objections or other objections of the consultant gynaecologist in charge.\n the figures given by the registrar-general are illuminating. if nothing else, they show my right hon. friend the secretary of state where she ought to be taking urgent action if she is to send the bill to a select committee to look into all aspects of the lane report and this proposed measure. she cannot do that without looking at the deficiencies in her department and the service which it provides.\n i take first the birmingham figures. in 1973, in the birmingham region only 2,300 women had a termination in a national health service hospital, and twice that number had to go into the private sector in the region, which meant that they went probably to the bpas or to private clinics in the region. but the same number again, nearly 5,000, had to go into the private sector outside the region altogether. that is a pattern which one sees repeated throughout all the regional hospital board areas as they then were.\n liverpool is very low on the list because of the attitude of professor jeffcoate, a well known anti-abortionist. in liverpool itself in 1973 there were only 1,450 terminations, and 559 of those were done in nhs hospitals in the region, while a much larger number, 629, had to be done in non-nhs hospitals, and almost another 300 women had to go out of the region for termination in the private sector elsewhere.\n i note the figures for my own area, and i note also the interesting record for brighton. in the brighton area there were 535 terminations, only 108 being done in nhs hospitals and 414 being done in the private sector.\n the deficiencies in the national health service provision, for which my right hon. friend is responsible, are driving women into the private sector. they may go into the private charitable sector, where they are well treated and where the fees are waived for a woman who cannot afford to pay, the maximum fee being about £50, which is nothing in comparison with harley street and wimpole street fees. they are being driven also into those sectors of private medicine about which we are most concerned and in which the major abuses occur. i repeat that the secretary of state and the house itself ought to give urgent consideration to the provision being made within the national health service.\n next, i add my voice to the protests already made about clause 11, which would put an unwelcome burden of proof on the consultant, coupled with the proposal that any anonymous person could lay charges against a doctor who might well be acting within the terms of the act and carrying out an entirely legal termination. such a person would not have to have his or her name disclosed.\n that is quite appalling. a confirmed anti-abortionist could crucify a gynaecologist who carried out a perfectly legal operation under the act. we all know that actions for libel or slander are a very expensive business, and a doctor's whole reputation would be put at risk.\n there are, therefore, serious objections to this amending bill, and there are many matters which will have to be considered if the matter goes to a select committee.\n i refer now to the enormous amount of extraordinary material with which members of parliament have been inundated of late, material which gives very distorted pictures of foetuses and which paints in lurid language the effect of termination on the foetus or on the woman in relation to her future health and psychological condition.\n it is well to bear in mind, if we are talking about terminations before the thirteenth week—and about 80 per cent. of terminations in this country take place before then—that the size of the foetus is 6 cm or 2⅜ in. if termination takes place at 16 weeks, which is the point when quickening occurs, the foetus is 4¾ in. it is important to keep these matters in perspective. at 12 weeks the foetus weight ½ oz.\n let us have no more lurid propaganda about babies crying on the way to the incinerator, as was mentioned in that disgusting little book by two gutter journalists, using methods that everyone must condemn. the results have been checked and checked again and found to be absolutely false. let us have no more propaganda about foetuses lying on the slab waiting to be killed. this is disgraceful. members of parliament are not to be taken in and deluded by this kind of disgusting, ill-founded and unscientific propaganda.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.118', 777, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) will forgive me if i do not follow her argument in detail. in the last part of her speech she spoke about propaganda. i hate to think about the propaganda in which she and her hon. friends have engaged over the past 20 or 30 years. the misery and the suffering which that has caused is beyond description.\n i am conscious of the fact that there are a number of hon. members who support this bill and who probably will not get the chance to take part in today\'s debate. i shall therefore be brief.\n may i congratulate the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) on presenting the bill and on his speech today. i am sorry that the bill has apparently now disappeared and that a private members\' day has been altered into a government day. i have been in this house long enough—[ interruption. ] a dear friend of mine on the opposition front bench says that i have been a back bencher too long. that may well be due to one of two causes. one may be that i have stuck by my principles ever since i have been here and another may be that one or two of my friends in high places were stupid enough to leave me on the back benches. that does not really matter.\n there are two points i wish to raise. first i want to talk about the conscience clause, which does not appear in this bill. i regret that. i admit that it is an infinitely difficult matter to put into words and to avoid the dreadful things that are now happening in the hospitals and the national health service because there is no protection for people who cannot, in conscience, do things that they believe are disgusting, sad, dreadful and immoral. there is no protection for them.\n it has been fashionable to read parts of the lane report today. one piece was so fashionable that it was read twice. i am sorry that the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) has left the chamber, because he used the extract in question. then it was read again by the minister, who made a charming contribution. i want to read a different part, which deals with the question of conscience.\n paragraph 607 says: there is of course another decision for the individual conscience and that is whether or not to take any part in abortion work. no doctor or nurse is required to participate in the treatment authorised by the act, if he or she has a conscientious objection to it on religious or ethical grounds. this is entirely proper, it is a traditional freedom which must be jealously guarded, and we have found that generally it is being very well respected. i draw attention to "jealously guarded". what is said later shows that the committee has no idea how to guard that.\n it goe on to say: where there is disagreement between what the individual wishes to avoid and has to do, it is far more often that he has been driven by his own feelings of loyalty and fairness to his colleagues, and by a perception of the patients\' needs, into conflict with his sense of the wrongness of abortion than because he has been under any duress from seniors to take part in the work. i wish i could take that completely at its face value and believe that there are not large numbers of nurses, more nurses than doctors perhaps, who abhor the work they have to carry out.\n the report goes on to say: should priority be given to the individual\'s claim for religious tolerance and his right conscientiously to refuse to take part in abortion work, or to the obligation of the n.h.s. to provide a service for its patients who need abortion? we have stated the view that sometimes the needs of the many must take priority and that inevitably some who refuse this work may not obtain a particular appointment: but we came to this conclusion with great reluctance and hope that the occasions for such a decision will be rare. may i ask the minister, who was kind enough to say to me that he could not stay, to look at this whole matter deeply and carefully when the bill is referred to the select committee? i believe it is something that is greatly troubling some of the most conscientious nurses and doctors in the entire profession. the profession cannot afford to lose people who have a strong moral opinion on the work they do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.119', 6, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.120', 9, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman knows that i cannot resist him.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.121', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i say!\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.122', 73, 'uk.m.22160', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has referred to the lane committee. he will recall that i asked the then minister, the right hon. member for leeds, north-east (sir k. joseph) if, when the lane committee was set up, it would include all kinds of opinion, representing medical and social views. later, that promise was broken. perhaps the reference to the conscience clause might have been clearer if the minister had adhered to his original promise.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.123', 274, 'uk.m.17372', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i am most grateful to the hon. gentleman for his help. i trust that he will use every endeavour, as i am sure he will, to get this matter most carefully considered. i do not trust governments. i have been here, as the opposition front bench reminded me, a rather long time. that has not led me to have complete trust in the promises of government front benches. with the best will in the world the minister of state and his right hon. friend cannot make guarantees. something may occur which removes both of them. i hope that that will not be the case. some thing might happen that will remove them and their good will towards the bill or, shall we say, the spirit of the bill.\n i hope that the promise of further administrative help to rectify the serious situation which now faces the country on abortion will be carried out. i am grateful for the administrative work that has been carried out as a direct result of publication of the bill. we can only pray that the select committee which is to be set up will work for us and that when it has completed its discussions and reported there will be substance in the government's implied promise that a bill will be presented to the house in the form of the bill now before us. perhaps it will be a little better drafted as a result of the work of the select committee.\n i end by saying again how grateful the house must be to the hon. member for pollock and his hon. friends for introducing this private member's bill.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.125', 1312, 'uk.m.17082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall not take up in detail the speech of the hon. member for yarmouth (mr. fell). i am sorry for his sake that there was no one on the opposition front bench to hear what he had to say. we are having a debate of the utmost gravity affecting a large part of the female sex of this country, yet the opposition front bench is completely empty. that shows a frivolity and indifference that should not be tolerated.\n we must deal with this subject unemotionally and objectively. we must disregard most of the literature which has been flooding our post during the past week or two. there are probably two main types of objectors to the 1967 act. there are those who think that abortion legislation should be of a punitive nature to reduce immorality or sexual activity. i think most of us feel some impatience with that attitude. obviously, the time to influence such matters is by appropriate education, long before pregnancy takes place. on the other hand, there are many people who regard the rights of the unborn child as deserving much more attention than they now receive. many of us here, too, feel strongly about this, although it is a difficult subject. we are particularly indebted to my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) for bringing forward this bill and enabling us to discuss what has been becoming in many ways a scandalous situation.\n i am worried about my hon. friend\'s bill because parts of it seem totally impracticable. further, it goes well beyond the recommendations of the lane committee. the lane committee sat from 1971 to the end of 1973. it was presided over by a lady of exceptional intelligence, experience and humanity. it was staffed by top people in the gynaecology specialty, by distinguished lawyers and by distinguished members of the nursing profession. this house should give more attention to the lane committee\'s recommendations than is indicated in the bill now before us.\n it is accepted by everyone that there is now a wide range of reasons for abortion which are agreed by the medical profession. there is no hope of putting back the clock and of putting abortion in the same situation as it was in before the 1967 act. however, there have been some serious abuses of the 1967 act about which we are all concerned and to which the select committee must give careful consideration.\n the first abuse which i deal with is, i believe, due to a failure on the part of the department of health and social security. i do not often agree with my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short), but there is no doubt that it is scandalous that there should be such an uneven distribution of abortion facilities throughout the country. this is one of the difficulties about the conscience situation. it is an absurd situation, for example, that in newcastle there should be twice as many abortions performed as in birmingham. it is monstrous that in some hospitals abortions are a rarity. such hospitals are flouting the intention of the 1967 act. i suggest that that is a matter which the department should consider carefully. if the act is to be applied it should be applied justly and evenly throughout the country. it cannot be said that it is now being applied in such a way.\n that is one of the first abuses that could be changed forthwith by administrative action by the department. it could deal with the conscience clause referred to by the hon. member for yarmouth by making supplementary appointments so that those gynaecologists whose consciences do not permit them to perform abortions may be supplemented by colleagues who do not have the same conscience problem.\n we have talked about foreign traffic. we have heard from my hon. friend the minister of state that there are difficulties about ending that traffic. i believe that the difficulties can be overcome. it would not be all that difficult to ensure that people who are reasonably suspected of being foreigners should at least provide passports or some evidence that they are british before being entitled to receive an abortion under the national health service or privately.\n the most important matter before us is the failure to recognise the rights of the unborn child. this is the great objection that so many people on both sides of the house rightly have. the bill does an excellent service in providing legislation for stopping abortions after 24 weeks and putting serious impediments in their way in terms of professional co-operation after 20 weeks. at that stage one is very close to infanticide.\n on the other hand, we must be careful in weighing up the rights of the unborn child against the rights of the mother and the rights of the rest of the family in the early stages of pregnancy. there is no escaping from the fact that the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy bears no resemblance to a human being. it is no use pretending that it is a human being. it is only a potential human being. one of the curious laws of nature is that human beings in reproduction reproduce the development of the human being in evolution. as in evolution human beings develop from being worm-like, fish-like and monkey-like animals. exactly the same thing happens inside the female uterus.\n one has to have a sense of proportion in interpreting the rights of the unborn child when it is merely a potential child, and its interests have to be weighed against those of a real live mother and a real family. the matter must be considered carefully. it is a difficult subject on which i do not pretend to have final opinions.\n the real abuse of the 1967 act is the rather too free interpretation of the words "injury to mental health". that leaves a wide scope. it is possible for unscrupulous or irresponsible doctors to interpret that phrase so widely that, in effect, patients have abortion on demand, as happens so much in the private sector.\n how can legislation overcome that problem? assessing injury done to mental health is a complex professional matter. there are many psychiatric criteria of what a given pregnancy can do to a person\'s mental health. it is impossible for any legislative assembly to lay down strict rules about that. it must be a matter for the decision of the doctors concerned. it is impossible to legislate to ensure that doctors adhere to defined psychiatric criteria.\n in common sense terms we have to face the fact that if a woman is determined to get rid of her unborn child there is no way of stopping her. it is ridiculous to think that legislation will achieve that. if she is rich she can do it more easily, but i am not so concerned about rich women. i remember when i was a young surgeon responsible for emergency operations the number of young women who were brought to me desperately ill and harassed to the point of nervous breakdown because they had stuck a knitting needle or some other infected instrument into themselves. that was a common occurrence. we do not want that situation ever to happen again. it would certainly happen again if we had too strict criteria for termination pregnancy.\n abortion must be largely a matter of medical judgment. it is unwise to attempt to give detailed instructions, or even any clinical instructions, to doctors in terms of the bill. the bill mentions "grave risk to life". how is that to be interpreted? the bill mentions— risk of serious injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant women … or her family". the insertion of such adjectives seriously interferes with the clinical freedom of the doctors concerned and leads to immense difficulties.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.126', 51, 'uk.m.16732', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the house listens with great respect to the hon. gentleman's views, but if this matter is to be left entirely to the doctor's judgment is there not bound to be abortion on demand, because there will always be some doctor who will take the view that an abortion should be performed?\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.127', 50, 'uk.m.17082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we have to accept that anyone who wants to get rid of her unborn child will do so. in effect, there has always been abortion on demand. we want to ensure that it is not done in the disagreeable way in which it was done prior to the 1967 act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.128', 32, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend must take into consideration the variation of opinion within the medical profession. there are eminent gynaecologists who are very much opposed to the opinions advanced by my hon. friend.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.129', 32, 'uk.m.17082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i accept that, but we must remember that a woman can go to the medical adviser she wishes to go to. it is absurd to try to inflict uniformity on medical opinion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.130', 38, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'would my hon. friend like to see even more people coming from abroad to see doctors of whom he and i would disapprove and bringing such an unfortunate atmosphere around the delightful home in which he entertains me?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.131', 434, 'uk.m.17082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i must chide my hon. friend, who is also a personal friend, for not having listened to my speech. i have already said that this traffic from abroad should be stopped as soon as possible by appropriate legislative action.\n the bill attempts to divide doctors into groups. clause 1 refers to doctors who have been registered for not less than five years. a doctor is a doctor. what can be more absurd than to have special categories of doctors in circumstances like this? as soon as a man is registered he become responsible for affairs of life and death every week, every day, yet for the purposes of the termination of pregnancy he has to have a five years' registration. an attempt to divide the medical profession in that way is completely impractical. i suggest that the select committee should remember that.\n there should be no harassment of doctors. doctors in the national health service do not like terminating pregnancies. it is regarded as a detestable chore. no doubt other considerations apply in the private sector. a young registrar in a gynaecological department who is faced with the termination of a pregnancy has to be certain that there is a grave risk to the life of the pregnant woman if the pregnancy is not terminated. if someone informs against him the onus of proof is on him that he has not committed an offence which will bring him up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £1,000. i can imagine no more absurd situation and no more serious restriction of clinical freedom, particularly among young doctors. this is one of the most absurd parts of the bill.\n my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east suggested that there are doctors in the private sector who make vast profits. we must face the fact that that is because the national health service is letting the patients down because of inadequate facilities. there would be no booming private sector in abortions if there were at least reasonable facilities in the national health service—which there are not.\n i hope that the select committee when it investigates this matter will recognise its own limitations in forming opinions on delicate and complex professional matters. i hope that it will adhere to the lane report as much as possible. the lane committee is the most authoritative body of opinion we could possibly have. finally, the select committee must remember that, although this is a difficult and serious social problem, there are grave limitations to what can be done by legislation. legislation might well produce much more harm than good.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.133', 364, 'uk.m.21745', 'uk.p.SNP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i always listen with respect to the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin) on this subject, but i disagree with what he said about the disparity in the number of abortions performed in various parts of the country. if the doctors concerned decide that an abortion is not necessary i cannot see how they can be flouting the law, because the 1967 act clearly gives them that discretion.\n i join in congratulations to the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) on bringing forward the bill. there are few causes more worthy of support. i am sorry that i was unable to attend his meeting to discuss the select committee, but after listening to the minister i am happier than i was when i first heard the proposal to set it up.\n i shall make my objection to abortion on one fundamental ground. i believe that it is a grave sin, and i do not think that statistics one way or the other affect my viewpoint in any way.\n i wish to refer to two sentences from an article written by malcolm muggeridge in the sunday times last week which go to the root of the matter: either we go on with the process of shaping our own destiny without reference to any higher being than man, deciding ourselves how many children shall be born, when and in what varieties, which lives are worth continuing and which should be put out. … or we draw back, seeking to understand and fall in with our creator's purpose for us rather than to pursue our own; in true humility praying, as the founder of our religion and our civilisation taught us: thy will be done. this is what the abortion controversy is about, and what the euthenasia controversy will be about when, as must inevitably happen soon, it arises. i welcome the bill. i think that in some degree it will remove the abuses of the 1967 act—and nearly all contributors to this debate have agreed that there are abuses. after the select committee has met and reported, we shall have an obligation to see that the legislation passes through the house as quickly as possible.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.135', 783, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the discipline of brevity must lie heavily on us all, tempting though it is to look back over the history of this subject in parliament and to remember battles of long ago. it is certainly much easier for parliament to be able to discuss these very important matters than it was when some of us were pioneering to have a rational public debate on this subject.\n i was much impressed with the speech made by my hon. friend the member for loughborough (mr. cronin). he spoke from the point of view of the doctor. i speak as a doctor\'s wife, and my husband used to work in a very poor part of the east end of london. one of the most satisfactory transformations in the social life of the people who were his patients has been the new attitude towards the termination of pregnancy. in those days women would come into his surgery with their calendars and obviously they had suffered dread month after month.\n my hon. friend was quite right to emphasise the awful decision which faced doctors in the days before the law was changed. i am sure that we never had any reliable statistics on this topic. it is said that there is a great increase in the number of abortions. i submit that nobody can say that there is an increase, because nobody knew how many there were before. i remember that my husband hardly ever put "abortion" on a death certificate because it always shamed the family, quite apart from the husband. it would be "septicaemia" or some other replacement. so we cannot say that there are now more abortions than there were.\n i remember my husband being called out to see a girl who had undergone an abortion and who had interfered with herself in a horrible way. my husband got the girl into hospital and she died there. the next thing that happened was that a policeman arrived and said to my husband "you sent her into hospital and were the last doctor to see her". my husband replied "i can only say that if i had carried out the operation it would not have gone septic". but it was days before that cloud was lifted from the family. i am sure that the amending legislation which is before the house will re-create that situation and will make it difficult for a doctor to give an abortion to which a woman is entitled because he might be afraid of being caught by the legislation.\n of course there are abuses in the private sector, and i wish that some of my friends in the medical profession were more alert to the total abuse and overcharging in the private sector as a whole. it is not only in this speciality that there is abuse.\n i should like to say a word about the situation of the foreign woman as affected by this legislation. a doctor has not only to be satisfied on the difficult judgment of grave injury and serious risk and so on but has to find out about the woman\'s nationality. how does he police that task? the woman may say "i speak in an odd way because i come from southern ireland", or she may say "i do not speak english very well because i am german but married to an english husband." has the doctor to obtain the husband\'s birth certificate or passport? [an hon. member: "her own passport."] it is certainly a new situation and i hope that the bma will pronounce on the desirability of patients having to take passports to their doctor.\n in case i cannot persuade the house of these arguments, i should like to quote from a letter which i received from a distinguished gynaecologist who is a constituent. he said: any national has always been able to seek medical and surgical help in the uk and increasing numbers … come here for this purpose because we have such good medical ability. this being so, why should women seeking abortion be singled out in this way? i need hardly point out that a doctor should see and attend anyone with a total disregard of nationality; race; colour; creed or social position. it is entirely contrary to medical ethics and honour to make discriminaitons. the words of that doctor put the dilemma very fairly indeed.\n we have heard a lot of statistics today. i sometimes wonder whether we are talking about women at all. perhaps if there had been more women members of parliament present today on the opposition benches, we might have heard a wider variety of contribution. i must remind the house that this is international women\'s year.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.136', 5, 'uk.m.17860', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one would never have guessed!\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.137', 173, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hear what my hon. friend says, but one would almost think that references to foreign women bring some strangely polluting element to parliament.\n i submit that it is an extremely traumatic experience for a woman to have to go through an abortion at all, and she must be particularly desperate to have to come to this country to have it carried out. she is in need of help and compassion. it is astonishing that we in the house of commons should seek to celebrate international women\'s year by making this differentiation. if a foreign gentleman comes to london to have his prostate fixed, he does not get sent home. how can we divide the specialities of medicine? how can we try to single out one element in the practice of medicine and ascribe to it a different branch of legislation, under which the authority of the mother of parliaments takes the view "you are foreign women, you are not our sisters, you do not belong to humanity. keep your problem at home."\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.138', 20, 'uk.m.21736', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the hon. lady saying that the male prostate gland is human life in the same way as a foetus?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.139', 252, 'uk.m.17922', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', "i suggest that for the hon. gentleman it might very well feel as though it is.\n i shall finish on a serious note. my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse)—incidentally, he has not been to my house but i have been to his—referred to way-out professors who were opposed to the bill. i have had a letter from a way-in professor. i refer to professor fairweather, head of the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, university college hospital, london, one of the most famous departments in the world on this subject. i am sure that everybody agrees that that is a very good hospital.\n professor fairweather wrote to me in very strong terms to make sure that i was in my place today to vote against this amending legislation. the professor said in his letter that this legislation will make the doctor's life more difficult, and he continued: … the effect of the bill would be to restrict the availability of abortion and, in fact, would be quite contrary to the suggestions made as a result of the lane commission. he is concerned, as are other doctors working with him, about what the house might do today. i gather that the house will not do what this distinguished professor was afraid it might do. however, it is a pity that we are not holding a debate on the report of the lane committee instead of on a bill which is harmful to the cause that many of us have at heart.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.141', 392, 'uk.m.22183', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i came to the house hoping to vote in support of the abortion (amendment) bill because i believed it to be a good bill. i regret that the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), who introduced the bill so well, has been persuaded to with draw it. however, that being the case, those of us who would have supported the bill have little option but to support putting it before a select committee. therefore, i shall support that proposal.\n i listened with interest to the moving speech made by the hon. member for holborn and st. pancras, south (mrs. jeger), who spoke about the international traffic in abortions. she spoke with great force and she undoubtedly had a point. however, i should like to read to the house a directly relevant extract from the german magazine der spiegel, which has a wide circulation in germany. the extract comes from the issue dated 27th january and has been translated for me by the library.\n it reads: an \'international pregnancy advisory service\' in twickenham, middlesex, england, is sending german doctors vouchers, on production of which patients are to be refunded 25 per cent. of their travel costs. the undertaking from the doctors is as follows: pregnancies can be interrupted up to 24 weeks if necessary. should your patient have difficulties … she can be certain that she has not been driven to the right address. i have obtained from the paper the address, which is in my constituency. i shall send it to the minister, because i think that the matter should be investigated. [hon. members: "why not publish it?"] i do not propose to publish the address by giving it to the house, because i believe that by publishing it i should be boosting this trade, and that is just what i do not want to happen.\n i do not believe that this trade and traffic is in accordance with either the will of the house or the intention of the house as expressed in 1967, although i was not then a member. the case i have mentioned is not an isolated case in my constituency. being near to heathrow, the trade undoubtedly gives offence to a considerable number of people. i hope that the select committee will examine the situation very carefully and critically so that the abuses can be abolished.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.142', 44, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'why does not the hon. gentleman spell it out that there is a section of the medical profession whose practices in this respect are despicable and that the medical profession should put its house in order? why does not the hon. gentleman say that?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.143', 213, 'uk.m.22183', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the medical profession does not put its own house in order or show itself capable of doing so, i believe that this house has a duty to legislate. the medical profession has had plenty of time. it is a great and wonderful profession with many very fine people in it. if it will not put its own house in order, i believe that the house must act.\n my second point relates to the rights of unborn children. i agree with the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin) that their rights must be considered alongside those of women with unwanted pregnancies and not totally disregarded. many people were born after unwanted pregnancies. were we able to identify such people and ascertain whether they wished they had never been born, i am sure we should receive an overwhelming straight, negative answer.\n there are grounds for believing that there is a shortage of children for adoption. i have been approached by would-be parents in my constituency who have the utmost difficulty in finding children to adopt. the adoption agencies are in a position to be very careful about whom they accept as parents, and it is right that they should be careful. however, it is not necessarily right that there should be an artificial shortage.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.144', 48, 'uk.m.17719', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does the hon. gentleman suggest that the woman with an unwanted pregnancy, who is convinced that she will not be able to care for the child, should go through the trauma of bearing and giving birth to that child so that others may be able to adopt it?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.145', 56, 'uk.m.22183', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady seems to be concerned entirely with the needs and wishes of the mother and not at all with the rights of the unborn child. i believe that both should be considered. the position relating to the shortage of babies for adoption by potential, good adoptive parents should be considered by the select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.147', 556, 'uk.m.21704', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i intend to be brief. i sat through 28-odd committee sittings, two long report nights and many other discussions of the 1967 abortion act, and i think that some of us who saw the opposition there was in the house to any woman having any sort of abortion in those days should say a word on this occasion.\n i counsel a degree of humility in the house in the way we approach this problem. i believe that it is not certain that amendments to the law are the best way to deal with this problem. the lane committee very sensibly spelt out the abuses it thought should be cleared up by professional and administrative action. the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) mentioned the crossman doctrine—mr. crossman had only very restricted grounds on which he could tighten up all clinics—which has now been proved wrong, and there may be a completely new attitude from the department of health in tidying up the private sector.\n i agreed with my hon. friend the member for loughborough (mr. cronin) when he said that we should keep our feet on the ground. we are not in a position where, simply by passing laws, we can decide whether women have abortions. what we shall tend to decide is whether women have safe or unsafe abortions. if we restrict the law, the tendency will be to force the women to have unsafe abortions.\n the second reason why, as a man, i think that we should be very careful to preserve a decent humility is the prospect of 600-odd men, some of them very elderly and others deep into the menopause, attempting to lay down to half of the population, which is scandalously under-represented in the house anyway, how that half of the population should deal with a matter which is absolutely crucial and personal to them. looked at objectively, that prospect is a little grotesque.\n i am not saying that we should not pass laws. all i say is that we should do so with a decent humility. let me take the example of foreign women. there will be a number of foreign women who have arrived in britain only recently, not hav ing come especially for abortions. but they will ask for abortions. if they are to be denied them, it could be brutally unfair since many of the will have probably been impregnated by englishmen. simply to take the national status of the women as an absolute blanket reason for stopping them having abortions is a heartless act which this house would not wish to go in for.\n i am extremely pleased that the government and the minister of state have at least agreed to take substantial responsibility themselves for dealing with these matters. in 1976, if i may say so—and the minister of state was then a backbench member of the committee—the government did not take nearly enough responsibility for clearing up these problems. if the introduction of the bill has done anything, it has forced the government to deal with the private sector in this regard—and i hope in other regards as well—and allowed us to accept the recommendation of the lane report that the abortion act, apart from these specific abuses, is working and should remain in force as it is at the moment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.149', 626, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in his very interesting speech, the hon. member for lewisham, west (mr. price) described some of the proposals in this bill as "heartless". he described the motive of those who support it in much the same way. i put to him the possibility, which i hope he and others will reflect upon, that the abortion act 1967 and a number of social measures passed at the same time were also of an extremely heartless nature in that they created a situation and a moral climate which resulted in immeasurable unhappiness to a great many of our people. i say "immeasurable" because it cannot be measured by statistics and it cannot be checked by referring to a government report. we have no idea of the mental agonies suffered by mothers who have had abortions. we shall never know the statistics. i suggest that that is a matter which should be reflected upon and thought about.\n the sponsors of the bill are a mixed bag. i am one of them. we have all approached it in different ways. the reason why i agreed to sponsor it and why i support what the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) has done is precisely to deal with the point which was made so ably by the hon. member for holborn and st. pancras, south (mrs. jeger) and by the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin). they pointed out how difficult it was to draw a legal distinction between a situation of having abortion on demand and a situation of having no abortion at all.\n the hon. member for loughborough said that if we put into the subsection the word "grave" it would be difficult to decide how to allow doctors to make a decision. he said that he did not want a situation where in, say, newcastle it was more permissive whereas in birmingham it was less. he also said that we must give doctors total discretion. however, it is impossible to have both uniformity of practice and total freedom or discretion for the medical profession.\n the hon. member for holborn and st. pancras, south spoke about women coming to this country. she pointed out the difficulty of trying to draw a distinction between having complete abortion on demand and no abortion at all. this is the difficulty which has been partly created by the 1967 act. although the hon. member for loughborough can see difficulty in the use of the word "grave", for the medical profession in some areas it is difficult to draw a distinction in terms of the 1967 act. the only argument of the hon. member for loughborough is that, if we have the 1967 act, those doctors who wish to interpret it as being a situation of abortion on demand do not need to fear the consequences. i fear that the act can be interpreted as meaning virtually abortion on demand and that those who practise abortion on demand, for whatever purposes, have no fears from the act.\n the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) pointed out in his excellent speech that there had been more liberalisation in some parts of the world. what he did not say was that those who were amongst the first to liberalise have been seen to go into reverse. he spoke of the situation behind the iron curtain. i remind him of the present situation in romania, which was one of the first pioneers of abortion on demand. in that country in 1965 there were four abortions for every live birth. romania has now totally reversed its policy. it is forbidden for any woman under the age of 45 to have an abortion other than for therapeutic reasons. there is a warning there for us.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.150', 36, 'uk.m.19190', 'uk.p.LDem', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'surely the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that there is any comparison between a country which reached the ridiculous figure of four abortions for every live birth and a country with only about 15 per cent.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.151', 317, 'uk.m.10591', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was not trying to do that. i was saying that the hon. gentleman had drawn attention to the situation in two iron courtain countries and to other countries which were moving towards more liberalisation, going much beyond what we have in this country. i was pointing out that another country has altered course and is now moving in the other direction.\n we have been told that the act is necessary because of mothers with six, seven or eight children. but what are the facts? we have figures for england and wales in 1973 which show that 52,000 women who had abortions had no previous live children, that 12,000 had one live child and that 20,000 had two live children. only 6,000 had five live children, and only 2,000 had six.\n i fear that unless we bring forward a measure to restrict the present situation we shall move to one in which we have abortion on demand and in which there are many more people to whom abortion has never been anything other than a form of birth control.\n there are many right hon. and hon. members who support this bill for different motives. i voted against the 1967 act. i do not like the principle of it. i am opposed to abortion, although i appreciate that there are major social problems which have to be dealt with in some way. but if we are not to move to a situation where we have abortion on demand and made use of as a form of birth control, we must tighten the law. i appreciate that any situation between abortion on demand and no abortion at all will lead to anomalies and difficulties, but i believe that the time has come to ask ourselves whether we were right in the 1960s to undermine the moral climate which has been the strength of our country for so many years.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.153', 163, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'because so many hon. members still hope to intervene in the debate, i shall limit my contribution to six or seven minutes.\n i do not suppose that i have ever before risen to speak in this chamber knowing that so many right hon and hon. members were aware of precisely where i stood and why. during the past three weeks i have been canvassing hon. members seeking support for what i might call the james white bill. i have been surprised and disappointed at the number of responsible hon. members who have attempted to say that the james white amendment bill was some kind of roman catholic conspiracy.\n i have heard that said in the country but i did not expect to hear it in this house. it is not only untrue. it is very unfair to the church because it obscures the truth. the fact is that over the past three weeks my mail has been overwhelmingly in support of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.154', 40, 'uk.m.17165', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i can confirm what my hon. friend says. at a very large meeting of more than 600 people in my constituency—and i am told that nearly 300 had to be turned away—various denominations were represented and unanimously approved the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.155', 661, 'uk.m.21722', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am obliged to my hon. friend for that assistance. his experience is similar to mine.\n on 21st december last, representatives of the roman catholic church, the church of england and nonconformist churches and chapels held a peaceful demonstration, led by the bishop of burnley. it is wrong to think that the argument about the destruction of baby life is inspired by the roman catholic church. it is that church which has taken the lead in this matter, and in my opinion, for what it is worth, it deserves full marks for so doing.\n one must take heed of what the other churches are doing. i have been sent a statement by paul cavadino, an oxford graduate who is involved in social work at a beggarly salary on behalf of the likes of people for whom we should all have due regard. a joint statement on the lane report was issued by the board for social responsibility of the church of england and the division of social responsibility of the methodist church. it said: it is all the more regrettable that the committee"— that is, the lane committee— were prevented from considering changes in the conditions for legal abortion, since the conditions as laid down in the 1967 act, and particularly the social clause, have attracted widespread criticism. a judgment on the abortion law must include an assessment of the moral and legal principles underlying it, and this the committee were precluded from doing". that is a fair judgment, and when my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) was speaking i intervened to say that the terms of reference of the lane committee were totally inadequate. it is nonsense for certain hon. members to say that the lane committee\'s report is adequate. it could not be, and it had no right to be.\n remembering my promise to be brief i now come to my second and final point but, before enlarging on it perhaps i may tell the house that paul cavadino has made a realistic survey of the situation and that had time been at my disposal i should have liked to make the report to the house that he has made to me.\n it grieves me very much that young girls of 14, 15, 16 and 17 are having abortions in the manner that we know. [ interruption. ] interruptions do not bother me. i do not care whether i am alone in this view. i truly believe that the care of our young people is a responsibility of this house of commons.\n the act as it is now operated makes a positive contribution to the permissive society in which we live. on several occasions i have asked how anyone here would like it if his or her daughter, at the tender age of, say, 15, came home and said that she was in this condition. who could truthfully say "i do not really mind"?\n there is a strong bingo element in our society today, and there has been a considerable decline in the christian pattern of discipline. i do not think anyone can deny that the influence of the home, which should be transcendent, has decreased alarmingly, and the influence of the church has decreased with it. those two factors go together, and there is no doubt that we in this house should be aware of them. we should attempt to circumvent the circumstances that prevail by seeing to it that, as responsible members of society, we face the challenges confronting us, which is what i believe we are doing now.\n i compliment my hon. friend the minister of state on taking this matter on board. the difficult situation facing us should be dealt with by a bill which at the end of the day should be the responsibility of a responsible state. i am pleased to note that the minister has taken the matter on board in the manner that he described to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.157', 345, 'uk.m.10647', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i congratulate the hon. member for burnley (mr. jones) on his refreshing and heartfelt contribution to the debate. many of my hon. friends share his views on the permissive society, and it is perhaps because of this permissive society that we find ourselves, as a country, in such a difficult situation today.\n the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin) began his contribution to the debate by saying that all hon. members had received a lot of information through the post from various bodies concerned about abortion, both those for and those against it. he went on to say that he disregarded all this information. that was an unfortunate comment, because it is my view that we should pay heed to the information that we receive from people, whether or not we agree with their views, and that any decision we reach should be taken after considering all that information.\n i hope that i shall be speaking for that great body of public opinion—not just the 18 per cent. who support abortion, or the 12 per cent. who would not support it for any reason whatsoever—who feel that there have been severe and appalling abuses of the 1967 act.\n the hon. member for the western isles (mr. stewart) made a brief but positive contribution to the debate. i, too, believe in the sanctity of marriage, and i believe also in planned parent-hood. it is my view that children are a blessing. the hon. lady the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) does not seem to realise that there is a shortage of babies for adoption by couples who, unfortunately, cannot have children of their own. i am not bringing racial considerations into this. the hon. lady commented on there being plenty of coloured babies awaiting adoption. that is irrelevant.\n having served in local government as well as in this house, i know from experience that there are many couples who desperately want to adopt a child. i believe that many of these unwanted babies—unwanted, that is, by their mother—can bring great happiness to these childless couples.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.158', 2, 'uk.m.17024', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.159', 219, 'uk.m.10647', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i promised to be brief, and i shall not give way.\n abortion should not be used as a long-stop to contraception, which is what it is becoming. we are having abortion on demand because people for one reason or another did not use any form of contraceptive device or whatever it might be. there are so many forms of contraception today that i should not care to name them all in this house.\n more education on sex, yes, more education on family planning, yes, a greater availability of contraceptive advice and appliances, yes, but not abortion on demand.\n the contribution made by my hon. friend the member for twickenham (mr. jessel) was positive and useful. i hope that the department will take action when it gets the information that he possesses as it highlights appalling abuses of the 1967 act.\n the debate is about a very personal, sensitive and complex matter. i admit openly in this chamber that i support the objectives of the society for the protection of the unborn child. however, what we are debating transcends all party political barriers. i believe that conscience and personal principle and morals are paramount. i fully support the objectives of the bill and congratulate the hon. member for glasgow, pollock (mr. white) on having the courage to bring it in.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.161', 783, 'uk.m.17162', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is late. therefore, the house will not be privileged to hear the wonderful speech that i prepared. instead, speaking slightly at a tangent to the bill, i should like to address a few words with respect and good will to all hon. members, whether pro- or anti-abortionists.\n to the first group i suggest that if anyone objects to this or, indeed, any amending bill to the 1967 abortion act, he is in effect saying two things. the first is that the 1967 act is absolutely perfect and not susceptible of change or amendment. the second is that that perfect act, that most ideal piece of legislation ever made in the history of mankind has been scrupulously and perfectly observed and that it cannot be amended.\n we all know that that is not true. there are many abuses under the act. my hon. friend the member for holborn and st. pancras, south (mrs. jeger), for whom i have the greatest respect, asked one hon. member to produce the evidence of these abuses. i have not got chapter and verse, but i assure my hon. friend that there have been many abuses. for example, i do not believe that the conscience clause has been observed. i think that we all know that gynaecologists and nurses have been victimised in their own professions for not carrying out abortions. i will not go into all these lurid allusions. i want to see an end to all private clinics which charge extortionate fees, and so on.\n i suggest to those who are against the bill that all these matters can be dealt with in committee. they are all committee points. they do not militate against the principle that the 1967 act is capable of being, and certainly ought to be, amended.\n i voted against the 1967 bill—i had not the slightest compunction in doing so—and would again. however, i suggest to those who, like me, are in favour of this bill that they should be more careful. i could make a powerful theological case against all abortion. i could prove—it would take me until well after 4 o\'clock—that the foetus is alive, is individual and distinct, is human, is a person, and, being a person, has the right to live. i believe that this right to live is not derived from any human agency—not even from the parents—but is god-given. but what is the use of pressing those arguments on people who do not share my theology? therefore, i believe that in a public debate in a pluralistic society people should not develop those arguments.\n similarly, we should be careful about the language that we use. language sometimes makes it impossible for people who disagree with one\'s views to listen to them. we should not talk about mass murder, genocide, the slaughter of the innocents, or even make a reference to belsen or auschwitz. that cannot convince those who do not agree with us. indeed, they will stop their ears and become indignant. why should they not? i do not believe that any hon. member would dream for a moment of wishing to terminate life. these are not the arguments that we should use.\n i should also like to hear from those who have such great respect for life in the womb what respect they have for life elsewhere, for life in the slums, for example, or in degrading conditions at work or in the motorway folly. i should like to hear their views on the h-bomb, which is no great respecter of life. on both sides of the house we should be careful of our language, whether we are for or against the bill.\n this is why i am glad that the government intend to set up a select committee. i had it in mind, as had many other hon. members, to come here specifically to vote for the bill. perhaps they feel disappointed that they will not now be given the chance to do so. [hon. members: "how do you know?"] i was about to say that they might be tempted to vote against the withdrawal of the bill. i think that that would be wrong on practical grounds. if the bill goes into a standing committee, god alone knows when it will be discussed. i can speak of this matter with some authority because i am the chairman of the committee of selection and i know that six or eight other bills are already well ahead of this one.\n what we should do is take up the government\'s offer to send the bill to a select committee. but i repeat: let us all give one another the credit for being sincere in our views.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.162', 2, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.163', 17, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the rev.—no, i am sorry: it is the rev. alan clark, i am afraid. [ laughter. ]\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.165', 775, 'uk.m.10107', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am particularly grateful that you have elevated me to holy orders, mr. deputy speaker, since i fear that in comparison with the speech of the hon. member for thurrock (mr. delargy), which was statesmanlike and contained many felicitous phrases which must have pleased almost everyone in the house, what i have to say may not have such a universal appeal. it is for that reason that i am happy to shelter under the cloth which you have awarded me.\n i was not in the house when the 1967 act was passed, but i welcome the opportunity to speak on it in general terms as i know that my constituents would wish me to do. those of us who argue against the practice of indiscriminate abortion face the fact that we do so when the climate of opinion, the abundance of statistics, much of the articulacy of argument—i do not have in mind the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short)—is against us.\n none the less, although our arguments are sometimes stigmatised as emotive, which i take to be a pejorative word for "emotional", and there is no harm in emotion, or specious, which i take to be an adjective which is simply applied to an argument which convinces one but which one does not like. i feel that they echo a deep opinion in the people of this country.\n of course, the case that the unborn child is, so to speak, the property of the mother has a superficial credibility because she conceived it. it must be admitted, however, that the act which leads to conception can take place on a very great number of occasions without conception occurring. i would agree with the hon. member for western isles (mr. stewart) that there is no denying the fact that an enormous number of people, not necessarily of the catholic faith, believe that conception is the gift of god, and that what god gives only god can take away. one of the curious paradoxes of fashionable argument these days is that so many people who argue against capital punishment, for example, on the ground that man cannot set himself up as a surrogate of god are none the less only to ready to assume that status when it comes to terminating pregnancies at a late stage.\n before becoming a member of the house i was on the governing body of one of the largest groups of teaching hospitals in the country. i had direct personal experience of the great distaste which is felt by large numbers of medical staff and nurses at having, day in and day out, to undertake these tasks, which the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin) described as a disgusting chore. i know also of the effect on recruitment for the nursing profession that these obligations have had.\n i believe also that the house should look very carefully at the question of what happens to the foetuses. over 60,000 foetuses a year have to be disposed of, and some are in a very advanced and well-formed state. i was present in the house a few days ago when a very unsatisfactory, as i thought, answer was given on the question of medical experiments on foetuses. a curious word was introduced by the minister when he spoke of the "viability" of the foetus. no one seemed to know what that meant. it is certainly not a medical term. it is part of the "new speak" which is affecting the whole of this subject. the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east would not use the word "abortion", or she tended to avoid it whenever she could. she used the word "termination", which is slightly longer and more cumbersome and does not give rise to the curious chill of horror which the word "abortion" rightly arouses in so many people, even at this time.\n there is another point that we must consider which is of fundamental importance. where an unborn baby is over a certain age, we have to ask ourselves about its feelings, its identity and its receptivity. i am not concerned with its legal status, but we are here on the murky frontiers of medical knowledge. can anyone really assert that an unborn baby of 28 weeks has a smaller life force than a paralysed octogenarian in a wheelchair? cannot the two be compared? may not the day come when they will be compared?\n i support the bill. not only are its detailed provisions desirable, but may it be the first stage in a process which will ultimately revise an act which many people in this country regard as profoundly corrupt and evil.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.167', 619, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i say straight away that i agree with all that was said by the hon. member for plymouth, sutton (mr. clark), particularly the points he made on pre-birth, capital punishment and euthanasia.\n the sanctity of human life is involved in this whole debate. it is not often that the house takes time to debate a measure which has the eyes of the country upon it. ears everywhere are listening to what we are saying today. finance bills and subjects such as unemployment can be discussed, but at the end of the day it boils down to some form of legislative measure.\n today we are talking about a subject which all ordinary people know about—pregnancies, babies and family life. many hon. members are married and have families. it has been said that many of the men in the house are perhaps suffering from the menopause. i did not know that that medical term applied to men. i am sure that most male members would deny that the menopause was upon them.\n i am as happily married as any member can be. i have five children, whom, incidentally, i had before i entered the house. i am sure that all members who have families would not be without one of their children. it is not always pleasant, perhaps, when the wife approaches one and says "i have something to tell you. i am pregnant again." however, the husband and wife then look forward to the baby\'s arrival. it is welcomed into the family. this is what the bill is all about.\n i, in common with many other hon. members now in the house, would never have supported the 1967 act. i would have voted against it on moral grounds and because of the warnings given in committee, which resulted in the small number who opposed the bill on second reading increasing to such a large number on third reading that there was a very close result at that stage.\n some hon. members have stampeded round the country campaigning, talking to the council of labour women and saying that this bill would completely abolish the social clause. this bill was denigrated long before it was published.\n i will now mention the support that this measure has throughout the country. i have a letter here from the secretary of the church of scotland moral welfare committee. he encloses copies of the thinking on the issue of abortion and a copy of the submission on the lane report. he then says: from this you will see that we are not at all happy about the way in which the act has operated. the position of the church of scotland changed from 1967 at each deliverance before the general assembly right up until the last assembly. i believe that the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) quoted in his speech on the second reading of his measure from part of the first deliverance to the church of scotland. the council has seen the way the act is working out and, in common with other people, is worried about the abuses which have already become so apparent.\n next, i have a letter here which comes on behalf of the archbishops of canterbury and york. can one get higher than that in that establishment? the letter says: they … welcome the opportunity which parliament will have this friday of examining proposals for removing abuses in the administration of the abortion law. … in making this decision the presidents have consulted the bishop of leicester, chairman of the board for social responsibility. although he has not been able to consult the board, he wishes personally to associate himself with their welcome to mr. white\'s bill. \n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.168', 38, 'uk.m.10132', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend make clear whether the authors of those letters had seen the terms of the bill before they wrote those letters, or were the letters written in the expectation of what the bill might contain?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.169', 121, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'they knew that the purpose was to get rid of the abuses. in the main, the bill is a measure to get rid of the abuses, and for that reason we are prepared to retain what i call the social clauses of the 1967 act, while acting in the knowledge that they have been used in a way different entirely from what the house intended at that time.\n we all know the position of the catholic church on this matter, and references have been made also to the campaign of the methodists and the salvation army. in fact, all christian opinion in this country is ready to stand up and be counted on the need to get rid of the abuses.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.170', 8, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'less than 10 per cent. of the country.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.171', 372, 'uk.m.21895', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have a letter here also from the royal college of nursing, which, while evincing some worries about certain provisions in the bill, gives it general support. the department of health has already made its attitude clear through its action during the christmas recess and the answer to a question on 28th january. i have no time to go into that now, but what we heard from my hon. friend the minister of state today shows that the department is most concerned about what has been going on.\n i welcome for two reasons the proposal that a select committee of the house should look into the whole matter. such a select committee will be able to examine what has been going on in a much broader picture. what is more, as a sponsor of the bill i believe that the way in which the department has taken this matter on board may well mean that some legislation will reach the statute book, legislation which might otherwise have fallen because of the difficult timetable in which it would have to be fitted. but the house has a right to demand of the government that they act quickly on the findings of the select committee, treating the subject seriously and not pigeon-holing it so that it is lost for two or three years.\n i promised to sit down two minutes before this, so i shall not discuss the detail of the bill, that ground having been well covered already. although there are parts of the bill which not everyone can accept, i am sure that there is a lot of general ground which people can readily accept, the sort of material which, if the bill were to go to a standing committee, could be examined from that point of view in debate on amendments.\n i end on this note. in 1967 the act was introduced in good faith by a fellow scot. i hope that as a result of the decision of the house today and what happens thereafter we shall be able to improve it, removing the abuses, and i am glad to think that this will be made possible by the courage of another of my fellow countrymen north of the border.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.173', 419, 'uk.m.10471', 'uk.p.DUP', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall keep to my promise, mr. deputy speaker, and be as brief as possible. i was glad to hear what was said by the hon. member for dunbartonshire, west (mr. campbell), with whom i am largely in agreement, as i was with the remarks of the hon. member for plymouth, sutton (mr. clark).\n this whole subject has to be approached with a great measure of compassion. all who are implicated in the matters covered by the bill need the compassion of every hon. member. it is easy to come down severely on one side or the other, but it should be remembered by all that the mother has an opportunity to state her case and to express her intense feelings in this matter but that the unborn child has no opportunity to speak. that child cannot put forth its viewpoint. it is only right that we should try to see this matter in the light of the sanctity of human life.\n while in this pluralistic society we will not convince anyone who takes a different view on a particular theological or moral issue, it has to be acknowledged that the child must have feelings and those feelings must be respected. i am with those who raise their voices in the house today in condemnation of what has taken place under the present abortion laws.\n i would have liked to have seen this bill voted on. it seems a great pity that at the last minute the government have suggested that it should go to a select committee. we must, however, be realistic. it is quite probable that the select committee will be able to put forward its recommendations in a shorter time than would be necessary for the bill to go through all its stages. i feel that the decision to refer the subject to the select committee will at least give everyone who has strong convictions on the subject an opportunity to voice them and to ensure that something will be done.\n i hope that the committee will be set up speedily and will get down to its task quickly and that the house will be able to debate its findings this session. i urge upon the minister the necessity for a stricter administration of the present laws. i urge upon him the necessity to tighten up the act. where he has the power, i trust that he will use it so that the abuses of which we have heard will be brought to a speedy end.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.175', 1260, 'uk.m.18240', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this has been a deeply serious debate on a subject on which most hon. members feel strongly. i congratulate my hon. friend the member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white) on bringing forward his bill and giving us the opportunity to debate it and the lane report at the same time. at this crucial stage of the debate, may i remind the house what the bill is about and what it is not about, in the terms stressed by my hon. friends, the main sponsors of the bill.\n the bill does not deal with the merits of abortion per se. it does not suggest that abortion is wrong. there is thus no challenge intended to the principles underlying the 1967 act. the bill does not deny the right of a woman to have an abortion in certain circumstances. opponents of the bill, such as myself, have to accept the good faith of the sponsors.\n equally, the sponsors have to accept that the debate is not about abortion on demand, as it seemed to be at one point. the 1967 act does not sanction abortion. any allegations by the sponsors to this effect have to do with the workings of the act and not with the act itself. i was delighted to hear the minister say that he believes it is possible to strengthen the workings of the act by administrative means. what the bill and the debate are about are, first, whether the allegations of abuses and defects in the 1967 act are well founded and, secondly, if they are well-founded, whether this bill is the best way to deal with them. the allegations of abuses and defects have been gone into at great length and it is clear that on all sides there is general agreement that certainly in the private sector there have been abuses. no one would deny that. the minister has indicated how he thinks it is possible to take action and that he is already trying by administrative means to do something about abuses.\n a second abuse, if that is the correct term, is the influx of foreign women. as has been already pointed out, they are mainly women from continental catholic countries. they have been the principle victims of exploitation by unscrupulous british clinics and doctors. that is an abuse that must be tackled. but in so far as britain, especially london and the south-east, has been able to provide relief where justified for thousands of foreign women with unwanted pregnancies with all the suffering that unwanted pregnancies would involve, and in so far as the continental countries are now modifying their laws or introducing new laws and giving similar facilities to their women, i think that rather than continually harping on the terrible abuses which we all know take place—"london, the abortion capital of the world"—we must take modest satisfaction in the thought that where justified we have helped to give a lead to ending the misery that has been felt by women in all countries and at all times because of unwanted pregnancies.\n my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) seems to think that the new laws will not materially alter the numbers of foreign women coming into this country because of the different stage at which abortion can be carried out. that is not the view of the derby chapter of the society for the protection of unborn children. i believe that its views are correct.\n my hon. friend was reminded by my hon. friend the member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short) that the majority of pregnancies are terminated within 13 weeks.\n if my hon. friend the member for pontypool considers the statistics in the lane report, he will see in vol. ii, at page 77, that over 50 per cent. of women in social classes i and ii tend to have abortions in 10 weeks or less. the operative figure in the new french act is 10 weeks. if we assume that most of the foreign girls who come or who have come to britain for an abortion are reasonably well off and come from families corresponding roughly to our social classes i and ii—only those girls can afford to come and pay the fees that the clinics are charging—i suggest that the new continental laws, in particular the new french law, france being the country from which most of the foreign girls seeking abortions here originate, will greatly reduce the number of foreign girls coming to this country and also the opportunity for exploitation.\n another alleged defect of the 1967 act is that women can have abortions in this country up to 28 weeks. that is something that the bill seeks to amend by instituting a limit of 20 weeks. as the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) has said, the figure of 28 weeks appears not in the 1967 act but in the totally different act of 1929. as the minister has explained, that act has ramifications beyond abortion.\n i accept—i am sure that many hon. members who are opposed to the bill also accept—that the advances of medical science since 1929 demand a hard look at the age at which a foetus becomes viable. i agree, incidentally, with those who express some repugnance at the word "viable". the lane committee suggested that we should have a period of 24 weeks. it is important that all the medical and legal implications of the 1929 act should be considered together by the select committee and that they should not be put forward as they appear in the bill. this is a highly technical matter which is difficult for us to settle on the floor of the house here and now.\n finally, and most importantly, there is the question of the addition of the words "grave" and "serious" to the definition in the 1967 act. it is generally agreed by all hon members that bills have two effects, legal and declaratory. the sponsors of the bill will have to admit that whatever their legal intentions, the declaratory effect of this amending bill, coupled with its other internal restrictions, will be to deter the great bulk of practitioners from carrying out the great bulk of abortions.\n i do not want to bandy figures. i do not know whether the suggestions is correct which was reported in the times yesterday—it was a suggestion made by a medical specialist—that abortions among british women would be reduced from 100,000 to 20,000. however, i believe that there would be a substantial reduction.\n we all know who will be the sufferers. they will not be the richer women who obtained abortions legally and safely even before 1967. they will be the poor, the young, the under-educated and all the underprivileged people whom my hon. friends the members for pollok and for pontypool try particularly to help. as before, they will have to resort to self-inflicted or back-street abortions, with all the physical dangers and mental traumas that those methods imply. i am sure that no hon. member on either side of the house would want to vote for legislation which would have that kind of class impact.\n for all those reasons, i am glad that the sponsors have agreed to withdraw the bill and i hope that their wishes will be respected by all hon. members. if they withdraw the bill. i, for one and, i am sure, many hon. members who have doubts about it will be prepared to support the government\'s motion for the setting up of a select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.177', 145, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i feel privileged to have been asked by the sponsors of the bill to wind up this important debate. perhaps i might begin by affirming at the outset, as did the hon. member for glasgow, pollok (mr. white), that i welcome the government's recognition that the subject of abortion is one of such deep public concern and of such complexity that they consider that the bill's proposals should be remitted forthwith to a select committee. i for one was much easier in my mind after the minister had addressed the house.\n let me qualify that welcome, however, by saying that, as the select committee will have power to report to the house from time to time, we would not expect, nor would we tolerate, any undue delay in the government's implementing any urgent recommendations the committee might feel disposed to make to check present abuses.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.178', 2, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', ' indicated assent. \n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.179', 17, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i will give way to the minister if he will confirm that that is the government's intention.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.180', 36, 'uk.m.21725', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security', 'government', 'the terms of reference of the select committee will be before the house when the motion is tabled on tuesday. we shall take careful note of all the points that have been made in this debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.181', 56, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am glad to hear that. abortion is a difficult and emotive subject for us all, concerned as it is with questions of life and death, religion, morals, ethics and medical science. it is bound to arouse deep feelings and they have been evident in the many good and sometimes moving speeches that we have heard.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.182', 42, 'uk.m.21715', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'did what the minister said imply that the motion which is on the order paper is not to be moved by the government but is to be withdrawn and a different motion put down for debate on tuesday? may this be clarified?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.183', 2547, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that was not my understanding. the minister nodded his assent to the proposition i put before he rose to his feet, and i accept in good faith what he told us.\n as the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) reminded us in an eloquent speech, there are those, who take up positions on the extremes of the argument, for whom the issue is very clear. on the one hand, there are those who see abortion as the cold-blooded murder of an unborn child, a hideous crime not to be justified in any circumstances, save perhaps where the mother\'s life is in danger. on the other hand, there are those who see it as a woman\'s basic right not to bear an unwanted child—in a sense, an act of liberation.\n in considering this bill, however, we are not concerned with the extremes of the argument. the bill does not seek to limit the existing grounds for a lawful abortion. it does not seek in any way to limit the "social" subsection in the 1967 act. the bill\'s purpose is to improve and strengthen the act in the sense that parliament originally intended.\n it has two main aims. the first aim is to end abuses in the private sector which have caused deep public concern and anxiety to the medical profession. the second aim is to implement the peel report, which recommended a code of practice to govern research on foetuses.\n the house was indebted to the hon. member for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles (mr. steel) for his review of the working of the 1967 act. that act rightly sought to end the chaos and uncertainty that had prevailed previously in the law on abortion. its purpose was to end the terrible toll of suffering and misery caused by illegal abortions. it sought to spell out the grounds on which it would be lawful to terminate a pregnancy. what it did not set out to provide was legalisation of abortion on demand. whatever may have been said in the house today on that subject, the authors of the 1967 act made that very plain at the time.\n indeed the lane committee, whose members were unanimously in favour of the 1967 act, confirmed in paragraph 189 of its report: it would be contrary to the conditions for abortion laid down in the act that it should be obtainable solely at the wish of the woman.… that is the present legal position and nobody has suggested otherwise.\n it is, however, a measure of the weakness of the 1967 act that the committee went on to say that the criteria for abortion as expressed in the act were imprecise and could be widely interpreted and that some practitioners interpret the act to mean that termination is possible in every case. in fact, some doctors, relying on the statistical argument to which i shall refer in a moment, sometimes agree to an abortion without even seeing the patient. the lane committee condemned that practice as wholly unethical. that being so, it is not surprising, when considering abortion in the commercial private sector, as it has been allowed to develop under the 1967 act, that in some parts of that sector the lane committee found that the legislation had been flouted and that abortion on request had been the rule.\n the hon. member for pontypool and i said in 1967 that this was precisely what would happen. our fears have been fully realised. the fact is that many foreign women who come to great britain do so from countries where abortion is unlawful. but much more to the point—and this goes to the root of the bill—is that they are obtaining abortions here for money on a basis which the 1967 act never intended.\n my own view is that it was singularly unfortunate that the lane committee, having heard all the evidence, could not bring itself to recommend that abuses, which it recognised and put on record, should be remedied by amending legislation. an evil recognised and not dealt with is an evil compounded. at least the bill recognises the evil and seeks to do something about it. clearly, if the lane committee was correct that there was abuse—and all the evidence supports that view—parliament cannot be indifferent to the way in which its intentions have been flouted, and are being flouted, and parliament must do something about it.\n the question is "how?". the minister thought that the bill was wrong in clause 1 to qualify the words "risk to … life" and "injury to … health" as criteria for abortion. the hon. member for loughborough (mr. cronin), in a most interesting and moving speech, supported that view.\n i concede that the argument is finely balanced, but the reality is that pro-abortion doctors are openly boasting that the 1967 act is drawn in such a way that abortion on demand is quite possible. let me quote, for example, one leading gynaecologist who said publicly that he was certain that … abortion on demand does not contravene the abortion act … the act allowed abortion when the risk of permitting that pregnancy to continue was greater than the risk of abortion —i ask hon. members to ponder those words— when an abortion is carried out in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy it is safer than allowing the pregnancy to go to term. those words are crucial to an understanding of the problem.\n now section 1(1)( a ) refers to the risk to a woman\'s life and health being greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. and it is true that there is a small statistical risk to the life of a woman in childbirth which is slightly higher than the statistical risk to the life of a woman from induced abortion during the first 12 weeks. however, i ask the house to consider where that leads us and where it has led the country. we are asked to believe that statistically it is safer for a woman to have an abortion than to have a baby. on that basis the act can be used, and is being used, to justify abortion on request.\n it is, however, a false argument, because the deaths due to childbirth and those due to medically induced abortion are not comparable. i am advised that the first usually occurs in women suffering from disease or some other abnormality, while the second occurs in perfectly healthy women who would not have died had they not undergone the operation.\n clearly, those who have used that statistical basis to justify what they do are flouting the law. they know what they are doing; they are flouting the intentions of the 1967 act. indeed, the lane committee said, in paragraph 201 of its report, that it was quite wrong for the statistical view to be taken. i submit, however, that as long as that situation stands uncorrected it is almost certain that no prosecution can be brought under the act, for the doctor can shelter behind its ambiguities.\n more than once the police have reported that it is impossible to enforce the provisions of the act, for this reason. woman detective chief inspector brenda reeve writing in the 1973 edition of the police college magazine said: i feel that the incidence of illegal abortions by medical practitioners since april 1968 has increased quite considerably. an estimation, albeit a guess but based on evidence acquired in investigations, is that the actual number of abortions carried out by doctors is in fact twice the number quoted in the national statistics.… further, many that are notified are in fact unlawful for the reason that they do not fall strictly within the terms of section 1 of the 1967 act. that is the reality. the conclusion of that officer was that … unless the law is amended such enforcement of the act will remain virtually impossible. the purpose of clause 1(1)( b ) of this bill is to remedy that situation by removing uncertainty.\n frankly, i see no reason or excuse for not providing statutory controls and more effective surveillance of what goes on in private abortion clinics. the minister thinks that this can be done by regulation. the provisions in the bill ensure that the woman seeking a termination will have proper medical advice and treatment from the outset from persons who, if they close their eyes and ears to illegal and unethical procedures, can be summoned before the general medical council. that is not a situation which obtains now.\n it is not sufficient to say that this matter can be dealt with by administrative action. it is necessary to write safeguards into the law. the minister told us that he had made inquiries, leading him to draw up regulations to govern private clinics. such regulations have long been required. why was action left until january 1975. the abuses have been known for a long time. the lane committee said that there was a need for a proper licensing system for pregnancy advisory and referral bureaux. the bill provides such a system. the lane committee admitted that a scandalous situation existed but proposed no legislative action. the minister has admitted that a scandalous situation exists and promises to deal with it through administrative means.\n i submit that there is a strong argument against administrative and in favour of statutory action. the minister\'s heart is in the right place, and i do not doubt the sincerity of what he said today. but ministers come and go. in view of the deep public concern on the subject, we think it right to insist that a licensing system is governed by statute.\n i turn briefly to two further matters which have been causing concern, especially to the medical profession. i refer first to the upper limit for safe abortion. earlier today the minister had some reservations about the provision in clause 7 which puts an end to abortion at a very late stage of pregnancy—a practice which has attracted very high fees to abortion clinics in the commercial private sector.\n i do not believe that anyone wants to adopt a dogmatic position on this, especially as the matter is likely to be referred to a select committee. but the peel committee recommended that, unless there was grave risk to the life or health of the mother, a gestation period of 20 weeks should be regarded as the safe limit. that was done because many people view with horror the deliberate killing of unborn children who have reached a stage where, with modern techniques which are being improved constantly, they are capable of survival. that is the point, and it is one to which some of the most distinguished gynaecologists in the land have given careful thought.\n no one in the medical world believes that the upper limit of 28 weeks which obtains at present is right. the lane committee thought that it should be reduced to 24 weeks, and it is relevant to remind the house that the british medical association said in its comments on the lane report: even with the reduction from 28 to 24 weeks, however, the position still exists that owing to an error in the calculation of dates a foetus intended for destruction could be born alive and be capable of functioning as a self-sustaining whole independently of any connection with the mother. that is the considered view of the british medical association. accordingly, we urge in the bill that the law should reflect that sound medical advice.\n secondly, i wish to refer to the question of experiment on aborted foetuses which may be alive and capable of independent existence. clause 8 deals with experiments on a foetus. it implements the code of practice recommended by the peel committee, which the lane committee supported.\n a number of hon. members have spoken with justifiable anger about what is happening in this connection in the private sector. it is impossible to measure the disgust which is felt about what is happening in some of these private abortion clinics. one advantage of setting up a select committee is that it can do what a standing committee of this house cannot do. it will be able to send for the tapes of some of the recorded conversations of these so-called doctors. it will be able to send for evidence over the widest possible area in order that these terrible practices may be judged properly. i feel sure that the whole house will agree that it is right that the law should be tightened up in this respect.\n it is all very well saying that this is a matter that can be left to administrative regulation. the trouble about that is that the police are convinced that it is impossible to get a conviction against those who are abusing the 1967 act unless women who have had an abortion know that their identity will not be revealed. to the best of my knowledge—perhaps the minister will correct me if i am wrong—no doctor has been convicted under the act. in any event, how does one get witnesses in cases where a private abortion clinic caters almost solely for foreign women who are here today and gone tomorrow? indeed, it is difficult to think of an area of wrongdoing in which there is greater justification for providing safeguards of this kind.\n i can understand the misgivings of the hon. members for loughborough and for roxburgh, selkirk and peebles about the onus of proof. the relevant provision in the bill does not mean that a person is in peril if he can show that he acted in good faith. only those flouting the law are in danger. this, however, is a matter on which it would be proper for the select committee to have the views of the medical profession, the home office, the police, and so on.\n it is of the utmost importance that the safeguards should be there to protect women who in some cases come from a long way off in fear and in a state of anxiety. whatever the outcome of her journey—it may be an abortion—a woman in this condition needs the best possible advice, care and treatment, and that is the purpose of the bill.\n i end—[hon. members: "hear, hear."] i have been here all day, and i have listened carefully to a range of excellent and moving speeches on a subject which is of the greatest possible concern to all our constituents. i hope, therefore, that the house will take this matter very seriously indeed.\n i end, as i began, by saying that the bill does not interfere with the central purpose of the 1967 act. rather does it seek to strengthen that purpose, to put beyond doubt the original intention of parliament and to put an end to the evils that prevail in certain parts of the private sector. no doubt the bill can be improved. it may be that the best course is to send it to a select committee. but of one thing i am certain. public opinion on this subject is now so aroused that it will not tolerate any further long drawn-out delay in correcting a shameful and corrupt situation. i commend the purpose of the bill to the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.184', 21, 'uk.m.19810', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in view of the assurances that we have received from the government, i beg to ask leave to withdraw the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.185', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.188', 14, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ) : on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.189', 36, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. it was before four o'clock that i put the question, so, if hon. members will take their places, i shall call the hon. member for barking (miss richardson) to speak on the bill. miss richardson.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.190', 12, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'women from all over the country have been lobbying outside this building—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.191', 14, 'uk.m.18225', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.196', 8, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.197', 17, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i will take the point of order, though strictly speaking i should immediately put the question.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.198', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'oh.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.199', 2, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.200', 18, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am deeply grateful for all this help. the hon. gentleman will be very brief, i hope.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.201', 52, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is a genuine point of order, mr. deputy speaker, and not a facetious one. it is whether it is now in order to have a vote upon the second reading of the bill, since the motion "that the question be now put" was actually moved after the stroke of four o\'clock.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.202', 18, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "the motion was moved before four o'clock and before the red flashes occurred in front of the chair.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.208', 112, 'uk.m.22082', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker, and further to the point of order which i raised a few minutes ago, may i seek your guidance on behalf of the many hon. members who wish to see the bill go to a select committee? i am somewhat confused by our proceedings. am i right in thinking that now, because the second reading of the bill has been passed, it will automatically go to a standing committee under standing order no. 40 unless the sponsors indicate that they wish to refer it to a select committee, apart from the motion standing on the order paper in the name of the lord president?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.209', 141, 'uk.m.18437', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury', 'government', 'may i try to be of help, mr. deputy speaker? as i am advised, the bill, having had a second reading, will automatically be committed to standing committee c, although there are several bills before it so that it will not reach that stage immediately. on the assumption that a select committee has been appointed by the time the bill reaches standing committee c, what will happen then is that it will be open to the standing committee to decide that, as the matter is already being considered by a select committee, it will proceed no further.\n in that way, the whole thing will be regularised. there is no complication. the bill, having had a second reading, will be committed to a standing committee, but there will also be the select committee, and matters will be equalled out in that way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.210', 89, 'uk.m.22558', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. at the moment when the point of order was raised, i was rising to my feet to move that the bill be committed to a select committee. this would clearly be the procedure after second reading when the house desires the matter to go direct to a select committee. i see no reason why the matter should wait to go to a standing committee, which would only postpone it. at this moment, the house could commit it to a select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.211', 69, 'uk.m.18437', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury', 'government', 'further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. if the government motion is carried, the bill will go to a select committee, and only when eventually the bill reached standing committee c would the procedure that i have outlined be established. there is no question of delay in this matter. i assure the right hon. member for crosby (mr. page) that he need not be worried about that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.212', 57, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'may i now join in, further to the point of order? if i may say so with every respect, i have never found the usual channels so helpful. if the right hon. member for crosby (mr. page) wishes to move his motion, i am obliged by standing orders to accept it. does he wish to do so?\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4.1.213', 13, 'uk.m.22558', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the bill be committed to a select committee.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.4'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7.1.1', 13, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "the first paragraph of the government's motion need not be proceeded with now.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7.1.2', 24, 'uk.m.16405', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. are you putting the motion regarding the northern ireland committee? some hon. members could not hear.\n ', datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7'], ['uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7.1.3', 26, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "if the hon. gentleman watches his order paper he will realise that i have to deal with the abortion (amendment) bill first and the government's proposal.\n ", datetime.datetime(1975, 2, 7, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1975-02-07.7']]
['Orders of the Day — ABORTION (AMENDMENT) BILL']
[['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.1', 109, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker, i had understood that this morning we would be considering the final stages of the child maintenance orders (annual up—rating and exemption) bill, as amended in standing committee c. the house knows that that is an important bill. it is not surprising that i have raised this point of order. the bill concerns the responsibility of the secretary of state for single—parent families. it ensures that liable relatives fulfil their responsibilities.\n no statement has been made by the minister, the leader of the house or the hon. member responsible for the bill. i do not understand why we are not discussing it—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.2', 38, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman. the truth is that the hon. member responsible, is not moving his motion on the bill today. there is business before the house, and we should consider that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.3', 158, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. once a bill has passed through the committee stage, is it not the property of the house? can one hon. member decide to withdraw that bill? i do not wish to quote from rumours, but rumour has it that the leader of the house has referred the bill to the law commissioners. if that is true, is it not a breach of his responsibility? surely this issue concerns the secretary of state for social services. is it not permissible for another member of the standing committee to move a motion on the bill? the bill has been given a second reading and has passed through its committee stage. it has been laid before the house for report and third reading. is it not true that an unpleasant trick has been cooked up at the expense of the tens of thousands of people who will benefit if the bill is enacted?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.4', 68, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'right hon. and hon. members will have studied the votes and proceedings. the hon. member responsible for the bill has a right to set the date at which he wishes it to be considered. that date has been made known to the house. the bill is to be considered upon friday 4 july. it is as simple as that. the business of the day is now before us.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.5', 195, 'uk.m.10511', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order, mr. speaker. having listened to your remarks, my point of order has become slightly different. i was responsible for ensuring that the opposition front bench kept a brief on the bill during second reading and in committee. the government consistently voted against the bill in committee. until your statement, mr. speaker we had understood that the bill had been withdrawn and referred to the law commission, not by the secretary of state but by the leader of the house. however, you have said that the hon. member responsible for the bill has the right to name the date upon which the bill will be considered, and that he has named 4 july.\n will the government make a statement indicating whether the bill has been referred to the law commission, or whether it will come back to the house? one cannot have both at the same time. the house will not know what to do. tens of thousands of individuals will be affected by the bill. they want to know its status. may we ask you to ensure that the leader of the house will make a statement on this issue?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.6', 64, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i cannot do that. the votes and proceedings have been published, and were dated thursday 13 march. they state quite clearly that the bill is to be considered on friday 4 july. the hon. member is therefore within his rights. the hon. member who wished to set a date for his bill would be angry if the house attempted to deny him that right.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.7', 8, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order. mr. speaker—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.8', 13, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'there is not much that can be further to that point of order.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.9', 46, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. as the leader of the house has been courteous enough to attend, it would be to the convenience of the house if he gave some explanation, so that the house and the country could understand what has happened.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.10', 38, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have explained to the house what has happened. the date has been changed. the first amendment is no. 98, which i understand is to be moved by the right hon. and learned member for dulwich (mr. silkin).\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.11', 62, 'uk.m.17154', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member in charge of the bill that is now to be heard on 4 july had originally introduced his bill for consideration today. are we to understand that an hon. member may select as many different dates as he likes for the second reading of his bill, or for its consideration on report, and may change them as he likes?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.12', 19, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'if an hon. gentleman gives notice to the house, he is within his rights, and notice has been given.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.13', 204, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i realise, mr. speaker, that your discretion in the selection of amendments is absolute. however, amendment no. 98 does not deal with the issue that was decided by the house on the last vote on 29 february. it goes right back to a previous decision of the house in a previous debate. if the amendment had been placed on the order paper before 29 february it would without doubt have been grouped with the other amendments that were the subject of discussion at the end of the debate on 29 february.\n surely the whole substance and intent of amendment no. 98 has been thoroughly debated and discussed in the house on a number of previous occasions. i submit that in this instance the question should be put forthwith and not debated. if that is not done we may be deemed to be disregarding the intention and spirit of standing order no. 30(2) and the section of "erskine may" under which the whole basis of the next group of amendments on the order paper was decided. this was shown, mr. speaker, by your reply to the hon. member for islington, south and finsbury (mr. cunningham) when he raised his point of order on 29 february.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.14', 71, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i allowed the hon. gentleman to make his point of order. the only part that he left out was "with every respect, mr. speaker, i am not challenging your ruling."when that is said, i sit up straight, because i realise that a challenge is coming. as the house expected of me. i spent a great deal of time this week considering the amendment. in my judgment the amendment should be called.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.15', 224, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move amendment no. 98, in page 2, line 8, after the words last left out insert— \'(4) for subsection (4) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsection:— (4) a person forming his opinion for the purpose of paragraph ( b ) of subsection (1) of this section who relies upon a factor other than or in addition to statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally shall be entitled to form such opinion as if the word \'substantially\' were omitted from the said paragraph.".\'. if i may say so, mr. speaker, far from challenging your ruling i gratefully accept it. i hope to demonstrate that the amendment is necessary. my reasons for tabling it are twofold. i hope that when the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) considers the first reason, if not both reasons, he will appreciate that there is a strong case for arguing why the amendment should have been selected and why it should be agreed to by the house.\n the last amendment to the bill, which was carried before the house adjourned its consideration of the bill, was amendment no. 7, which had the support of the promoter. it had the result of leaving out the whole of clause 1(4). that subsection provided that certain words should be substituted for section 1(4) of the original act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.16', 9, 'uk.m.10538', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i cannot hear the right hon. and learned gentleman.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.17', 23, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am doing my best against conversations on both sides of the house. i am willing to go back to where i started.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.18', 1, 'uk.m.22010', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.19', 699, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was saying that the last amendment to which the house agreed before it adjourned its consideration of the bill was amendment no. 7. that amendment had the effect of leaving out the whole of clause 1(4). that subsection did two things. first, it removed section 1(4) of the abortion act 1967—the principal act. secondly, it dealt with the statutory instrument procedure. therefore, by accepting that amendment the house, whether it realised what it was doing or not, not only declined to allow the statutory instrument procedure but decided to leave untouched section 1(4) of the principal act.\n that subsection provides for what might be called the emergency procedure. it provides that section 1(3) and so much of subsection (1) as relates to the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination is immediately necessary to"— for example— save the life … of the pregnant woman. accordingly, that subsection remains in the act, and provision remains in that measure for what is to happen in the event of an emergency termination. the next amendment to be considered by the house is no. 90, which seeks to amend clause 2. if we examine clause 2 and amendment no. 90 we find that they both deal with the emergency situation which is already dealt with by section 1(4) of the abortion act.\n whether the amendment is carried, whether the bill remains in its original form with clause 2 as it stands, or whether it is amended by leaving out a substantial part of the clause and inserting the words which, as i understand it, are now accepted by the promoter, the fact is that clause 2 will cover precisely the same subject as is already covered by section 1(4) of the abortion act. therefore, we will have double provision for the same subject. there will be provision in the original act and again in the bill as it stands.\n if the bill is passed we shall be sending to another place a measure that is complete nonsense. that is because it will be dealing with emergency termination in a way that appears in section 1 of the principal act and in the new section that is proposed to be added as a result of clause 2.\n that is clearly something that the house could not contemplate. for that reason alone, it would be necessary to pass an amendment which would clear up that matter altogether. that argument could perhaps be described as technical, in the sense that the other place, if the bill reaches it, could put the matter right. however, it is surely preferable for it to be put right in this place rather than to send to the other place a bill that is so seriously technically defective.\n however, the purpose of the amendment is twofold, and its second purpose is one of substance. the hon. member for buckingham, possibly because he did not wait to hear the explanation, did not fully appreciate the substantial purpose of the new subsection. during out last discussion there was a great deal of talk about possible compromise. indeed, the promoter of the bill put his name to a number of amendments, indicating that, the house having passed the 24-week amendment, and subject to one or two differences, he would be prepared to jettison the rest of the bill. many hon. members on both sides of the house who oppose a major part of the bill seemed to be willing to accept that compromise, and expressed themselves in those terms.\n unfortunately, a difficulty arose, because when the house debated the grouped amendments it voted for the word "substantially" by a majority of three votes, at the very last minute after it had heard the views of the attorney-general as expressed by the minister. i believe that it voted for that word on the basis that all the minister and the attorney-general had meant was that the use of the word "substantially" was a way of avoiding the difficulty in the minds of some conservative members—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.20', 4, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'and on this side.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.21', 97, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'indeed, i must not forget my hon. friend. that difficulty was created by what is known as the statistical argument. as i understand it, the argument means that there are doctors who say that statistically there is a substantial chance of any woman who undergoes a pregnancy suffering serious injury as a result, or even dying as a result. it is suggested—i do not know with what proof, but for the moment i am prepared to assume that it is so—that some doctors are prepared to sign a certificate on nothing other than the bare statistical proposition.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.22', 123, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that was the point that i raised during our last debate. does the right hon. and learned member agree that, although the majority of the house is perfectly happy with 24 weeks, the word "substantially" is extremely difficult to define? i asked that before we voted on the matter we should have the opinion of the attorney-general on the floor of the house rather than upstairs in committee. that opinion may have been given upstairs by the minister, but it is the sticking point of the whole bill. as a former law officer, will the right hon. and learned gentleman give his view about the word "substantially" and how it would affect the decision of a jury with regard to a doctor\'s conduct?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.23', 26, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with the hon. gentleman, and i am obliged to him for putting that point so clearly, because it is one of very great importance.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.24', 108, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my right hon. and learned friend accept that the word "substantially" as it relates to the statistical argument applies only to terminations that are carried out at a very early stage? before making up his mind, the doctor could not use the statistical argument if the termination were being carried out at a later stage. in other words, it would be wrong to accuse doctors of using the statistical argument in respect of all terminations that were carried out later than about 12 weeks, because the statistics would not bear out what the opponents of abortion feel is being done in the name of the statistical argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.25', 122, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in relation to technical medical matters, especially those relating to statistics, i am entirely in the hands of my medical colleagues and i must accept what they say. but speaking as a layman, the important point—i can see the argument that is put forward by those who support the bill—is that if a doctor bases his decision on nothing more than a statistical argument that applies to pregnancies generally and that has nothing to do with the circumstances of the particular patient, i believe that he is breaking the law. however, i can understand that supporters of the bill may feel that there is a danger in that regard, and i can understand their wish to try to safeguard against that danger.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.26', 139, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it was extremely helpful of my right hon. and learned friend to give his own interpretation of the word "substantially" and its implications. he will recall, as i do, that in a very short intervention, and without giving any reasons, the minister said: i have discussed this with my right hon. and learned friend the attorney-general and this is also his view."—[ official report. 29 february 1980; vol. 979, c. 1726.] we have not heard that view. does not my right hon. and learned friend agree that before we reach a conclusion this morning we should have the view of the attorney-general? after all, the attorney-general is a member of the government, and unfortunately, my right hon. and learned friend is not. before reaching a conclusion on this debate should not we have the views of the learned attorney-general?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.27', 343, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'for the last six years i have always been of the opinion that the views of the attorney-general are of assistance to the house in many circumstances where they are not called for. i certainly agree that they would be of assistance in this instance, where his views have been called for. they have been called for not only by my right hon. friend today, but also on the last occasion, as the hon. member for windsor and maidenhead (dr. glyn) pointed out. this is a matter of great difficulty.\n 10 am\n if i may be allowed for a moment to be a substitute attorney-general, i shall give my view on the effect of what we did on the previous occasion, not to go back on it but to explain the second purpose of the amendment. i have no doubt that a court, reading the principal act and the bill with the word "substantially" inserted, would take the view that the word does not mean merely minimal but something wide and considerable. if that is right, in failing to remove the word "substantially" in relation to the danger to a pregnant woman we produce the situation in which, in order for an abortion to be lawful, apart from the time limitation, there must be a considerably greater risk to the life of the pregnant mother than would be the case if the abortion did not take place. if there were some greater risk to the life of the mother, but not so much greater, the requirement for the preservation of the foetus in law would be higher than that for the preservation of the life of the pregnant woman.\n i do not believe that the house wanted to do that, but it reached that position because of the way matters turned out. the last minute, secondhand advice from the attorney-general was directed not to that point but to a totally different one. unfortunately, because of the closure, that point was not sufficiently forcefully made in the minds of right hon. and hon. members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.28', 17, 'uk.m.10538', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is the right hon. and learned gentleman saying that the difficulty occurs where the decision is marginal?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.29', 157, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is not even necessarily in a marginal case. it depends on the precise weight that the court would give to the word "substantially". it seems to me that, construing the two pieces of legislation together—the principal act and the bill, if it ever becomes law—the court would be bound to construe "substantially" as meaning a considerably greater risk. anything between "greater risk" and "a considerably greater risk" would be something that the mother would have to bear. it would be unlawful for the doctor to carry out an abortion if that were so.\n in my view, it is not merely a marginal case. even if it were purely marginal and there were a marginally greater risk to the life of the mother, i and the vast majority of people, including right hon. and hon. members, would instinctively say that the life of the mother must come first and the preservation of the foetus must come second.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.30', 117, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i agree with every word that my right hon. and learned friend, says, but surely the situation is even worse. he is right to stress the extent to which the mother's life may be in danger by an increase in the risk that she has to bear, but the fact that she has to bear an increased risk means that there is a proportionately lower risk to the life of the foetus. in a situation where this is a balance between the two, the margin widens. there may be a substantial risk to the mother, which would not allow for an abortion of the foetus, even though the risk would otherwise have been inconsiderable to the foetus.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.31', 129, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that may well be right. i agree with my hon. friend.\n the house has carried amendment no. 7. we can now do two things. first, we can mitigate the effect of something that i believe the house would not have done had it been fully conscious of what it was doing, any more than it would had it been conscious that it was creating the extraordinary situation of a double provision in the legislation. secondly, i assume that the house would still be minded—as, indeed, would the proposer—if it were possible, even at this late stage, to accept a compromise to remove the possibility referred to again and again on the previous occasions of the subject coming up year after year, with fresh attempts to alter the existing law.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.32', 67, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. and learned friend is making a convincing case. provided that he can, with the authority that he possesses as a previous attorney-general, reassure the house that the amendment in no way detracts from the thrust against the statistical argument, i hope that the promoter of the bill, in a spirit of compromise and to bring the matter to a conclusion, will accept the amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.33', 422, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend for expressing that early view. i hope that the promoter will take full account of that expression of opinion.\n turning directly to the point that my hon. friend makes, as i said earlier, the vice that has been attributed to the present situation is the vice that doctors may make their minds up on a general statistical argument totally unrelated to the case physically in front of them. that is what worries certain hon. members, including my hon. friend and the promoter. it is to that, therefore, that i have directed the form of the amendment, which would make it quite clear that the phrase "substantially greater risk" would remain binding in law if the only consideration were statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally. if that were the only consideration in the mind of the doctor, he would have to be satisfied by the statistical argument—and it is difficult to see how he could be—that there would be substantially greater risk to the life of the mother.\n if there were some other factor that applied specifically to the physical characteristics of the mother, something that the doctor had found on examination over and above, or in lieu of, the statistical argument, something specific to the mother or the child—and we are dealing here also with the provision that applies to existing children——the word "substantially" would be excluded from consideration and it would be a pure balance of risk. would the risk to the mother or the risk in the case of the child be greater—not substantially greater, but greater—if the abortion were not carried out than if it were carried out?\n i would never dare to suggest that the wording of the amendment is technically perfect. it can no doubt be improved, if necessary, in another place. but the idea behind the amendment and the intention of the wording that i have used is that which i have described. given a physical or mental factor that affects the mother or the child specifically, "substantially" would be removed. without such a factor, and with the general statistical argument affecting pregnancies alone, "substantially" would remain in. i would have thought that this would deal precisely with the difficulty that the promoter and my hon. friend feel about the law as it stands. i would hope that it would also deal with the grave doubts that my hon. friends and i, and those who oppose the bill generally, have felt about the narrow victory that left "substantially" in.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.34', 20, 'uk.m.21960', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it not the case that the opinion would have to be formed in good faith and not merely capriciously?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.35', 101, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, of course. it runs through the whole of both the original act and the amendments to it that any opinion must be formed in good faith. we are dealing with the situation in clause 1. perhaps the same point will apply later in relation to the emergency situation. the doctors concerned have to form the opinion in good faith, first, that there is a factor other than statistical probability applicable to pregnancies generally and, secondly, that the factor is one that creates greater danger to the life of the mother if the pregnancy is not terminated than if it is.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.36', 151, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "when i first read the right hon. and learned gentleman's amendment it seemed to me that it completely negatived what was decided in the previous debate. this is a matter on which a number of hon. members representing one side of the argument feel strongly. i have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned gentleman. he must be more specific. what cases would fall within his amendment that do not fall within the amendment passed on 29 february? for instance, the handicapped child is dealt with. the social clause remains in the bill. i understand that we are talking about a condition in the mother alone. what condition could exist that does not give rise to the substantially greater risk, in the terms of the amendment that was passed on 29 february, that would be covered by his amendment? i am still trying to sort that out in my mind.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.37', 67, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it deals with the provision that was made. one of the difficulties is that one has to turn back to amendments already carried and incorporated into clause 1 and therefore carried back into section 1 of the act. that section deals with all the matters that stood there originally, except those matters that the promoter of the bill has taken out and put into a separate clause.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.38', 134, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should like to refer to a case, or series of cases, by no means uncommon, that would fit the category that the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) has mentioned. if a woman were suffering relatively high blood pressure, which is not uncommon in pregnancy, and it was necessary to carry out a termination at 16 weeks, i can assure my right hon. and learned friend that a doctor would be hard put to say categorically that the extent of the patient\'s high blood pressure was such as substantially to increase the risk. he could say that it would increase the risk. i can assure my right hon. and learned friend that it would take a bold doctor to add the word "substantially" in such cases. these cases are by no means uncommon.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.39', 214, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend. on matters of technical merit or knowledge, i bow to the greater knowledge and experience of my medical colleagues. i hope that this deals with the difficulty that the hon. member for buckingham raised originally in his point of order. i hope that the hon. gentleman, having heard what i said, understands that the intention was to deal with two real difficulties, one of substance and one technical. i understand fully that the amendment does not easily explain itself. it has to be explained, so that one understands what it is about. i fully understand that it could be thought to be simply going back on a decision that the house has already made. i hope that the hon. gentleman understands that it is not put forward with that intention.\n the amendment is put forward on what may be the last possible chance for the house to agree to a compromise that in my view would satisfy the majority on both sides of the argument and enable the bill to proceed in what i agree would be a severely truncated form but a form that the promoter of the bill expressed himself as willing to accept when we were dealing with the matter on the last occasion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.40', 113, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "will my right hon. and learned friend address himself to one possible objection to this amendment which, i confess, has troubled me although i supported it? those who have addressed their minds to the question of the statistical argument agree that it would be a misreading of the 1967 act, and that if any doctor relies on that argument he has misconstrued the act. what is my right hon. and learned friend's reply to the suggestion that the wording of the amendment might entail giving statutory recognition to the possibility that, but for the amendment, a doctor might form his view without considering any factor other than the factor outside the statistical argument?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.41', 332, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my right hon. and learned friend. despite what i said earlier about the views of attorneys-general and substitute attorneys-general it is also of great value to have the views of former solicitors-general. i gave close consideration to the point that he makes. i tried to allow for it in the amendment, although i have already accepted that i should be the last person to suggest that any amendment drafted by myself is necessarily technically perfect or necessarily anywhere near as good an amendment as the parliamentary draftsman, looking at it again, if necessary, could produce.\n the amendment contains the words relies upon a factor other than or in addition to statistical probability". i have sought to recognise that it is proper to regard statistical probability as a factor, provided that if the doctor relies upon the wording of the rule without the word "substantially" he must consider a factor that goes beyond mere statistical pobability. medical hon. members may wish to comment on that. it is unrealistic to expect that a doctor would exclude from his mind real evidence relating to statistical possibilities. the danger arises when a doctor fastens on that and that alone. by the use of the words other than or in addition to". i hope that i have dealt with the difficulty raised by my right hon. and learned friend the member for warley, west (mr. archer). i hope that the promoters will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. i move the amendment in the spirit of correcting what is clearly wrong, technically. i seek to further a compromise that is in the general interests of the house and is wanted by the house and the country. the country does not want this subject to be considered again and again, year after year. it does not want the subject to take up the time of the house for day after day, to the exclusion of other more important business.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.42', 532, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not wish to make a long intervention. as one of the sponsors of the amendment, i thank my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin) for the way in which he moved the amendment. i hope that his arguments will convince the promoters of the bill that they should support the amendment.\n i have made many interventions during the passage of the bill because i believe that it is in the interests of the house and the country for a decision to be taken. i say that partly because of my personal interests, and partly because of the responsibilities that i had as secretary of state in the previous government. a decision should be taken because i believe that the house would be held in disrepute if we were not able, after so many months of debate, to reach a conclusion. i believe that a decision should be taken because the house would be held in further disrepute if the issue were raised again next year or the year after.\n i wish that the bill had never been presented. i believe that we should be satisfied with the 1967 act and the way in which it is operated. however, the will of the house is expressed clearly. it wishes to make one change—from a 28-week limit to a 24-week limit. having expressed that view the house should be able to take a decision without the problems and complications that would exist if the "substantially" amendment, having been defeated last time, were not accepted today.\n the argument deeply involves the medical profession. even more, it affects mothers. people say, not "please do not change the bill", but "please let us know clearly what the law says". it is important to pass a bill today. the attitude of many hon. members, including myself, will be much affected if the amendment is carried. if it is carried, we shall have a bill of which the house will have reason to be proud and which will not do any damage.\n i do not claim to have medical knowledge. i have never performed an operation and, thank heaven, i shall never have to do so. however, i know the anxiety of the medical profession about the problems that it will experience when having to make swift decisions. a doctor cannot consult his lawyers before taking a quick decision. i am convinced that unless the amendment is carried doctors will be excessively cautious. once a doctor decides that he dare not, because of the law, do what he believes in his clinical judgment should be done, women will suffer. hundreds of women could die as a result of a doctor not doing his medical duty because of his fear of what the word "substantially" means. the bma has made its views clear. i hope that the amendment will be carried.\n if the amendment is not carried, many women will still have abortions, but they will not be legal. once again we are attempting to ensure not only that doctors are able to make clinical judgments, as they should, but that we do not push women into the black market and illegal activities.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.43', 408, 'uk.m.21695', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall be brief. i support the amendment. it is important that the house should do its utmost to ensure that the legislation makes sense. the reality is that often we are not very good at making sense, hence the importance of the other place as a revising chamber. on the other hand, in spite of the fact that i suspect that the other place is this morning the most popular institution in the land, i do not believe that it is right and proper that this house should pass the buck continually and leave it to the other place to make sense of the nonsenses that we produce in this house.\n i believe that the first purpose of the amendment moved by the right hon. and learned member for dulwich (mr. silkin) is of considerable importance. however, it is the second purpose of the amendment that demonstrates the considerable service that the right hon. and learned gentleman has done to the house. i shall not attempt to go over his arguments, but the effect of the word "substantially", which was left in as a result of our decision on the last occasion on which we debated the bill, is that there is continuing opposition to the measure.\n as was pointed out by the right hon. member for norwich, north (mr. ennals), the vast majority of people would like to see the bill enacted on the basis of lowering the upper limit for abortion to 24 weeks and leaving it at that. on the other hand, those of us who have had doubts about the bill from the beginning must accept that the supporters of the bill wish to go further.\n the right hon. and learned gentleman seems to be providing the house with a reasonable second attempt to find a compromise between those who support and those who oppose provisions in the bill other than the 24-weeks issue. it must be accepted that were it not for the advice given by my hon. friend the minister for health in respect of the word "substantially" in all likelihood the house would have come to a different conclusion.\n i think that on that occasion the advice that my hon. friend gave may have been perfectly reasonable and sensible from the legal point of view, but perhaps it was not very wise from the political point of view, having regard to the wider implications of the passage of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.44', 164, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. member accept that that would not have been very wise from a medical point of view either? it would appear that if the original wording is carried the decision to carry out a termination will be not a medical decision but a legal one. the doctor would have to obtain a legal opinion at the beginning.\n does the hon. member accept that the doctor could find himself in an invidious position? he would have to obtain legal advice, because it is possible that he would face litigation if he did not perform the abortion. if he did not perform the abortion—or recommend it—there could be litigation against him if the mother were in some danger, which he was unable to prove beforehand. in other words, he would have to obtain qualified legal advice on whether to perform the abortion. he would be told by the lawyer which was the lesser of the legal risks, not the lesser of the medical risks.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.45', 211, 'uk.m.21695', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i entirely accept what the hon. member for east kilbride (dr. miller) says. i was trying to describe what i understood had happened the last time that we debated this issue.\n as a result of the house not agreeing to the amendment that has been referred to, those who oppose the bill remain extremely unhappy. it is helpful that the right hon. and learned gentleman has proposed a further compromise which for me, as an opponent of the bill—except for the question of the 24 weeks —makes the measure acceptable, subject to the acceptance of the other amendments relating to the dropping of later clauses. i hope therefore, that the supporters of the bill will be prepared to accept the amendment.\n it is a matter for regret that the attorney-general is not here today. it is difficult for the layman to understand the legal language of any attorney-general when he is advising the house, but it is better to have the advice of the attorney-general than not to have it. having said that, i must go on to say that we have had the benefit of the advice of a former attorney-general and that that was of considerable importance. i support the amendment and hope that the house will accept it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.46', 14, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.47', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.48', 21, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. i shall consider that request when i have heard something in reply, even if it is only a few words.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.49', 566, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for devizes (mr. morrison) suggested that the advice of the minister on the last occasion when he intervened to say why the government would not oppose the word "substantially" was legally correct. that may or may not be true but the minister did not give any reason for that advice. he pointed out that the attorney-general had not explained the significance of the word "substantially". some of the bill\'s opponents felt strongly that the advice given to the house on that occasion was legally incorrect.\n i cannot pretend that this amendment corrects the wrong done by leaving the word "substantially" in the bill. this is simply an ameliorative provision that does not correct the wrong done by leaving in "substantially". i signed the amendment in that spirit, but i cannot pretend that if it were passed that would mean that all my doubts and reservations about the bill would be removed. that would not be the case, and i wish to explain why.\n the reason why i supported the 1967 act was that it struck a proper balance between the interests of the mother and the other children of the family and the interests of the foetus. i thought that the preservation of a proper balance was morally correct. i do not see that it is right to destroy the life of the foetus at the will of the mother. equally, i do not see that it is right to put at risk the health of the mother and the other children without serious consideration being given to their interests.\n it seems to me that a proper balance is one of probabilities between those interests. we left that balance in the 1967 act. when we included the word "substantially" in the bill we moved sharply towards the interests of the foetus and against the interests of the mother and the other children being considered. that is why i do not feel that i can allow the bill to go through without expressing the strongest opposition to it.\n in this clause it seems to me that we are trying to go back a little way only. it is ludicrous to assert, as some hon. members have, that because doctors are saying that the pattern of pregnancies in the past has shown that there is a 51–49 chance that the presence of a particular rubella will lead to deformity in the child or that a blockage of the passage may cause the death of the mother, it is necessary for us to include the word "substantially". i do not believe that that is how doctors work. to meet that fear, the amendment seeks to provide that even though that was the pattern of past events, the presence of a rubella or a blockage in the passage would provide a supervening factor.\n it would not be enough in such a case for the prosecution in an action against a consultant to call a doctor to give evidence to the effect that on past records the foetus or the mother were all right in 51 per cent of the cases, or even in 60 per cent. of the cases. the consultant who was on trial would be able to say that the clinical indications were that the life of the mother was in danger or that there was a risk to the health of the unborn child.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.50', 114, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'in any case, the statistics would not apply in the way that my hon. friend is suggesting that the sponsors of the bill would make them apply. the statistics would not generalise. they would have to apply under a whole series of conditions in respect of each mother—how many children she had had, any physical or mental conditions from which she might be suffering, and so on. there would be a balancing of the dangers of these conditions one against the other. in other words, every time a doctor made his decision he would do so not on the basis of general statistics, but on the basis of the mother whom he was attending.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.51', 91, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that that is right. i have already explained that i believe that allowing "substantially" to remain in the bill has probably done irremedial damage. i am sure that when doctors make their decision they do so on the basis of the facts of the individual patient. i am sure that they do not consider the statistical balance, as some hon. members fear. the mere fact that one propagandist for abortion has said that he does consider the statistical balance does not mean that that is what doctors generally do.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.52', 36, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'does my hon. friend agree that the fallacy of that approach is analogous to arguing that most people die in bed, and that therefore is it safer to climb mount everest than to go to bed?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.53', 323, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with my right hon. and learned friend, but i also agree with my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin), that if a consultant carried out an abortion on the basis of a statistical balance he would be legally in the wrong and could be prosecuted. the mere fact that there have been very few prosecutions since 1967 does not mean that that approach is not wrong. some doctors have asserted that the right of the mother to claim an abortion is pre-eminent, but that does not mean that that is the law. any medical practitioner who conducted an abortion on that basis would be in breach of the 1967 act and would therefore be guilty of an offence under the 1861 act. the mere fact that people make these assertions does not mean that they are in accordance with the law. we ought to consider what the law was and what it will be if we pass the bill in this form.\n i therefore come back to the argument for the amendment. it would get rid of any suggestion that mere statistical balance is the only factor that is required. it would not get away from the argument that the judgment exercised by consultants involves a statistical balance. the last time that we discussed the bill on report the minister argued that leaving in "substantially" would mean abandoning the statistical balance argument completely. that is nonsense. there must be some judgment of the risk to the life or health of the mother or the children of the family, and that involves, to some extent, such a balance.\n no doctor of integrity will carry out an abortion if the risk to the life of the mother is 1 per cent., because that would be a minimal risk. that balance will be present in the doctor\'s mind when he forms his judgment. the statistical balance is therefore present.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.54', 40, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "my hon. friend has already put his finger on the point of contention between us. he believes that a risk of 1:99 is not substantial. i would consider that risk to be very great from the mother's point of view.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.55', 240, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not know how my hon. friend can suggest that a risk of 1:99 is substantial. there must be a serious risk before the abortion can go ahead, and that must involve some statistical balance. the point is that, if the word "substantially" is included, the seriousness of the risk goes up proportionately. everyone is agreed about that. there is no point in putting the word in unless it means something, and the courts would say that it meant something and that parliament had put it in for that reason.\n i should like the attorney-general to come to the house and deny that there is a statistical balance. it would be flying in the face of english law to say that, and i do not believe that he has said it. i think that the minister came to the house the last time the bill was on report with a view to securing a little compromise and giving the sponsors something more than the 24 weeks\' provision. he believes that if the bill becomes law with the word "substantially" retained, it would not do much harm, but he fails to recognise that it will do a considerable amount of harm because it will put more women\'s lives at risk. i do not believe that it is morally right that, to satisfy the body of opinion that is sponsoring the bill, more women\'s lives ought to be put at risk.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.56', 35, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'of course that is a great risk and a terribly serious one. however, there is a second risk which, though less serious, is still significant. it is the risk to the careers of many doctors.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.57', 324, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i was going to end on that. all the arguments that i and my right hon. and learned friend have put presuppose that we are standing in a criminal court, that we are arguing before a jury. we are presupposing that men of integrity who carried out their duty as they saw it under the hippocratic oath have been brought into a criminal court to defend their integrity. we are saying that when they are in that position they may or may not have such-and-such a defence. however, it seems to be insufferable that they should be put in that position. it is absurd for us to adopt that approach on the basis that we are trying to protect ourselves against a doctor who likes to appear on television and talk about the statistical balance. we should not prejudice the future reputation and integrity of doctors in that way.\n of course that is not what the sponsor of the bill intends. he does not intend that more doctors should end up in court; he intends that there should be fewer abortions. however, doctors will be frightened of the possibility of ending up in court, so they will sheer off from giving abortions. that is intolerably immoral. if, on the impartial and unbiased assessment of a woman's condition, a doctor thinks that it is right for her to have an abortion under the 1967 act, he should not be frightened off because he thinks that he might find himself in court. that is an intolerable situation, and i am surprised that there should be a body of moral opinion in favour of it. i do think that the theology of st. thomas aquinas calls for that interpretation of the moral code.\n i do not like the bill, and even if the amendment is passed i shall not like it, but at least the amendment will make it a bit better than it is at present.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.58', 149, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall comment on the amendment very briefly. i remind the house that one of the reasons why we are so often attacked by people outside is that we produce legislation that is virtual gobbledegook to the man in the street. this house, after clear and lengthy debates, decided that the word "substantially" should be left in the bill. that was not a position arrived at purely to please the body of opinion that has sponsored the bill. it was the decision of the house itself, which voted for the inclusion of the word.\n i believe that the house voted in that way because at the time of the passage of the 1967 act it was made clear to us that we should not have abortion on demand or request if the bill were passed. in fact, that was the only reason why that bill reached the statute book.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.59', 2, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.60', 35, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i am sorry, i have no intention of giving way. may i point out that on this subject, more than on any other, it is important that parliament should make its will absolutely clear.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.61', 2, 'uk.m.10446', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.62', 6, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no i shall not give way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.63', 2, 'uk.m.10446', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.64', 26, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. it is clear that the hon. lady is not giving way. the right hon. and learned member for aberavon (mr. morris) must resume his seat.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.65', 26, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on this subject, above all others, it is important that parliament should make its will clear to the doctors who will have to implement the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.66', 2, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.67', 212, 'uk.m.22530', 'uk.p.Con', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no, i will not give way, and i wish to make it amply clear that i shall not give way to anyone in the course of my speech. i intended to be brief, and i shall be.\n the word "substantially" was included in the bill after a great deal of debate and after weighing up all the questions involved. those who accuse the solicitor-general of not giving his advice to the house should realise that he did give it at great length in committee. they have only to read hansard for our committee proceedings on 4 december last.\n subsection (1)( b ) says: ( b ) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of serious injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, substantially greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.". if someone reading the bill then moves on to another part of it and finds that in certain circumstances doctors can make a decision as if the word "substantially" had been omitted earlier, that is pure gobbledegook gone mad. there is no doubt that the house was quite clear about the inclusion of the word "substantially" in subsection (1)( b ).\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.68', 14, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose in his place, and claimed to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.71', 100, 'uk.m.10446', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): on a point of order mr. speaker. on the last occasion on which the issue of the word "substantial" arose, the attorney-general was in his place when the motion for the closure was put. the closure has been moved again by the hon. member for buckingham (mr. benyon) and there has been no opportunity for the attorney-general to give advice to the house. on this occasion no law officer has been present. is not this a disgrace to the traditions of the house? should not we be allowed to have legal advice on this question?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.72', 10, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is a matter for the attorney-general, not for me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.73', 193, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered ): on a point of order, mr. speaker. you indicated 20 minutes ago that you would not accept a closure until you heard a reply to the debate from the other side. do i take it that the reply from the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) is regarded by you as being a true reflection of a reply to the debate itself? it certainly does not satisfy us. we do not feel that there has been an adequate reply. is it your opinion, mr. speaker, that a speech such as that, lasting only two or three minutes from an hon. member who did not permit any relevant intervention, was enough to satisfy us? i know that the hon. lady is not necessarily obliged to give way, but surely during a reply to a serious debate we were entitled to put searching questions so that the hon. lady could elaborate the points that she was making.\n in addition, are we now departing from the tradition of allowing a debate of this importance to last for about two hours? this debate has lasted only one hour and five minutes.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.74', 25, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i shall deal with the last point first. there is no special time allotted to each different amendment. we have been discussing this amendment for\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.80', 766, 'uk.m.10446', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'by that last vote the house has demonstrated that it will not put up with the intolerant attitude of the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight), who gave what purported to be a reply to that debate. as a result of the attitude exemplified in her speech and her refusal to give way to hon. members who wished to intervene, she has jeopardised the whole bill.\n i make that clear because so far i have voted in favour of every closure motion with the exception of the one moved on the last occasion that we discussed the bill, relating to the amendment to delete the word "substantially". i voted against that closure, as i did against this most recent one, because the attorney-general was present on that occasion and failed to respond to the wishes expressed to him by hon. members on both sides that he should give the house the benefit of his advice.\n on this occasion there has been no law officer here and we have not had the advice to which the house is entitled on such an important matter. the hon. member for edgbaston said that parliament would not wish to foist on the country legislation that amounted to gobbledegook, but that is precisely what we are doing, and that is why we are entitled to have the advice of a law officer on the floor of the house for those of us who have not been taking part in the debate or have not been following the matter as closely as we should. we are entitled to that advice in order to ensure that legislation does not become gobbledegook.\n on the last occasion that we discussed the words "serious" and "substantially", the minister for health told us—the hon. member for edgbaston is wise to leave the chamber at this point, because her whole attitude has jeopardised the bill—that: if the house feels that there should be some change to make this clear, my advice is that that would be best achieved by the addition of the word \'substantially\' alone. that does not go far in advising the house whether the word should be included. the hon. gentleman continued: it is not neccssary to include both the word serious\' and the word \'substantially\'. i have discussed this with my right hon. and learned friend the attorney-general and this is also his view. therefore if hon. members feel that some change should be made they should support amendment no. 4 and oppose amendment no. 6."—[ official report, 29 february 1980; vol. 979, c. 1726.] at that juncture the attorney-general should have been here. my right hon. and learned friend the member for warley, west (mr. archer) said: as i understand it, i was being asked \'if a doctor answered the question honestly, could he be sure that he would not find that he had committed a criminal offence?\' i do not believe that there is a lawyer in the house who would confidently advise the doctor that the answer to that question was in the affirmative." —[ official report, 29 february 1980; vol. 979. c. 1732.] that is the difficulty and the danger of allowing through legislation that will become gobbledegook.\n the hon. member for windsor and maidenhead (dr. glyn) made precisely that point on a point of order during a division. he said: is it in order for the amendments to go through without the attorney-general having given us on the floor of the house, a definition of the word \'substantially\' so that we could consider the effects that it would have on the bill if we voted for them? "—[ official report, 29 february 1980; vol. 979. c. 1735.] in those circumstances it is contrary to the traditions of the house that we have not been given advice on how the bill stands and what would be the effect of the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin).\n we are not having an academic discussion in the house or on television; we are concerned with the situation that judges will face in giving their view to a jury on the state of the law. i find it difficult to understand how judges could clarify the situation and make it abundantly clear to a jury, either with or without the amendment—though perhaps the situation would be eased a little if the amendment were passed. the doctor would be facing not a television trial but a real trial, and his professional future would be in jeopardy. the bill amounts to nothing less than gobbledegook.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.81', 75, 'uk.m.22561', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am ad idem with my right hon. and learned friend on the points that he is making, but is he aware that on other major bills going through committees the law officers have declined, when requested, to give legal advice on matters of great importance? it is not uncharacteristic of them to refuse to do so in this instance. does it perhaps reflect on their competence or their confidence in their ability to advise?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.82', 145, 'uk.m.10446', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful for that intervention. i shall not seek to comment on confidence or competence, but i have noticed the tendency of the law officers to refuse to explain to the house the effect of legislation. the house is entitled to the views of the law officers so that we do not send legislation from the house that is not comprehensible or fair and that puts the medical profession in grave difficulty. i fully support the comment of my right hon. and learned friend the member for warley, west that it will be difficult to give advice in present circumstances.\n a doctor will have to take a professional view, knowing that if he errs, when the law is uncertain, he may face a criminal trial. in those circumstances the house is entitled to have the advice of the law officers before it proceeds further.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.83', 84, 'uk.m.16392', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "on a point of order, mr. speaker. i hesitate to interrupt this important debate, but we have passed 11 o'clock—the hour that the house has appointed for ministerial statements to be made on fridays. have you received any intimation from the government or the department of education and science that a minister intends to make a statement today on the conseqences of the spectacular defeat that the government suffered on an important clause of the education (no. 2) bill in another place last night?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.84', 19, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have received no request, otherwise at this stage i would have called a minister to make a statement.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.85', 141, 'uk.m.16392', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to that point of order, mr. speaker. i am not seeking to press you, because i know that you have no responsibilities, direct or indirect, in this matter. however, the matter is of immense importance to local education authorities, to parents who may be faced with charges and, obviously, to children trying to get to school.\n we are near the end of the financial year and therefore it is a matter of considerable urgency. the proceedings of the house on a friday deny us the opportunity, for reasons of which we are all aware, to raise the matter under standing order no. 9, and therefore i hope that a statement will be forthcoming; otherwise we shall have no alternative but to seek to raise the matter, even after the passage of three days, under standing order no. 9 on monday.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.86', 22, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i have allowed the hon. gentleman to make his point, which was at least an interlude in the rest of the business.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.87', 168, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall be brief. i raised the whole question of the word "substantially" on the last occasion that we debated the bill and i shall base my remarks on that point.\n i supported the second reading, and it was the will of the house that we should have a compromise at 24 weeks. the house has been brought into disrepute by continual long debates and i should like to see a compromise on 24 weeks, and machinery to put on the statute book the clear will of the house.\n i regret that the law officers have not come to the house to explain the implications of the amendment moved by the right hon and learned member for dulwich (mr. silkin), who is a former law officer.\n i make no apology for having resisted the closure. i considered that the amendment was so fundamental to the bill that we needed at least a minister to explain to us the consequences of the amendment. that is not an unreasonable request.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.88', 68, 'uk.m.17319', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman and i have taken similar points of view in several respects. does he agree that in the absence of a law officer—and since the statement of the minister of health in the last debate was very brief and did not explain the matter fully—it would be helpful if perhaps the under-secretary of state for health and social security were to give a more detailed explanation?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.89', 279, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the right hon. gentleman for that intervention. the closure was moved without the house having had the benefit of an explanation, either from the government or from the law officers, of the effect of the amendment. i listened to the debate with considerable interest. the right hon. and learned member for dulwich was very generous in giving way, but i was still not entirely convinced that his amendment would have the effect of removing the word "substantially".\n the arguments on this matter are fundamental to the whole bill. i do not want to go over the ground that has been covered by opponents of the bill, or to mention the difficulties in which a doctor could be placed, but it was because of those difficulties that i voted against the inclusion of the word "substantially". the question is of great importance to the medical profession, to patients, and to the public. i therefore took the view that it would be better to truncate the bill in order to allow it to proceed, with the change to a period of 24 weeks, accepting that parliamentary time is limited and that we cannot go on discussing the bill week after week.\n if the bill does not get through we shall be faced with yet another abortion bill. that is bound to happen. since it is quite clear that the house is prepared to compromise, i should have thought that the right thing to do was to accept the bill in a truncated form. my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon), if i may say so with great respect, moved the closure a little too early—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.90', 18, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the right thing to do is to address remarks to the amendment that is now under discussion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.91', 291, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am trying, mr. deputy speaker, to say that i should like to hear the views of one of the law officers of the crown on the amendment, before voting on it. if we pass the amendment and the bill later becomes nonsense, we shall look rather foolish. that is why i want to hear the views of a law officer. we must have a proper opinion on it. if we were to be given information that was sufficient to allay the fears that many hon. members have about the word "substantially" i should be perfectly happy to let the amendment go through and to proceed as rapidly as possible with the passage of the bill, but until we have had that advice we cannot possibly come to a proper decision.\n i raised the matter, on a point of order, early in the previous debate, because i realised that this would be the main stumbling block in the whole bill. i believe that most of us, whatever our views, would prefer to see the bill passed in a truncated form. there is a consensus that the period of 24 weeks is right; indeed, we compromised on that issue. some hon. members preferred a period of 20 weeks and others 28 weeks, but in the end we came to a sensible conclusion. i cannot understand why we cannot also come to a sensible conclusion on the word "substantially". possibly the word could be removed in another place.\n the right hon. and learned gentleman\'s amendment is complicated. i am not a practising barrister and it is difficult for me to understand the effect of it. i hope, therefore, that before we vote on it we shall have the advice of the law officers.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.92', 59, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with the hon. gentleman that we should have the advice of the law officers. i suggest that we want advice not merely on the point that he has raised but on the state of the bill, in relation to the point that i raised earlier about the law covering the same subject twice in two different places.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.93', 237, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am very grateful to the right hon. and learned gentleman for his intervention. he has reinforced the point that i wanted to make. i want to know what would be the courts\' interpretation of the word "substantially". i also want to know how the bill would be affected if the amendment were passed. although the right hon. and learned gentleman was gracious enough to spend a considerable amount of time in explaining the consequences of it, i am still not satisfied, without an assurance from the government and from the law officers, as to the exact effect it would have. that is why i repeat that the house is entitled to know what the effect would be before being asked to vote on the amendment.\n for those reasons, i hope that the house will be sensible and try to bring the matter to a conclusion today, so that we may have the bill on the statute book in a truncated form, in the way that i have already explained. i believe that that would be to the satisfaction of the house and of the country, and would avoid bringing the house into disrepute. we cannot go on arguing about a matter that is of fundamental importance. whatever our personal views may be, we have shown that we are prepared to compromise. we should abide by the will of the majority of the house on this matter.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.94', 321, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i confess that i am deeply disappointed by the reaction of the sponsors of the bill to the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin). in the course of our debate, the opinions of hon. members have differed very substantially, but they have listened to the various arguments and shown the tolerance that is customary in this house. i felt, therefore, that the bill might have reached the stage at which there almost began to be a meeting of minds.\n my right hon. and learned friend put forward his arguments for the amendment with great clarity. i do not think that anyone who heard him would suggest that he did not make a clear and convincing case. he may not have said all that there is to be said on the subject, and there may be arguments in the other direction, but surely the house was entitled to hear those arguments. out of courtesy not only to my right hon. and learned friend but to the house, one would expect those arguments to be presented, but the only hon. member who rose to argue against the amendment was the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight).\n if i may say so without offence, she never for a moment directed her mind to the arguments that had been advanced. it was a profound disappointment to some of us. we had hoped, as my right hon. and learned friend the member for aberavon (mr. morris) said, that we could have had the benefit of the advice of a law officer. at the very least, as the hon. member for windsor and maidenhead (dr. glyn) suggested, we might have had the intervention of a minister to give us some advice. but all that happened was that those sponsoring the bill attempted to steamroller it through the house, irrespective of the arguments in favour of the amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.95', 42, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am a sponsor of the bill and i have given a clear indication, so my right hon. and learned friend is being extravagant in suggesting that there are not responses to the amendment likely to come and still able to come.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.96', 42, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was about to exempt my hon. friend from those censures, but if he says that responses may still come i can only say that the ground has not been well prepared by the reactions of the sponsors up to this point.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.97', 30, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is my right hon. and learned friend aware that my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) voted for the closure without attempting to take part in the debate?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.98', 73, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i think that is right, but at least my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) suggested that there was a possibility of a compromise. if he had backed that statement with his vote, we might have been even more impressed, but i exempt him from what i said in general—that he had not directed his mind to what was said by my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.99', 47, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse) catches your eye, mr. deputy speaker and puts into words the thoughts that he uttered during my remarks, i am sure that my right hon. and learned friend will agree that nothing would please the house more.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.100', 49, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'indeed, if between us we could coax our hon. friend to his feet later, we should be delighted. for that reason, i would not want to say anything now that might exacerbate the element of bitterness that has arisen because of the reaction of the sponsors of the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.101', 50, 'uk.m.22242', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i approach the matter in exactly the same spirit as the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse)—that we would need to hear the views, which we have not heard up to now, of those who have opposed the bill from the word go. their reaction to the amendment is vital.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.102', 17, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i should have thought that the hon. member would be the last to make such an intervention.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.103', 154, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the right hon. and learned gentleman is a fair man, and i was astonished to hear him say that the sponsors of the bill are seeking to steamroller it through the house. he and the house know that the truth is that we have been prepared to sacrifice a substantial part of the bill in order to protect the gains that we have already made in respect of the upper limit and strengthening the criteria —the two principles that have already been decided. the sponsors of the bill were anxious—in the interests of reaching a satisfactory solution for all concerned—to proceed to a conclusion. it is the extremist opponents of the bill who are not satisfied with that. therefore, would the right hon. and learned gentleman please allow that the sponsors have been ready for some time to accept a compromise in the spirit in which he himself is trying to address the house?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.104', 827, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'there are two comments —i hope that the hon. gentleman will forgive me for making them—to which his intervention is open. first, an attempt at compromise by the sponsors would have been more convincing had it happened earlier, when it did not seem unlikely that the bill would reach the statute book. secondly, it would have been more convincing had the sponsors addressed their minds to the genuine problem that the amendment seeks to meet. it does not appear convincing when their reaction to that problem is simply to move the closure and seek to steamroller the bill through, irrespective of the argument. i shall not labour the point, but if ever sponsors deserved to lose their bill it is the sponsors of this bill, after the way in which they have behaved this morning.\n i shall not seek to repeat at length the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich—he made them perfectly clear—but i wonder whether the hon. member for edgbaston was listening to him. she said that she was anxious that the house should not seek to put gobbledegook on the statute book. my right hon. and learned friend explained that that is precisely what would happen if the bill went forward in its present form. if that happens, the same problem will be dealt with on the statute book in two different places, with provisions that may be held to be inconsistent.\n i was one of those who, with my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich, had responsibility for five years for the condition of the statute book. we know that for one reason or another—because there was a late amendment, because there was not sufficient time, because someone perhaps wanted to use the statute book for cosmetic purposes—from time to time something reaches the statute book which later causes litigants a great deal of trouble. i must not complain—the legal profession does very well out of it—but it presents the courts with a real problem of construction.\n the house is normally responsible enough, wherever possible, to try to ensure that that does not happen, but if the bill proceeds unamended that is precisely what will happen. if the hon. member for edgbaston is anxious for us not to put gobbledegook on the statute book i hope that she will vote for the amendment, because that is the first thing that it seeks to achieve.\n the second and quite independent reason for the amendment is to try to remedy the problem that i thought most hon. members recognised when we debated the matter a fortnight ago. like my right hon. and learned friend the member for aberavon, i am still puzzled by the reasoning behind the insertion of the word "substantially". i am puzzled, first, because i do not think that there is a problem that it is designed to meet. virtually every lawyer in the house who has spoken on this subject has agreed that if it is designed to meet what is called the statistical argument applied by a doctor, that argument in any event rests upon a misconstruction of the 1967 act.\n it represents in the first place a sheer error of logic, i should have thought, on any showing, because to apply statistics relating to a substantial undifferentiated group of things or people to a particular individual situation that we know is distinguished by certain factors is simply a fallacious approach. as i suggested earlier, it would be like arguing that since most people die in bed it is safer to climb mount everest than to go to bed. it would therefore be a logical fallacy. but we also know that it would be a misconstruction of the act. if there were ever any doubt of that, we may be encouraged by the fact that the lane committee came down clearly in favour of that construction.\n it was therefore difficult to know to what it was that the insertion of the word was directed. for that reason, some of us would have welcomed the views of the attorney-general, so that we could have known whether he thought that there was genuinely a problem.\n some hon. members have done less than justice to what the minister for health said in the last debate. i have looked particularly carefully at his advice. he said: some hon. members are anxious that the wording of the criteria should not be capable of a purely statistical interpretation". he did not say that in his view they were capable of that interpretation, still less that that was the correct interpretation. he went on: if the house feels that there should be some change to make this clear…it would be best achieved…"—[ official report, 29 february 1980; vol. 979, c. 1726.] so, in fairness, the minister was not purporting to advise the house that that was the correct interpretation, or that there was a genuine problem.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.105', 25, 'uk.m.18210', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the minister for health gave direct advice that that problem could be overcome by leaving "substantially" in the bill. surely that advice was legally incorrect.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.106', 26, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i agree with my hon. friend. he put the proposition conditionally, but in a form that persuaded some hon. members to vote in a different way.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.107', 28, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is it not true that the unfortunate result of that advice is that he failed to draw to our attention the graver danger created by inserting that word?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.108', 504, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am sure that my right hon and learned friend is right. his advice was not balanced advice. even if one assumes that the statistical construction is possible and that it is adopted by a substantial number of doctors, i do not see how that deals with the problem. if it were to transpire, statistically that a substantially greater number of women incurred injury by continuing the pregnancy the word "substantially" would still not meet the problem. if there were a genuine problem—i do not believe that there is—that would not solve it.\n but the matter was debated and the house decided that the word "substantially" should remain in the bill. however, i am sure that those hon. members who listened to that debate feel that a problem remains. my right hon. and learned friend the member for aberavon referred to the risk involved. a doctor may arrive at a bona fide conclusion, but he runs the risk that it will be reconsidered by a jury. if that jury arrives at a different conclusion in good faith, he may find that he has committed a criminal offence. doctors will therefore be reluctant to carry out abortions.\n my right hon. and learned friend has corrected the gobbledegook in the bill. in addition, he has found a method of alleviating that problem. he has said that if the justification for keeping "substantially" in the bill is to deal with the statistical approach it follows that if a doctor does not use that approach the word "substantially" is not needed. in those circumstances the word "substantially" should be taken out.\n the hon. member for edgbaston seems to find this subject funny. every hon. member is entitled to his or her brand of humour, some of us believe that a problem exists. that problem could spell out tragedy for many people. we have not heard why my right hon. and learned friend\'s solution to that difficulty is not viable. my hon. friend the member for pontypool said that this might form the basis of a compromise.\n i was a little troubled about the drafting of the amendment. as i said earlier, it might give statutory recognition to the suggestion that the statistical approach was a proper construction of the 1967 act, but having listened to my right hon. and learned friend\'s explanation, i conclude that that is not a serious risk. any court would understand that that is not what the house is saying. we have a responsibility to ensure that the bill proceeds in a manner that is technically correct. there should be no obvious technical defects, and we have tried hard to meet the genuine problems that have arisen as a result of the last debate.\n at the beginning of the debate i thought that in a spirit of tolerance we might have had a meeting of minds. however, i no longer believe that that is likely. the sponsors have made no move towards such a compromise. the house can only try to improve the bill.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.109', 2, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.110', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'fancy that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.111', 1, 'NaN', 'NaN', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'speech.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.112', 141, 'uk.m.17048', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'opposition members continually say that if we compromise we might get the bill through. however, judging from the previous debate on this subject i am sure that if the word "substantially" remains in the bill, there can be no compromise. the right hon. and learned gentleman said that if we compromise and accept this amendment we shall reach an agreement. perhaps that is so. however, the word "substantially" will still be left in the bill and certain hon. members are determined not to allow the rest of the bill to be enacted. if i had an indication that there was some agreement between us, a compromise might be reached. however, it is obvious that certain opposition members do not wish to compromise on the rest of the bill. there is therefore no point in compromising about this amendment. that is sad.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.113', 69, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the amendment has been on the notice paper for some time. if the hon. gentleman felt that there was room for compromise he should have said so earlier. we should ensure that if the bill reaches the statute book it will include this amendment. in that way, some of the danger might be mitigated. but it would be better to ensure that it does not reach the statute book.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.114', 84, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was puzzled by the remarks of the right hon. and learned member for warley, west (mr. archer) about the statistical argument. i listened to his remarks, just as i listened to those of the former attorney-general, the right hon. and lerned member for dulwich (mr. silkin). his argument was well reasoned. the fact is, however, that it was not intended that the 1967 act should provide abortion on demand. the principal author of that act has said that on more than one occasion.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.115', 7, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'we do not have abortion on demand.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.116', 36, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i hope that the hon. lady will do me the courtesy of listening to my argument. i have listened to every word that has been uttered. i wish to address my remarks to the former solicitor-general.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.117', 1, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'snob.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.118', 83, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i repeat, it was never intended that there should be abortion on demand. the lane committee examined the workings of the act. it concluded that the act was generally working satisfactorily, but it pointed out a number of serious abuses. some doctors used the statistical argument in order to allow abortion on demand. briefly the statistical argument is that it is marginally more dangerous for a woman to give birth than to have an abortion. however, one is not comparing like with like.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.119', 2, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.120', 166, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'during the debate it has not yet been pointed out that the statistical argument is phoney. it compares relatively healthy women who have abortions in the first trimester with those who are ill at the time of birth. serious ill-effect from giving birth triggers off an existing maternal disease. the statistical argument compares them with others who die in childbirth or who suffer a miscarriage or experience some other serious ill-effect where giving birth triggers off an existing maternal disease. the comparison is not one of like with like. the argument was phoney, but it was used by some doctors. one must be fair. it was not used by many. the lane committee said that that was wrong. the select committee also took evidence on that subject and subsequently said that it was wrong. moreover, the medical profession—the bma and the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists—took the view when the lane committee was sitting that there were great abuses and wished to have them stopped.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.121', 55, 'uk.m.16494', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the lane committee, having said that some doctors were using the approach that the hon. gentleman has described, added that that approach was clearly wrong, that it was a misconstruction of the 1967 act and that abuses of an act are not prevented by amending legislation. it recommended that there should not be an amendment.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.122', 140, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is correct. the lane committee did not recommend legislation. however, the committee having made its recommendations and reported, the situation of abuse continued. there was continued public anxiety. the select committee sat some considerable time after the lane committee had reported. it followed the james white bill. the house gave a substantial majority to that bill on second reading, on the understanding that the bill should be remitted to a select committee. at the end of the day the select committee, lead by a distinguished privy councillor from the labour party, recommended that there should be legislation. it recommended that the issue should be dealt with by legislative means. when nothing happened my hon. friend the member for buckingham (mr. benyon) introduced his bill, and when nothing happened after that we had the bill which is now before us.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.123', 2, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.124', 304, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way later. on both bills the house gave on second reading a substantial majority to the principle that abortion on demand favoured by the application of the phoney statistical argument should be dealt with by amending the law. that is what we are talking about this morning. the house has already decided—i am sure that this was the reasoning behind the advice given by my hon. friend the minister for health—that by the insertion of the word "substantially" the statistical argument could not be used.\n the only argument that is left is whether there are other reasons than the statistical probability that should be weighed. the word "factor" is used in the amendment. are there other reasons why we should accept the amendment and why we should not rely on the word "substantially" already in the bill? i listened carefully to the former attorney-general, the right hon. and learned member for dulwich (mr. silkin). i found it difficult to understand what other factors there could be. if, for example, we are concerned, as we should be, with the possibility of handicap, that is dealt with already.\n i tried to make it plain at the outset of our debates that the bill makes no alteration in that respect to the existing law. i was baffled, therefore, by the argument of the right hon. and learned gentleman. it seemed that it was not carried through to its logical conclusion. as no reason had been given for the proposed change, i decided that i could vote in conscience for the closure, despite the fact that if the amendment had been tabled at an earlier stage and discussed in committee i do not think that we would have been very worried about it. it is not a matter on which to go to the stake.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.125', 118, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i ask the hon. gentleman to take it from me that after careful thought about the position in which the house found itself on 29 february i tabled the amendment at the earliest possible date. it has been on the order paper for a considerable time. it has been on it long enough for two conservative members to add their names to it. if the hon. gentleman had the doubt that he is now expressing about "factor", i am sorry that he did not intervene to ask me to elucidate. i would have explained to him that a factor must clearly be one of the factors contemplated by the original act. this is an insertion into that act.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.126', 193, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i follow that. there are two possible factors that would occur at once to a layman who was not particularly well informed about the contents of the act or those of the bill. first, a doctor must take into account a whole host of factors, one of the most important of which is that if the child is born it might be seriously handicapped. as i have explained, that is something out-with the bill. the bill does not seek in any way to alter the existing law.\n another important factor might be the social environment of the family and effect on the health and well-being of the other children. that would weigh heavily with those of us who understand the reality of the problem. there again, the bill makes no alteration to the existing law.\n i was looking for an additional factor —factor x or factor y—and it does not appear. it is for that reason that i intervene to say that what matters to me is whether "substantially" ends the pernicious practice of abortion on demand, which the house never intended when it enacted the 1967 act, i consider that it does.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.127', 2, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.128', 6, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. lady is an exception.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.129', 26, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. gentleman has said twice that there is abortion on demand. will he give the house the evidence that he has that that situation obtains?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.130', 112, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "i do not need to do that. if the hon. lady goes to the library and studies the lane committee's report, and while there if she also studies the report of the select committee, including the evidence that was given to it at considerable length, she will have the answer. the plain fact is that there are many doctors in this land who know perfectly well that the law is being broken. i have sent the evidence of one case to the department of health and social security. i am eagerly awaiting the department's action. i am anxious to know whether the department will act with the same alacrity about these cases—\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.131', 10, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'where is the minister? will he come and answer this?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.132', 24, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) appears to have resumed his seat. will he indicate to whom he is giving way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.133', 4, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'come on, speak up.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.134', 17, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'to whom is the hon. gentleman giving way? i understood that he was giving way to someone.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.135', 43, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i was giving way to the hon. member for wolverhampton, north-east (mrs. short). however, i think that i have given the hon. lady sufficient rope on which she may hang her argument. i shall leave it at that.\n i say in conclusion that—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.136', 2, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.137', 83, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house has already made a decision on principle on the word "substantially". i do not understand why we continue to rehearse the argument over and over again. i accept the motives behind the argument of the right hon. and learned gentleman. he is a fair-minded man and he puts before the house a reasoned argument. i tell him that the statistical argument that some doctors have been using for years—they have not been challenged because of the defect in the law—is phoney.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.138', 2, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.139', 12, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it is an argument that should not be adduced in this debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.140', 6, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will the hon. gentleman give way?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.141', 4, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have already concluded.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.142', 42, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'on a point of order mr. deputy speaker. we have had statements by supporters of the bill and by its opponents, based on legal arguments for and against. we have asked repeatedly for a law officer to appear. that has not happened.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.143', 18, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. lady is obviously about to ask a question, but she has already asked one that—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.144', 1, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'no.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.146', 37, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. the hon. lady is forgetting herself. she has already asked one question that has nothing to do with the chair. if her second question is posed in a similar vein, we shall just be wasting time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.147', 46, 'uk.m.22552', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'further to the point of order, mr. deputy speaker. the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) has made serious allegations about the way in which the department is operating the act. i think that the house ought to hear the views of the minister.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.148', 29, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'that is an interesting observation, but it has nothing to do with the chair. such allegations are on both sides of the house and are part of the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.149', 1048, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i do not intend to intervene at any great length. i should just like to deal with several of the points made by the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine). i always listen carefully to what the hon. gentleman says. i remember the days when he was a junior minister. i think that his attitude towards this matter was slightly different then from what it is today. he then paid great attention to what the british medical association felt, and i think that he still has a high regard for the medical profession. however, it ill becomes the hon. gentleman to insinuate or imply that there is widespread abuse of an act of parliament. the hon. gentleman appreciates that there is no perfect act of parliament. regardless of what it is that we enact, there will always be loopholes for abuse, but one does not plug such loopholes by making it impossible or extremeley difficult for people who require the services to obtain them. the hon. gentleman must accept that.\n the hon. gentleman talked about phoney statistics. that was a rather graphic way of describing what really applies to all statistics. he is right to suggest that the statistics could be phoney. i pointed out in an earlier intervention that a whole range of conditions is taken into consideration by a doctor. the general statistical argument is only one factor in the specific statistical indication that applies in any individual case. for example, if i were a gynaecologist who carried out abortions i would make a distinction between statistics in the case of a young healthy woman and those applying to an older woman. i would take into consideration not only the age of such patients but their history, as well as their physical and mental examinations.\n a whole series of statistics is built up. it would be wrong—i am sure that it is wrong within the terms of the 1967 act —for a doctor to perform an abortion under the cloak of the so-called general statistical rule. i certainly would play no part in that.\n like my hon. friend the member for york (mr. lyon), i do not think that the amendment is as good as leaving the original act alone, but at least it would undo some of the potential damage that could be caused if the word "substantially" was left in. it would mean that in forming an opinion, a doctor would regard the word "substantially" as being omitted from the subsection. however, many other factors would be involved, because as i have indicated, each case is considered on its merits and on the condition of the individual patient.\n i cross swords with my hon. friend the member for york on the question of a substantial risk. it is not always the case that a 1 in 100 risk of a patient dying is not a substantial risk.for example, in conditions of grave seriousness, such as a cancer operation, a 1 in 100 risk is not a big risk. it is a small risk, because the mortality rate from the condition is very high. but in other circumstances, a 1 in 100 risk is not an acceptable one. it might be too high a risk. all i am saying is that it is extremely difficult to arrive at any kind of yardstick by which this could be judged.\n we are entering the realm of the doctor\'s clinical judgment, but whether one agrees with everything that the medical profession does is another story. however, such opinions interfere with clinical judgment, and that is the great problem with regard to the clause and what the amendment seeks to do. it is an extremely dangerous prospect from the medical point of view. i would hate to be placed in a situation in which, before i performed any kind of operation or gave advice to a patient, i would have to take legal advice first.\n legal advice does not relate to the medical risk, but rather to what the legal risk is. that could well apply in the case of a gynaecologist who refused to carry out an abortion because he did not think that the risk was substantial. i gave an example earlier of a woman with a moderate or even mild degree of high blood pressure. the gynaecologist might consider that the degree of high blood pressure was not sufficient to warrant the word "substantial". but what would happen if the woman died? by definition, it must have been substantial. if the patient\'s husband then raised an action against the doctor for not carrying out the abortion—and that is a situation that could well happen—the doctor would be placed in an extremely difficult position.\n it would take only one such case for the gynaecologist to seek legal opinion, not on the medical aspect but on the legal aspect. the legal opinion would have to say "in my opinion the following is the lesser of the two legal risks, but it is up to you, as a doctor, to decide what the medical risk is". that is a catch 22 situation. in such circumstances, i do not believe that a doctor should be placed in a different situation from that in which he is placed with regard to other operations. surgeons per- form many extremely serious operations, such as heart, brain or kidney operations, but they are not subject to a law or regulation that says that the doctor must take other considerations into account. that is perfectly right.\n the argument could be—this is the nub of the whole debate—that in this instance doctors are dealing with something entirely different. in this case we are dealing with people who are totally opposed to abortion. i do not accept that such people believe in abortion in certain circumstances. they do not want abortions at all. what they consider to be unborn life takes total precedence over anything else. i can appreciate that point of view, and i can understand that some people hold that conviction very deeply. they say that there are no circumstances whatever in which abortion is permissible. i can understand that, but they should not cloak that fundamental attitude in an aura of wanting to improve the act, when they really want to destroy it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.150', 125, 'uk.m.10556', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend has touched on the problem with regard to compromise. some of us would have considered compromise, but what has hardened the minds of so many hon. members is the cynical opportunism behind the attitude that my hon. friend has described. i also have a great respect for people who say that abortion is an assault on life and that they are against it, just as they are against hanging. but when people try these cynical manoeuvres that we have seen one can only assume that it is a foot in the door, that they want to change the whole thing and return to the appalling situation that existed prior to 1967. that is what is so cynical and unacceptable about their argument.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.151', 31, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend. he has touched on what is at the heart of many of the problems that we have been discussing for such a long time.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.152', 71, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the house is indebted to the hon. gentleman for the considered view of a medical man about the difficulties facing doctors. we must pay heed to what he says. however, has he not left out of account the provision in the act that the abortion is lawful if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy should be terminated? is that not the defence?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.153', 589, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to the hon. gentleman. as we have agreed previously, it is a mutual admiration society.\n we have already had considerable differences of opinion on the question whether good faith is an objective or subjective assessment. the mere fact that there is debate about that is sufficient to put doctors off. i might be satisfied with the words "good faith" were it not that there are many people who would love to get at any doctor if the bill went through in its original form. in view of the opposition to the 1967 act, manifest over the past few years, there may be a certain amount of vindictiveness. the situation is slightly different from what it was. i do not accept that the words "good faith" are sufficient to protect the doctor.\n i can understand the ethical aspect. i am not in favour of abortion on demand or request. i am not in favour of any operation on request. it should be for discussion between the patient, doctor and others concerned. although i respect contrary views, i cannot see, in a matter affecting the life or health of my patient, that abortion differs substantially —if i may use the word—from any other condition that i am entitled to consider as a doctor. that may be a fundamental difference between me and those who consider that a regard for human life must apply from the very moment of conception. i respect their views, but i do not see it that way, and i believe that the vast majority of the people in the country agree with me.\n phoney statistics have been produced. i have a letter claiming that the statistics that i gave in an article can be matched with statistics to prove the opposite. it depends on the questions asked. if i were asked whether i believed in killing unborn babies, my answer would be "no". some people say that abortion is killing unborn babies. that is another argument, and i do not agree with it.\n the promoter of the bill has been bemused by many of the machinations and debates from both sides of the house in the past few months. i respect his sincerity, but it is too late for him to claim that no compromise was ever on the cards. had he contented himself with the 24-week limit there would have been no difficulty.\n 12.15 pm\n the sponsors of the bill were far too greedy. they were taken in by the confined, almost incestuous, attitude that people have when they do not see anyone else\'s view. they believe that the country is with them and that they have more support than they really have. we all fall into that trap from time to time. when 20 or 30 people shout something at us, we imagine that they represent millions.\n from my experience in medical practice over a long period, in parliament, and from representing two constituencies, i have no doubt that the vast majority do not agree. if one walks only among one\'s own kind and speaks to people with similar views one may get the impression that the majority agree. it ill behoves the hon. gentleman to complain about lack of compromise at this stage.\n this is a thoroughly bad bill which would have a serious effect on patients and would increase the death rate from septic abortions. women will die. they will have abortions whether or not they are legal. the bill would have a thoroughly bad effect on the medical profession.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.154', 20, 'uk.m.17464', 'uk.p.Lib', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "will the hon. gentleman accept that after yesterday's fine example in the other place thoroughly bad bills can be remedied?\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.155', 108, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that may be so, but it was said earlier that we should not depend on that. i am pleased that the other place reached the decision that it did on the other matter.\n i am not entirely satisfied with the amendment, but it is better than what is in the, bill at present. my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin) made an excellent speech, and clearly spelt out the position. the substance of his amendment would to some extent put matters right.\n the promoter of the bill is entitled only to the 24-week limit. once the word "substantially" was permitted to slip in—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.156', 86, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) said that there was a desire on the sponsors\' part to compromise, which was not accepted by us. i discussed with one of the most prominent sponsors of the bill the possibility of the bill\'s resting on the 24-week limit and nothing else. he said that he did not believe that he would be able to persuade his colleagues to leave out "substantially". that is where the attempt at compromise broke down, which indicates who is responsible.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.157', 97, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend. i believe that the hon. member for essex, south-east has today adopted a slightly less hard attitude. the hon. gentleman previously used such words as "might"—and said that the continuance of the preganancy might involve substantial risk or injury. the word is "would", not "might". it is all very well for the hon. gentleman to use softer words, but in legislation we do not use "might". we use "would", which is different.\n the amendment so ably advanced by my right hon. and learned friend will help, and i support it.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.158', 255, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i have already intimated in the intervention that i made during the speech in which my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin), the former attorney-general, was spelling out his view that i had more than sympathy with the amendment that he had placed on the order paper. there are two goals in the minds of those who may have been supporters of the bill that are becoming confused. one has to ask oneself whether there is a desire on the part of those who support the bill to change the criteria. secondly, one has to ask whether there is a desire, on the other hand, or in addition, on the part of others who support the bill, to bring to an end the statistical argument.\n i have always held the view, like the select committee, as the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) has pointed out, that an argument was being deployed, however fallaciously, and however erroneous an interpretation of the law it may have been, to the effect that it was possible for a doctor to use the so-called statistical argument without fear of any action being taken by the law. that is a genuine belief. there was a fear that this argument was being deployed and a belief that it was being practised. it is true that there are few doctors or professors who would formally declare their view that the statistical argument justified an abortion in almost every circumstance, but they are known to exist.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.159', 1, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.160', 13, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it was a view that was peddled and articulated, by however few people.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.161', 1, 'uk.m.22249', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'one.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.162', 56, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'it meant that the lane committee, although expressing its disapproval of the argument, was nevertheless compelled to express an opinion. when the select committee had to address its mind to the issue, it was abundantly clear that there was a view, on the evidence, although possibly expressed by only one professor, that this was being practised.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.163', 2, 'uk.m.16421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', ' rose —\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.164', 334, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall give way later. i should like to develop my argument. that opinion is in existence. there is a belief, however incorrect, that this enables abortion on request to take place within the existing law.\n i have said from the beginning that we live in a plural society. the house has a duty to try to reconcile the conflicting views. whether or not it is a belief that is well-founded, and whether it is practised only idiosyncratically by a small group, an opinion exists that because of this weakness within the law, it is possible for abortion on request to take place. if that opinion can be met without, in my view, affecting the criteria, it should be done. others hold a different view. they want to alter the criteria. i have made clear by my interventions in this and many other debates that i believe that if the criteria were applied, as they were intended to be applied, this is the basis on which a plural society can live.\n a considerable change has been made by using the word "substantially". i accept that. it was decided by the house. the house wanted that, i believe, because it wanted to end the statistical argument. some people, no doubt, voted for it because they wanted to attack the criteria as well. i believe that the house voted for it in order to lay at rest the statistical argument. however, it has been pointed out that, apart from serious technical blemishes that arise in the bill, as a result of "substantially" being left in, bare and in its nudity, and despite the technical consequences indicated by my right hon. and learned friend the former attorney-general, it is possible that it could subvert the criteria as well. it could go beyond what was the intention of most hon. members, certainly of the select committee, and certainly the intention lying behind the lane committee report that a statistical argument, in belief or in practice, should not continue.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.165', 47, 'uk.m.16421', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'this is the second time that my hon. friend has called in aid the lane committee. will he make clear that the lane committee rejected that argument as fallacious and, furthermore, said that there should be no change in the criteria? he must not mislead the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.166', 105, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the lane committee made it clear that the argument was being deployed and believed that it was wrong. the committee therefore did not recommend any legislative change. as the hon. member for essex, south-east pointed out, after the lane committee had reported the belief that the statistical argument could be deployed, or could protect anybody from being charged for any criminal offence in respect of the abortion act, was continued. as a result, when the evidence came before the select committee it came to the conclusion that the statistical argument had to be met by legislation but that the criteria were matters for the house.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.167', 92, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'since the words "serious" and "substantial" affect the criteria, and since the objective, as my hon. friend indicates, was to destroy the statistical argument as a basis for wholesale abortion on demand, would it not have been better to have produced an amendment that embodied that kind of fear, using the word "statistical" and making it incumbent upon the medical profession to indicate that it would not be permitted to use the whole general field of statistics, but had to apply the statistics in the particular instance in which it was operating?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.168', 187, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the original bill, even this bill, contained the word "substantially" the word "serious" was inserted in committee, but, happily in my view, was deleted by the house when the bill came back. my hon. friend criticises the lack of clarity in the attempt to identify the statistical argument. i did not serve on the standing committee, but, having read the proceedings and heard the speech of the minister, i would point out that this was the argument of the minister. the minister made it abundantly clear that, should there be such a statistical argument— the words have been cited already —he, the minister, believed that the word "substantially" dealt with the mischief. it creates certain other mischiefs that have been pointed out by my right hon. and learned friend the former attorney-general.\n like every sensible man and woman in the house, i wish to bring this debate to an end. i treat seriously the view put forward by my right hon. and learned friend. what is the fear in the minds of the sponsor and the hon. member for essex, south-east that justifies not accepting the amendment?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.169', 15, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'is not the only possible solution to remove the word in the house of lords?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.170', 83, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich has tried to deal with the problem sensibly. i share the dismay of my right hon. and learned friend the member for aberavon (mr. morris) at the fact that there should be such silence on the government front bench. i believe that to be most reprehensible. however, as a lawyer i have more confidence in the law of my right hon. and learned friend the former attorney-general than that of the present attorney-general.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.171', 41, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i know that the hon. member for pontypool (mr. abse) is speaking in good faith, but it has been indicated to the chair that the government spokesman would like to contribute to the debate when the hon. member resumes his seat.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.172', 406, 'uk.m.14158', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall try to come to a conclusion. the hon. member for essex, south-east and others ask what factors could come into existence other than those that are already laid down. the house must understand that the amendment seeks to make quite clear that the word "substantially" is directed not to the criteria, but only to the statistical argument, and that the factors to which it refers are those that are contained within the criteria. that is how my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich interprets his amendment. does it achieve that effect? does it give us an end to the statistical argument, as the majority of hon. members want, without an assault on the criteria? believe that it does.\n perhaps the amendment can be improved. we are not helped by the absence of the attorney-general. perhaps a parliamentary draftsman could improve it. however, i am certain that the amendment clearly deals with the statistical argument. it does not subvert any of the existing criteria. even if the minister cannot accept the amendment categorically, he should leave it to the will of the house. let him say that the arguments are complex, but that they have been heard. let the house decide, without the minister laying his emphasis on the argument. the minister has had a maturational experience, which has been shared by everybody who has taken part in an abortion bill. it would be wise to let the house decide.\n let us remember that there will have to be another bill if we do not use this bill to bring the controversy to an end. the 24-week limit has been decided by the house. my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich, who has been so skilful in the interpretation of the bill, nods his head. if we do not pass the bill, another one will have to be considered because we must deal with the 24-weeks. we do not want to have the argument all over again. i appeal even to those with most impassioned views on either side of the argument to accept the amendment because, with the 24-week provision, that will result in an act in which honour can be done on all sides. [hon. m1mbers: "no"] the 24-week issue has been decided. let us use the opportunity to end the argument and bring the bill to the statute book, rather than interminably continue such joyless proceedings.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.173', 131, 'uk.m.10659', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'my hon. friend the member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine) referred to an incident about which he has written to my department. we are examining that matter urgently.\n the right hon. and learned member for dulwich (mr. silkin) is correct in saying that the provision for termination in emergencies will not be required in section 1 of the act as well as in clause 2 of the bill. i am advised that in any case the existing provision in section 1(4) of the 1967 act, unlike the new provision in clause 2 of the bill, will not apply after an upper time limit of 24 weeks. that would be unsatisfactory as there would be two provisions covering broadly the same ground. however, that can be put right in another place.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.174', 13, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'if the amendment is altered in another place will the minister be satisfied?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.175', 208, 'uk.m.10659', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security', 'government', 'i shall come to that in a moment.\n i turn to the substance of the amendment. when the minister of state spoke about the criteria he made it clear that he had in mind the anxiety of some hon. members that the criteria should be capable of a statistical interpretation. accordingly, he advised that if they wished to deal with that they should vote for the retention of the word "substantially". my right hon. and learned friend the solicitor-general gave evidence to the standing committee on 4 december, so the house has had his advice on the use of the word "substantially".\n the amendment seeks to make clear that the intention of the change is to ensure that the statistical argument cannot be employed. i hope that it will meet the anxiety of the medical profession over the legal interpretation of the word "substantially" in that context. if the amendment is carried the intention of the house will be made clear and the bill will not be gobbledegook, although some technical amendments might have to be made in another place. broader issues have been raised about the way in which the house should proceed. the implications are clear, and hon. members do not need my advice on that.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.176', 10, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i beg to move, that the question be now put.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.177', 7, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i cannot accept that motion at present.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.178', 1139, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i express my personal gratitude to my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin) because a great deal of deep thought obviously went into the framing of the amendment. my right hon. and learned friend guided our unsure feet carefully through the minefield of the subject\'s legal complications.\n i share the disgust—that word is not too strong—of my hon. friends at the absence of the attorney-general. at our last sitting be allowed the minister to be his microphone without standing behind it himself. because of a decision taken at our last sitting we need clarification about the consequences of accepting the amendment.\n it is most reprehensible that the attorney-general is not here today. perhaps he has stayed away because he does not like the bill. he did not vote for it on second reading. as i understand it, the duties of a law officer are to help the house impartially both about the things that he likes and those that he does not like. even if the attorney-general does not like this bill, that is no excuse for his not coming here to assist the house.\n i support the amendment of my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich for reasons that i have advocated throughout the proceedings of the bill. my reasons are that i believe that doctors should have the discretion to exercise their clinical judgment and that any attempt to hedge round the exercise of that judgment does not make life easy either for doctors or their patients and it is the patient for whom we should have the greatest care. if we attempt to curtail that discretion there is a little more profit for the lawyers but life is made harder for doctors and patients. that happens every time we try to put an arbituary limitation on the judgment of the doctor.\n we should recall that the views of two doctors are required in this context and that those views must be exercised in good faith. there is a double safeguard; there are two doctors and they must both act in good faith. when we attempt to put artificial constraints on doctors—in language universally condemned as obscure—we are being unhelpful.\n i fully understand why the hon. member for birmingham, edgbaston (mrs. knight) did not wish to give way to hon. members who wished to intervene during her speech. when one has had too much to drink before driving one does not wish to wind down the window when the "copper" comes along. one does not wish to be caught out. the hon. lady knew that she was in danger of being caught out if she gave way when she referred to the language in the bill as being gobbledegook. in so far as there is gobbledegook in this bill it is the fault of the sponsor. the bill is not a big bill, but in committee the sponsor himself admitted that no fewer than seven clauses were so badly drafted that they were incapable of amendment. they had to be taken out and redrafted.\n there was an eighth clause, which was found by the opponents of the bill to be out of order as being beyond the scope of the long title. it had to be put in order by an amendment moved by the opponents of the bill. we all regretted that the sponsor of the bill fell ill, but before the hon. gentleman became ill he said that he intended to rip out clause 4 and replace it with a new clause. that was because the first clause 4 was gobbledegook. he did not use that word, but that is what he meant. he felt that the wording was no good, and he intended to seek the advice of the department in order to draft a new clause 4 that was not gobbledegook.\n unhappily the hon. gentleman became ill and the bill was left in the care of his lion. friends. they liked the gobbledegook and did not want the sponsor\'s new clause 4. there was a classic occasion when the committee was due to meet but could not do so because there was not a quorum. hon. gentlemen were arguing amongst themselves and were unable to agree which clause 4 they wished to discuss. the result was that they did not go into committee at all. it therefore lies ill in the mouths of those hon. members who support the bill—least of all in the mouth of the hon. member for edgbaston—to talk about other people being responsible for putting gobbledegook into the bill.\n i hope that something can be salvaged of this wreck along the lines suggested by the hon. member for windsor and maidenhead (dr. glyn) and by my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse). talks were held at an early stage designed to produce a bill that would meet the general will of the house as expressed in a statement by five privy councillors and as has been expressed by other people inside and outside this house. that attempt at a compromise broke down because some of the supporters of the bill, though not all of them—there are hawks and "wets" among the bill\'s supporters as there are in the government—were unwilling to give up the word "substantially". that was when the compromise attempt broke down.\n 12.45 pm\n we must now ask ourselves whether an acceptance of the bill with the amendment of my right hon. and learned friend is a real solution. some hon. members have suggested that that might be the case, but my hon. friend the member for york (mr. lyon) demolished that suggestion in what i thought was a masterly speech. he showed in a masterly analysis that it was not the case that the bill would cease to be obnoxious merely because of the addition of the amendment of my right hon. and learned friend. i cast no slur upon the amendment; i support it, because it offers some improvement. but that improvement does not alter the fact that the word "substantially" remains. that is where the damage is done.\n a suggestion was made by the under-secretary of state that something might be done about this issue in another place. i thought that his intervention came somewhat late. he might have sought to make that point before the closure was moved, since he did not know that his intervention was going to be prevented the closure.\n at one stage i was attracted to the idea, but i resiled from it because i have become increasingly conscious that no one who relies on the other place doing something can guarantee to deliver. the other place is showing increasing tendencies to be unpredictable and, occasion- ally, to behave in a way contrary to the upbringing of its members.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.179', 2, 'uk.m.17986', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'almost skittish.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.180', 120, 'uk.m.18458', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "no one, not even the minister speaking with the authority of the department, can guarantee to deliver. the authority of the department of education and science was at work yesterday, but it could not deliver. when the minister tells us today that he will do his best, i am sure that he means it, but he cannot guarantee success.\n if there is to be a compromise solution i fear that it will have to be produced on another occasion. the chance of obtaining it in this session was missed and was badly bungled by the promoter of the bill and his supporters. we must possess our soul's impatience and return to the matter yet again, definitely—i hope—for the last time.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.181', 636, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i intend to be brief, and i am brought to my feet only by the observation of my hon. friend the member for pontypool (mr. abse), who suggested that had we been prepared to accept the 24-weeks proposal and no further clauses, that would have ended the matter. that may well be his personal view, but is not the view of the organisations which, outside this place, are conducting a tremendous lobby on the subject.\n on 13 february one of those organisations, called "life", issued a circular, presumably to its agents and allies, in which it said, among other things: our final political objective is full repeal of the 1967 abortion act and its replacement by a statute giving full legal protection to all unborn children from conception onwards. since 1974 we have had our own draft bill ready for a brave mp to take on. it is a wonder, in view of that, that the hon. member who sponsored the bill was unable to take advantage of the offer that is implied by the organisation. many of us who participated in the committee stage, and some of my hon. friends who have longer histories on previous bills on this subject, have always been aware that the real architects of these measures are those who will never be content until the 1967 act has been removed from the statute book.\n there was not a lot of talk in committee about compromise. the membership was divided 12 to five in favour of the bill, so that it was possible for the sponsor to achieve virtually anything. in the final analysis it is votes that count, and the sponsor and his hon. friends were well aware of that.\n my hon. friends the members for bethnal green and bow (mr. mikardo) and for barking (miss richardson) made various perfectly reasonable approaches in committee on certain clauses, but the supporters of the bill were fairly confident—at some stages supremely confident—that they would succeed. they were misled by the hon. member for essex, south east (sir b. braine) into believing—particularly when the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) became ill—that, given his guidance, the bill could be successfully concluded. but even given that, the bill was always acknowledged to be a part measure towards achieving that ultimate objective.\n the circular from "life" continued: so mr. corrie\'s bill is a long way from our final objective. we particularly object to the clause that openly discriminates against handicapped children. nevertheless, we decided to support the bill in its original form because if it becomes law it would save the lives of thousands of unborn children", and so on. so we do not have to go far to realise that the comments of my hon. friend the member for pontypool about the future of this bill or any other private member\'s legislation designed to subvert the purposes of the 1967 act were unrealistic.\n i should like to refer to a telegram received this morning. it reads: i want to bring to your attention a statement which was today endorsed by the tuc women\'s conference in brighton. the 50th tuc women\'s conference is dismayed that parliament seems prepared to sacrifice the livelihoods of the children of broken marriages in order to curtail further a woman\'s rights to control her own fertility. conference today repeats its total opposition to mr. corrie\'s abortion (amendment) bill and urges all mps to heed the advice of the whole trade union movement to reject this bill. we plead with the commons at this eleventh hour to consider the pain and suffering which will be inflicted on so many women and their families if this proposal becomes law, and to reject the bill. the tuc repeats its wholehearted support for the 1967 abortion act and urges all mps"— \n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.182', 12, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', "order. our interest is in the hon. gentleman's views on the amendment.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.183', 334, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i thought, mr. deputy speaker—though obviously i was wrong —that the telegram was relevant to the amendment, in that it represents an up-to-date expression of opinion of a large number of women on a subject that is embraced by the amendment. the amendment relates to a deep and complex argument that exists among women about the substantial risk that arises to them in the event of their having a pregnancy for which they seek medical advice about termination.\n of course i accept your ruling, mr. deputy speaker, but against that background i suggest that the expression of opinion in the telegram is relevant. perhaps i should have been more in order had i referred to the do-it-yourself pamphlets that have recently been the subject of observation by the secretary of state for social services. we welcome his condemnation of those leaflets. they are relevant in terms of the substantial risks to women. they attempt to guide women on how best they may abort themselves in certain desperate circumstances. who are the architects of these leaflets? i still hope that the secretary of state will refer this matter to the dpp so that we can be informed about the origins of the leaflets.\n 1 pm\n my main purpose is to refute the suggestion which has been made on a number of occasions, that if we accept a minor amendment to the 1967 act relating to the period of gestation we can all happily go away feeling that, for the time being at least, the house will not be forced to consider abortion again. this is a complete misconception. as long as organisations such as the society for the protection of the unborn child and "life" exist, they will be anxious to deprive women of their right to determine whether they should continue their pregnancies. we shall continue to have this sort of attempt to change the 1967 act in radical ways and finally to repeal it completely. this will deprive women of their fundamental rights.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.184', 596, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i shall be brief, mr. deputy speaker, as we have explored very extensively the points that are covered by the amendment. i am sure that i echo the opinions of millions of women when i say that we are glad that my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin) has been able to formulate an amendment which, to some extent, will ameliorate the damage caused two weeks ago when the house decided to retain the word "substantially".\n there is no doubt that the bill, without the amendment, is very dangerous. i shall not repeat all the arguments about the 24-week period. we have had a decision on that. the house then voted, albeit by only three votes, to retain the word "substantially", and this sent a chill of horror down the backs of many people when they realised what the house had done. many of them were prepared to accept the 24-week provision, but they cannot accept the word "substantially" because that makes this an illiberal bill.\n because of this, the trades union congress women\'s conference at brighton this week sent a telegram to a number of hon. members. my hon. friend the member for preston, south (mr. thorne) has just quoted it and i am sorry that you did not allow him to finish it, mr deputy speaker. that telegram was sent also to the hon. member for bute and north ayrshire (mr. corrie) because the conference felt that not only labour members should know how they felt but that the sponsors of the bill should realise the deep feelings of a large group of women on this issue.\n my hon. friend the member for preston, south also referred to the do-it-yourself kits. in many ways it is significant that these kits have appeared in the eight months since we began discussing this restrictive bill, during which we have talked about the possibility of a return to back-street abortions if it becomes law. i am sure that our discussions and the appearance of these kits are connected. had we not had the bill, and had we had just one year free from any discussion of abortion, whoever is manufacturing these kits—a reprehensible action—may not have thought of doing so. the manufacturers saw this bill as a chance to jump on the bandwagon and cash in on the problems that the hon. member for bute and north ayreshire has caused for many women by bringing forward this bill.\n i am sorry that i am not able to make my next point in the presence of the hon. member for essex, south-east (sir b. braine), as he has left the chamber. he made constant reference to the fact that he believed that we had abortion on demand in this country. i absolutely refute that. had we had abortion on demand, we should have had a much greater spread of national health services\' facilities, and facilities and clinics for the bpas, which at present do not cover the whole country. there is certainly not abortion on demand.\n the sponsors of the bill base their claim on the fact that one doctor—dr. peter huntingford—has said that from time to time he has performed abortions on women as requested. we all know that at his clinic women must be referred by a gp in the first place. he cannot just take in any woman who comes to him without a reference from a gp. also, the fact that one doctor says that he has performed abortions on demand does not mean that this is a generality.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.185', 67, 'uk.m.19291', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'will my hon. friend comment on a letter that i received today on this matter? it shows that 29 per cent. of abortions were performed by the nhs in merseyside in 1979, but in 1971 51 per cent. were performed in nhs hospitals. therefore, there has been a fal of 22 per cent. in eight years, and that does not sound like abortion on demand to me.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.186', 11, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'my hon. friend is right. abortion on demand does not exist.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.187', 30, 'uk.m.22028', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'another indication of the undoubted fact that it does not exist is that in my constituency the hairmyres hospital has a gynaecology unit which does not perform abortions at all.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.188', 112, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'that is interesting, and that situation must be repeated in many other districts and parts of the country. we should not let this debate go by without putting it firmly on the record that abortion on demand does not exist in this country. it does not exist even if there are national health service hospitals willing to do abortions, and not all of them are. it does not exist as long as there are bpas clinics and they have to conform to the law. the principal problem is that there are not enough facilities for abortion within the 1967 act, and that is an abuse which i would like to see eradicated.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.189', 14, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. is not there a further difficulty, in that we are discussing the amendment?\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.190', 48, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, mr. deputy speaker, but the hon. member for essex, south-east was not challenged by the chair—i do not know whether you were in the chair at the time—when he made long references to abortion on demand. i thought that it was worth while replying to his references.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.191', 142, 'uk.m.22059', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'the reason for the insertion of the word "substantially" in the 1967 act was the belief, entertained by some hon. members, that abortion on demand existed. we have had numerous general allegations of this kind from many hon. members, particularly the sponsors of the bill, but we have not yet heard from them or from the department whether they have any specific claims or specific evidence of dates, places and circumstances in which these abortions were carried out. nor have we heard from the responsible minister in the dhss how many investigations his department has been asked to carry out by the sponsors of the bill and by other hon. members who have spoken in its support into allegations that the law has been broken. does not my hon. friend think that the minister should be asked to say how many allegations—\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.192', 26, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'order. if the hon. member for thurrock (dr. mcdonald) wishes to make a speech, perhaps she will attempt to catch my eye later in the debate.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.193', 188, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am grateful to my hon. friend for what she said, especially since she was able to bring me back to what i was saying about the word "substantially". my hon. friend is quite right. many people who support the bill, both inside and outside the house, want to put into the legislation extraneous words which will make matters more difficult for doctors, precisely because they believe that abortion on demand is widely available. we know that it is not.\n i, too, was a little disappointed by the under-secretary\'s intervention in today\'s debate. although on the whole it was fairly specific, it was extremely brief, as was the intervention two weeks ago by the minister for health. this is a very important matter. where an interpreta- tion of the law is required, we are entitled to a fuller explanation from the responsible minister in the dhss and, in my view, from the attorney-general. it is still not too late for the attorney-general to explain his view of the matter, which i believe accords with that of my right hon. and learned friend the member for dulwich (mr. silkin).\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.194', 42, 'uk.m.19092', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', 'although i agree with my hon. friend, i am sure that she does not wish to detract from what appeared to me, at any rate, to be pretty firm advice from the department that this amendment could be agreed to without danger.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.195', 57, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'yes, indeed. i was about to welcome what the minister said. my only criticism, if such it can be described, is that if the hon. gentleman had elaborated on it a little more he might have gone a considerable way to persuading some of his right hon. and hon. friends that the amendment was worthy of support.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.196', 48, 'uk.m.21638', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', "the minister went a long way towards supporting the amendment. i listened carefully to what he said. it convinced me, and i need some convincing, that if the wording was not quite right—and it never is in a private member's bill—it could be put right in another place.\n ", datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.197', 214, 'uk.m.16386', 'uk.p.Lab', 1, 'NaN', 'mp', 'i am not denying the minister\'s firmness in placing his and, presumably, the department\'s view of this on the record. my only criticism is that he might have elaborated on it a little—he was on his feet for only two or three minutes—simply to allow the point that he made very well to sink in.\n before you returned to the chair, mr. speaker, i said that i did not intend to delay the house for more than a few minutes. i shall abide by that. i believe that the house should support the amendment. although it does not go the whole way towards removing the damage that has been done by including the word "substantially" in clause 1, it will go a very long way, assuming that the bill is passed, towards helping doctors to carry out abortions which they have a legal right to perform but about which the passage of the bill may induce them to have doubts.\n we must avoid the risk that, in the pursuance of their work, doctors are caused to have any doubt about what is right and what is wrong as a result of any action taken by parliament. that should be as clear as possible. my right hon. and learned friend has done the house a\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.3.203', 8, 'uk.m.22185', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'we now embark upon a series of divisions.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.7.5', 64, 'uk.m.16771', 'uk.p.Con', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered): on a point of order, mr. deputy speaker. may i draw your attention to the fact that some hon. members are quite deliberately languishing in the lobbies in the knowledge that by holding up the proceedings in that way the house will not be able to proceed to a vote, which the overwhelming majority of hon. members wish to have.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.7.6', 5, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'if hon. members are not\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.7.9', 103, 'uk.m.18661', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'NaN', 'mp', '( seated and covered): further to that point of order, mr. deputy speaker. i was one of those who was languishing in the aye lobby. i do not know whether the hon. member for essex. south-east (sir b. braine) was referring to me, because he did not specify to which lobby he was referring. since i was one of the last to go through the lobby i did so with the greatest expedition that i could manage. perhaps southendus sciaticus had something to do with it. no one, to my knowledge, has been languishing in the lobbies. there are better places to languish.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3'], ['uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3.7.10', 29, 'uk.m.17073', 'uk.p.Lab', 0, 'chairman', 'chair', 'i am not clear whether the languishing has finished. if it has not, i hope that it will be drawn to my attention immediately and i shall take measures.\n ', datetime.datetime(1980, 3, 14, 0, 0), 'uk.proc.d.1980-03-14.3']]

In [53]:

results = [i for i in results if i]

In [54]:

data_flattened = [l for batch in results for l in batch]
df = pd.DataFrame(data_flattened)

In [55]:

df.head()

Out[55]:

	0	1	2	3	5	6	7	8	9
0	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.2	1639	uk.m.16771	uk.p.Con	NaN	mp	i beg to move, that leave be given to bring in...	1978-02-21	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10
1	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.4	2	uk.m.21824	uk.p.Con	NaN	mp	rose —\n	1978-02-21	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10
2	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.5	9	uk.m.22185	uk.p.Lab	chairman	chair	is the hon. gentleman rising to oppose the bil...	1978-02-21	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10
3	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10.1.6	1272	uk.m.21824	uk.p.Con	NaN	mp	yes, mr. speaker.\n i oppose the mot...	1978-02-21	uk.proc.d.1978-02-21.10
4	uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6.1.3	1101	uk.m.17903	uk.p.Lab	NaN	mp	i beg to move, that the bill be now read a sec...	1970-02-13	uk.proc.d.1970-02-13.6

In [57]:

df.columns = ['id','word_count', # speech context
              'member','party','gender','function','role', # member attributes
              'text',
              'date', # document context
              'topic_id'] # topic context
print(df.shape)
df = df[(df.date > dt.strptime('1945-08-15','%Y-%m-%d')) & (df.date < dt.strptime('2013-05-08','%Y-%m-%d'))]
print(df.shape)

(2127, 10)
(2127, 10)

In [58]:

df.to_csv('../data/proc/abortion_debates.csv')

In [ ]: