Lord Alton: The Speech Peers Never Heard!

Screenshot

Source: Lord Alton

Lord @DavidAltonHL was unable to speak on the abortion up to birth proposal in the House of Lords last week, because he is recovering from a spinal injury - But he recorded his own speech instead.

WATCH IN FULL his impassioned plea for peers to reject this "grotesque" measure HERE

It is deeply shocking that with virtually no consideration in the House of Commons, a new clause has been inserted into the Crime and Policing Bill which would permit abortion up to and even during birth.

Please join with me and many others in opposing and also stopping this grotesque measure.

Last month, a routine bus journey to Westminster left me with a broken back which has prevented me from speaking in Parliament. But, in all conscience, I must speak out through this medium about a measure which is so extreme that I would be failing in my duty as a parliamentarian if I failed to raise my voice and my concerns.

Most people have no idea that the UK already has an abortion law far more extreme than most of the western world - let alone that we are about to extend the law even further or the manner in which that change is happening.

This Home Office Bill, which Peers like me are now considering in the House of Lords, is a hefty piece of legislation. The Home Secretary brought it forward to deal with anti-social behaviour, knife crime, terrorism and policing powers. One thing it is not about - or wasn't supposed to be about - is abortion.

To make matters worse, this amendment that was belatedly inserted was passed after just 46 minutes of backbench debate in the House of Commons - I repeat, a desultory 46 minutes of backbench debate.

This is no way to consider a measure which has major ethical, social and medical implications. After all, the supreme human right is the very right to life itself.

As a former Member of the Commons, I was really shocked that some MPs who wished to express their concerns were unable to speak; that the amendment was added to the Bill despite there having been no public consultation and no impact assessment to consider its likely consequences. Nor was the proposal considered in a Select Committee of Parliament.

Nor was this extreme proposal included in any manifesto at the last election.

What is particularly shocking is how this proposal came to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill, with little public awareness or media coverage. Hijacking an unrelated Bill to try to force through what would be the biggest change to abortion law in this country since the Abortion Act in 1967 is no way to make law.

This is not an appropriate or responsible way to make good law, particularly on such a sensitive and complex subject. Parliamentarians have a duty to make good law that is workable and which protects the vulnerable.

This responsibility demands that draft legislation receives robust scrutiny, and MPs and Peers need to be aware of any unintended adverse consequences of proposed law changes.

The unintended consequences of this abortion up to birth amendment would mean that rather than protecting women, they would be placed at greater risk - to say nothing of the implications for unborn babies, even so very late in pregnancy

Be clear, in this country, abortion is already permitted up to 24 weeks, almost six months into pregnancy and beyond the point when increasing numbers of babies are able to survive outside the womb.

The supposedly limited grounds for abortion in the Abortion Act are now interpreted so loosely that abortion is essentially available on demand up to this point. Our time limit is double the average upper time limit for abortion among countries in the European Union, which is 12 weeks.

Many people are also unaware that over a quarter of a million abortions now take place each year in this country. It is estimated that nearly 11 million babies have now been aborted since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967.

Our abortion laws are already extreme. They are out of step with other countries and far different from what MPs were told they were voting for when David Steel's Abortion Act was passed nearly 60 years ago.

And now they want to go even further by decriminalising those who perform their own abortions for any reason and at any time, all the way up to and even during birth.

This is radical and disturbing proposal would endanger women by removing any legal deterrent against performing dangerous late-term abortions at home and likely lead to an increase in viable babies' lives being ended. Imagine the distress, practicalities, and dehumanisation of these self-administered procedures.

Note too that the proposal would even mean that it would no longer be illegal for these abortions to be carried out on sex-selective grounds.

Significantly, there is no public demand for this law change.

Polling has found that only 1% of women support abortion up to birth; the majority of the public favours abortion remaining within the criminal law for abortions after the current limit - only about 15% disagree.

A poll in June found that decriminalising abortion to full-term was bottom of 20 possible political priorities for voters.

There is public support for a reduction in the abortion time limit rather than essentially making it redundant by removing any sanction against self-induced abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

Those who argue in favour of clause 191 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would introduce abortion up to birth, insist that this measure is needed because six women have appeared in court in recent years in relation to illegal abortions.

While we need to ensure the law is implemented with proportion and compassion, this is a tiny number in light of the 250,000 abortions which take place each year, and it is utterly disproportionate to push through such a radical social change on this basis.

When the Abortion Act was passed, MPs were told abortions would be rare. Those who said otherwise were dismissed as scaremongering. They were later proved correct.

When the abortion 'pills by post' scheme was introduced, MPs and Peers were told it would be safe . At the time, our warnings were dismissed .

But what has happened? In 2023, Carla Foster was found guilty of aborting her baby at 32-34 weeks gestation after receiving abortion pills by post from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the country's largest abortion provider, whom she had told she was only 7 weeks pregnant.

Last year, Stuart Worby was convicted of spiking a woman's drinks with pills obtained under the pills by post scheme and inducing an abortion against her knowledge and will.

The common thread here that needs to be addressed is that the pills by post scheme, introduced as a temporary measure during the Covid pandemic, should be ended. Its continuation is supported by only 4% of women.

Two-thirds of women also want to see in-person consultations with a medical professional reinstated before abortion pills can be obtained. They are right. This would allow accurate gestational age checks to occur, as well as an assessment of any health risks or the risk of coercion.

For this reason that I am supporting Philippa Stroud's common-sense amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords that would restore such in-person appointments.

I am also supporting Rosa Monckton's separate amendment to remove the abortion up to birth clause altogether from the Bill.

We are on the verge of an extreme law change being passed with little public awareness, which commands little popular support and which could have catastrophic consequences.

We need to wake people up to what is being proposed and the cynical way in which it has been introduced into a Government Bill.

If we fail to raise our voices now and fail to rouse the conscience of the nation. both women and unborn babies will be the victims. Both lives matter and we should unhesitatingly say so.

We are a civilised country - not a barbaric one.

Introducing abortion up to birth should have no place in a civilised society. It is abhorrent.

Clause 191 must be rejected and at the very minimum I hope that our new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will remove it so that we can make progress on the important measures which the Bill was designed to address.

Please join with me and many others in voicing your opposition by helping to stop this barbaric measure.

The Critic have published the transcript of the speech here: https://thecritic.co.uk/a-civilised-country-wouldnt-support-abortion-up-to-birth/