Serious Crime Bill

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to discuss New clause 25 —Termination of pregnancy on grounds of sex of foetus—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an assessment to be made of the evidence of termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Wales and Scotland.

(2) The arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be such as to enable publication of the assessment by the Secretary of State within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.

(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the assessment made under subsection (1) and—

(a) determine and publish a strategic plan to tackle substantiated concerns identified in the assessment made under subsection (1); or

(b) publish a statement and explanation in relation to why a plan under subsection (3)(a) is not required.

(4) Any strategic plan under subsection (3)(a) must include, but need not be limited to, steps—

(a) to promote change in the social and cultural patterns of behaviour with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority of women and which may amount to pressure to seek a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus;

(b) to ensure best practice exists in identifying women being coerced or pressured into seeking a termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus, or at risk of being so, and in the provision of protection and support to potential victims; and

(c) to promote guidance to service providers, health professionals and other stakeholders.

23 Feb 2015 : Column 114

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan, determined under subsection (3)(a), before each House of Parliament within 6 months of the publication date of the assessment under subsection (2).’

Fiona Bruce: New clause 1, which I wish to be put to a vote, is supported by more than 100 MPs. The arguments for it are straightforward. First, it is to clarify beyond doubt, in statute, that sex-selective abortion is illegal in UK law. This new clause is not seeking to change the law on abortion as some have said, but to confirm and clarify it. It also provides the Government with an opportunity to address the problem by bringing forward best practice regulations and guidance to support and protect women at risk.

New clause 1 is necessary because there is no explicit statement about gender selective abortion in UK law. The law is being interpreted in different ways because when the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, scans to determine the sex of the foetus were not available. That has led to a huge amount of confusion and mixed messages. That is despite the fact that the Government have repeatedly said that abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal. Health Ministers have said so; the Prime Minister has said so; the Department of Health has published guidance to that effect; and the chief medical officer has written to doctors about it. Despite all of that, abortion providers and others, staggeringly, are still refusing to accept the Government’s interpretation of the law.

Only last week, the country’s largest abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, republished its controversial guidance in a booklet entitled, “Britain’s abortion law: what it says and why”. The following question is posed: is abortion for reasons of foetal sex illegal under the Abortion Act? To this, it answers, “No, the law is silent on the matter.” The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said:

“The law does not in terms expressly prohibit gender-specific abortions.”

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): All we are trying to do is simply clarify what everyone in the House of Commons wants to be the law: we should not have abortion on the basis of gender. That is the reply to the DPP. We just want the law to be made absolutely clear.

Fiona Bruce: Absolutely right. That is the purpose of new clause 1. I will come on to explain why it is so important to many of the women who are suffering as a result of the lack of clarity in the law.

This House must make the matter clear. If we cannot get a consistent line from abortion providers on whether or not it is illegal to abort a girl—it is usually girls but not always—for the sole reason that she is a girl, then the law is not fit for purpose. To do so constitutes a gross form of sex discrimination. Indeed it is the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. Surely no one can object to a clause that simply states that that is wrong.

New clause 1 will do more than that, because if it is passed, by virtue of clause 79 (2) the Government will be able to issue guidance to help address this abuse and support affected women. That is why new clause 25 is inadequate when taken alone. What it is proposing is a 

23 Feb 2015 : Column 115

Department of Health assessment or review of the issue. The Department can already do that. Without new clause 1, it is inadequate, because it fails to go to the heart of the issue and to clear up the very real confusion that exists. It fails to clarify the law, as new clause 1 does, that sex election abortion is illegal in this country.

Let me turn now to some of the objections to new clause 1. Much of them have misrepresented its impact and some have been plain scaremongering. First, it is said that it will criminalise women. That is flatly untrue. The clause applies only to authorising doctors; it does not affect an expectant mother’s standing in law. We have also heard that it will stop abortion for disability where there is a sex-linked condition. That is also totally incorrect. I can reassure colleagues that there is nothing in this new clause to prevent a doctor from diagnosing substantial risk of serious handicap via the sex of the baby. In such cases, the ground for the abortion is the risk of the disability, not the sex of the baby. New clause 1 will not change that, and I have been careful to obtain expert legal opinion to that effect.

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): The hon. Lady spoke rightly a few moments ago about the importance of clarity in law. Does she not agree that there would be reluctance and confusion when the grounds for a termination were the genetic disorder, but the only way in which that genetic order could arise is in relation to the gender of the foetus?

Fiona Bruce: Not at all. We can trust our medical practitioners to be professional in that respect. It is quite clear that the ground for the abortion in such cases would be the genetic condition and not the sex of the child.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Fiona Bruce: I will, but then I need to make progress.

Glenda Jackson: There are certain genetic diseases that are transmitted by the mother to a male foetus. They are not passed on to a female foetus. So the hon. Lady’s argument is invalid.

Fiona Bruce: That is exactly the point that I am making. If the handicap, or the condition, is diagnosed via the sex of the baby, in such cases the grounds for the abortion, through that diagnosis, is the risk of serious handicap, and on that ground the abortion can be legitimately carried out.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, although I do not think that she needs assistance. Of all the arguments that have been put forward on this matter, the one that has no traction at all is the suggestion that enacting this new clause would lead to the confusion that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) fears. It plainly would not. There might be other arguments that can be advanced and of course there will be different views across the House, but that could not possibly happen if the new clause were enacted.

23 Feb 2015 : Column 116

Fiona Bruce rose—

Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona Bruce: No, I am going to continue. I thank the former Attorney-General for making that point so lucidly.

We have also heard that the new clause could introduce racial profiling of expectant mothers, but has anyone argued that for female genital mutilation? The term “family balancing” goes wider than any one particular community.

Then there is the argument that the new clause will do nothing to help abused women. It will indeed. It will clarify the law and as Polly Harrar of Jeena International powerfully told me:

“What we’ve found with the Forced Marriage Act 2007 was that we were able to use that piece of legislation as a bargaining tool to negotiate with parents, so a young woman could say, ‘You do realise this is a criminal offence?’”

In the same way, Polly says,

“with sex-selective abortion: having clarity in the law means that women could use this clarification to protect themselves against pressure to have a sex-selection abortion.”

She continues that

“as with FGM having a higher profile, legislation does effect a step change in cultural attitudes. So while legislation alone is not enough, it has real power to change behaviour, and that’s what is needed.”

That addresses clearly the Royal College of Midwives’ objection that new clause 1 will do little to alleviate the external pressures or coercion that these women face. As Mandy Sanghera said:

“We also we hope this will act as a deterrent—it will enable women to have more control over their own decisions.”

Is that not what many objecting to the clause want?

What does not help women under pressure to have an abortion simply because they are carrying a girl or a boy, whether that pressure comes from violence or coercion or is more subtle, is allowing that abortion to take place and sending the woman back to an abusive situation. To do so is to condone the very culture behind the pressure for such abortions and to exacerbate such abuse. The new clause does nothing to diminish services for those suffering abuse. Indeed, if it is followed by sensitively crafted regulations it should certainly improve them.

Then the quite offensive point is made that there is no evidence for sex-selective abortions in the UK. That is offensive as it is insulting to women such as those I have mentioned who have been campaigning for many years to stop this practice. Yes, the numbers are small compared with those in China or India, but they are real. Should we have to wait until those numbers grow before we take action? Rani Bilkhu, who, incidentally, is pro-choice, says:

“I have been supporting women dealing with sex-selective abortions…for almost a decade. Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying that the women we work with are lying and that my organisation”—

Jeena International—

“is making things up.”

Interestingly, Rani also says that “nobody is collecting data”, so it is no wonder that opponents of the new clause say that there is none.

23 Feb 2015 : Column 117

I know of many examples of women who have suffered. One had one daughter, conceived a second girl, had an abortion and then could not conceive again. Another had three abortions on the basis of gender, including of twins. Another’s husband punched and kicked her in the stomach when he discovered she was having a girl. Yet another says that

“women suffer depression after these abortions. What is not always considered is the emotional and psychological impact.”

These women deserve our support in the manner that they say will really help—through legislation and by clarifying the law. That does not stop a review, but it is essential that we clear up the confusion, support these women and pass new clause 1. In doing so, we would reflect the overwhelming public mood. A recent ComRes poll showed that 84% of the public agree that aborting babies because of their gender should be explicitly banned by law. More than that, we should support new clause 1 because it is, quite simply, the right thing to do.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I want to speak against the Government motion, and I draw the House’s attention to my alternative motion in part 2 of the Order Paper—page 54—although it is not voteable.
Human mitochondrial disease is a dreadful condition and, as a caring society, we must do all we can to address it, and do so as sensitively as we can for those families affected by it. As a caring society, however, we must also do so in an ethical manner and with proper regard for safety. I believe that the regulations we are considering today fail on both counts—ethics and safety—and that they are inextricably interlinked.
Let me be straightforward: I do oppose these proposals in principle. However, that should not prevent my concerns regarding their safety from being given a fair hearing. One of the two procedures that we are being asked to sanction today—pro-nuclear transfer—involves the deliberate creation and destruction of at least two human embryos, and in practice probably more, to create a third embryo, which it is hoped will be free of human mitochondrial disease. Are we happy to sacrifice two early human lives to make a third life?
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): I question my hon. Friend’s definition of “embryo”. We are talking about two ova being used to create one embryo.
Fiona Bruce: Let me put it this way. Some may take the view that at such an early stage of human life, it is acceptable deliberately to create human embryos to then destroy them. However, the truth is that once upon a time I was an embryo and so was every other Member in this Chamber.
3 Feb 2015 : Column 169
This debate is about the principle of genetically altering—indeed, genetically creating—a human being, and no matter how well meaning the motives, and my heart goes out to the families with mitochondrial disease, this technique will not cure that disease. That answers the question asked in the intervention on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), the shadow Minister. This technique will not cure that disease.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I am completely undecided on this issue. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether it is the case that any woman taking the pill could arguably be destroying an embryo? If it is the case, what is the difference morally between using this technology and using the pill?
Fiona Bruce: What we are talking about is a particular process, which we know—with certainty—will destroy embryos. That is what I am addressing. As I say, this technique will involve the permanent alteration of the human genetic code. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which was cited by the shadow Minister in support of her arguments, says that these techniques are

“a form of germline gene therapy.”

This alteration will be passed down generations. The implications of this simply cannot be predicted. However, one thing is for sure: as someone has said, once this alteration has taken place and once the genie is out of the bottle, and once these procedures that we are being asked to authorise today go ahead, there will be no going back for society, and certainly not for the individuals concerned.
Dr McCrea: Does the hon. Lady find it strange that while the shadow Minister was telling the House that we should support these regulations, she had no answer to the direct question she was asked by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and that all she could say was that she hoped the Minister would clear the matter up?
Fiona Bruce: I was indeed surprised, but in a sense that is why those who have made the case for much more parliamentary time and debate on this issue are quite right.
There will be no going back for society and certainly not for the individuals and children involved. My hon. Friend the Minister said that we have taken all rigorous steps before bringing this matter to the House, but it is profoundly concerning that the outstanding pre-clinical trials, as recommended by the HFEA panel, have still not been undertaken, written up and peer-reviewed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, setting aside the completion of pre-clinical trials, there have been no clinical trials of these procedures, that there will be no clinical trials of them and that, in effect, if we pass the regulations the techniques will be applied to the creation of children without clinical trials? In other words, we will be approving uncontrolled experimentation—because there will be no controls—on children. In the absence of clinical trials, would that not effectively contravene EU regulations?
3 Feb 2015 : Column 170
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): There is a lot of muttering around the Chamber that there will be clinical trials, but there cannot be clinical trials because they would breach the EU directive.
Fiona Bruce: That is exactly the point I was about to make. As has been highlighted in a letter from 44 MEPs who have written from the European Parliament this week to the Secretary of State for Health, the EU directives—the European clinical trials directive 2001, which was confirmed by the 2014 directive in the same area—state that

“No gene therapy trials may be carried out which result in modifications to the subject’s germ line genetic identity.”

My hon. Friend the Minister indicated that in some way these particular procedures were excluded from these trials. That cannot be correct. The European clinical trials directive 2001 applies to clinical trials involving germ-line engineering. It applies to all clinical trials using medicine, and to these procedures. For the Department of Health to argue that it can move straight to using these procedures on children without clinical trials gives us, apart from anything else, one reason to vote against these regulations.
If anyone doubts that, Lord Brennan QC has given a legal opinion on these regulations, which is of central importance. He says:

“It is a well-established principle that EU law is to be interpreted…in light of the purpose, values, social and economic goals the provisions aim to achieve. Given that…both the Directive and the 2014 Regulation…ban any gene therapy trials that involve modification of the subject’s germ line identity, then it would clearly fall within their purposes and values to prevent their use in clinical practice of any procedure with that effect without investigation or trials first having taken place.”

I believe that this Government are at risk of infringement proceedings being brought against them if these proposals go ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fiona Bruce: The answer has to be that we—
Mr Speaker: Order. I think Members thought that the hon. Lady had concluded her speech, but she has not. Let us have a courteous hearing for everybody. I call Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Once we approve this procedure, where will it lead? The answer has to be that we stop here and say, “This is a red line in our country, as in every other country in the world, that we will not cross.” This is the place for that to be said. As MPs, we are accountable to the people of this country.
The Government’s own consultation in July 2014 received 1,857 responses, of which 1,152 were opposed to the introduction of these techniques. That has been confirmed by ComRes polling last weekend, which showed that more than twice as many people are against these proposals as are in favour—41% of respondents, compared with 21%. A third public survey, being conducted today on The Daily Telegraph website, shows that as of this morning 68% of the public oppose these techniques in principle. Do their concerns not deserve respect from those of us present here?
3 Feb 2015 : Column 171

The truth is that the Government have not waited for the conclusion of trials, as they should have done, so that this House could make a fully informed decision, and that is wrong. Whether one ultimately approves or disapproves of these proposals, the right procedure on such a profound issue is for the elected representatives of the people of this country to have full information before being rushed into a decision, as we would be today if we voted for these proposals.