Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)

My Lords, there are a great many aspects of the Bill with which I agree, and my understanding of it has been greatly enhanced by today’s debate. However, I am uncomfortable with Clause 191. Decriminalising abortion up to birth for women clearly marks a significant shift in the law on abortion in the UK. Over the coming months, we will hear many arguments about Clause 191, drawing on the diverse expertise of this House, but I wish to focus on three points: parliamentary procedure, unanswered questions, and the Salisbury convention. On the first point, it should be noted that Clause 191 has received precious little parliamentary scrutiny. By way of comparison, consider the level of scrutiny that both Houses have given the assisted dying Bill. That Bill had more than 100 hours of debate in the other place; in contrast, Clause 191 had just a few hours. That Bill has an impact assessment of over 150 pages; in contrast, Clause 191 is not covered in the Crime and Policing Bill’s impact assessment, and up-to-date information is not published on how many abortions take place through the pills by post scheme. If the assisted dying Bill has not been sufficiently scrutinised, as many have suggested, clearly the scrutiny of Clause 191 is insufficient. Secondly, decriminalising abortion raises a plethora of unanswered questions, and when questions have been asked of the Government, they have often received weak replies. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee—who is not in her place, sadly—tabled the following, pertinent Written Question on 6 October, which is worth quoting in full: “To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential risks to vulnerable women, including those who may be subject to coercion or abuse, if abortion were to be decriminalised; and what safeguarding measures they plan to put in place to protect them”. That is a very sensible question. Sadly, the Government’s response on 10 October did not inspire much confidence. It began simply: “No assessment has been made”. I question how we are meant to vote on or, indeed, debate Clause 191 when no assessment has been made of the consequences. It clearly needs much more scrutiny than it has received thus far. Finally, it is worth noting that the Salisbury convention does not apply to Clause 191, because this proposal was not included in the Government’s manifesto last year. This omission is perhaps unsurprising, because it does not command the support of the public. Polling from Ipsos earlier this year indicated that 63% of people support the status quo of 24 weeks, and polling from Whitestone Insight in May showed that 62% of voters agree that having an illegal abortion should continue to be a criminal offence. In this House, we rightly pride ourselves on our commitment to scrutinising legislation clearly and effectively and providing the necessary time to challenge how it will be implemented. I know that noble Lords will be tabling amendments to Clause 191 in Committee; I will be looking closely at them to ensure that the clause receives the level of scrutiny it merits for the profound impact it would have on society.