Huppert vs. Dorries on Abortion - and the Vote

• . . Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): WILL the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): NO.

I do not want to ban abortion-I want it to continue-but should we not be taking better care of our young girls and women? Should we not be offering them something better? How do women get to the position of suffering mental health problems as a result of abortion?

. . I will move on to the tactics that have been used in this House to thwart the amendment. I wish to be very clear and will take no more interventions. I went to see the Prime Minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact, it was at the Prime Minister's insistence that I inserted the word "independent". I have attended a meeting at the Department of Health at which it was decided what process would be implemented to make this a reality.

Last weekend, the former MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Evan Harris, who has spent most of the day in the office of Dr Huppert-he is still here, tabling his amendments-turned up on the airwaves expounding the theory that there is no evidence of a problem, that the amendment is unnecessary as nothing needs to be fixed, that the status quo should remain and that the abortion industry should be allowed to continue under the veil of secrecy that it has.

I received a message informing me that the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon had approached the Deputy Prime Minister's office and exerted pressure. In fact, he tweeted exactly that, saying that he had applied pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, who had now forced the Prime Minister to make a climbdown. Basically, a Liberal Democrat-in fact, a former MP who lost his seat in this place-is blackmailing our Prime Minister and our Government. Our Prime Minister is being put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health Bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP, who has focused on this amendment.

The interesting thing is that ComRes polling shows that 78 % of the public support the amendment.

• Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

• Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Liberal Democrat): rose -

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know-

John Bercow (Speaker) Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but there is so much noise in the House that it is sometimes difficult to know whether somebody is seeking to intervene or standing for another purpose. Point of order, Mr Martin Horwood.

• Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse a former hon. Member of blackmail in the course of their speech? That is an accusation of a criminal offence.

John Bercow (Speaker): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My understanding at present is that there has been no breach of order. However, I would say to Nadine Dorries and to the House that temperate language, moderation and good humour are the essential features referred to in "Erskine May", and it is best if they inform our debates.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think our Prime Minister has been put in an impossible position. I want every Liberal Democrat Member to know that in the polling that was done, support for the amendment was 78% among the public, but it was highest among those who voted Liberal Democrat in the 2010 election, at 84%.

• Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): NO, NO, NO.

I think that is because Liberal Democrats traditionally support choice. Is it any wonder that the person in question is now the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon?

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole, Conservative): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): It is time to make a decision not informed by the Liberal Democrats, and without being blackmailed by a Liberal Democrat or held to ransom by the Liberal Democrats. It is time to make a decision based on our conscience. I say to hon. Members: be prepared to stand by your view today for a long time, as it will be on everyone's parliamentary record. In weighing up whether to support the amendment, Members should bear in mind the fact that 78% of the public support it. This is why we are here as Members of Parliament-to make difficult decisions such as this, not to be blackmailed or held to ransom. This is why we are MPs-because our constituents expect us to be brave. They expect us to stand up in the face of blackmail and be accountable.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole, Conservative): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): It does not happen very often in the House, but we have a conscience vote. It hardly ever happens, but we are all personally answerable for the decisions that we take. This decision is about nothing more than supporting an offer of counselling to vulnerable women who may need it and who may use it as a lifeline.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole, Conservative): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): How many times do I have to say NO to my hon. Friend?

This is about being accountable for our views, which is what Parliament is all about. I do not see why we should shy away from putting our positions on the record. If Members want to stand in the way of a woman's basic right to independent counselling, then they should vote against this proposal. However, if they want to ensure that a woman can have access to very basic support, they should vote for the amendment. It is up to them-support these reasonable measures to provide all women with independent counselling, or stand in the way of that basic support.

This vote is about women. I want every woman in this country to be able to look every MP in the eye and ask, "How did you vote for me and my daughters? What was the decision that you took?" Every MP will be accountable for that vote and that decision today.

. . • Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): I am delighted to have a chance to speak in the debate. It is tempting to respond to all the comments made by Nadine Dorries, but I shall avoid doing so. Instead, I shall make just two points.

First, let me quote something that was said by Dawn Primarolo before she became Deputy Speaker. She said of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire:

"The hon. Lady has asserted many things to be facts that are not… Some of the things that she is saying are not borne out by the evidence."-[Hansard, 20 May 2008; Vol. 476, c. 263.]

I think that that is extremely true.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): Unfortunately there is not much time, but I will give way once.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): Would the hon. Gentleman care to be absolutely specific? Will he focus on what he thinks those facts are and then give me a chance to respond?

• Julian Huppert (Cambridge, Liberal Democrat): I am afraid that there will not be time to go through all that. The hon. Lady challenged me to comment on some evidence that she had provided, and then would not allow me to do so. Dr Wollaston remarked on that.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists has clearly done a much better systematic review than the one Nadine Dorries looked at. It shows: "Where studies control for whether or not the pregnancy was planned or wanted, there is no evidence of elevated risk of mental health problems." As I have said, that is a much more detailed review.

Unfortunately, there is not sufficient time to cover all the other topics the hon. Lady would like to talk about. I congratulate her, however, as it takes a lot to unite Abortion Rights with the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, both of which oppose her amendments. The SPUC has been very clear that it cannot ask MPs to support the amendments.

Let me move on, however, and ask whether there is actually a problem that we need to address: are there too many abortions? The best way to reduce the number of abortions is by empowering individuals, by providing better access to contraception and by providing better sex and relationships education at school to both boys and girls. Are there areas where we need better advice and counselling? Absolutely, there are. People who have had a miscarriage do not get the counselling support that they desperately need. We should focus attention on that. For all the reasons that have been discussed, I urge the House to reject these amendments.

I want to speak in favour of my amendment 1252, which proposes that evidence-based advice should be given. Although the Government will not support the amendment if it is put to a vote, I was pleased to hear that they accept the principle behind it, which is that we want that expert advice. I am not a medical doctor-I am not an obstetrician or gynaecologist-but they have clearly stated what they think the best advice is, and it should be followed. We should expect all groups giving advice to live up to this high standard. Women-all people-should get proper medical advice, and it should be the best advice available. They should not be misled, and they should not have made-up risks told to them. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has excellent guidance from 2004, and all organisations should stick to it. I confirm that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes stick to that guidance, and so should all other groups.

I trust the Government when they say that they will stick to that advice-the best medical advice. I have some concerns about some of the Government's other comments however, and I hope to have a chance to talk to the Minister in greater detail, although this debate has not been the forum in which to do that. I urge the House to stand up for what it believes in, to reject the presentation we heard earlier and to reject the amendments.

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative): First, I should point out that Dr Huppert was referring to an older study.

We have heard a number of points of view. I take on board the comments of Mr Field and I appreciate the response from the Minister. She is my friend, and she has gone out of her way to understand the issue and to bring this debate to a calm and reasoned conclusion.

This debate is not just about my amendment. There are many people who support it, as I have frequently stated. [Interruption.] I have no idea why whenever I stand Chris Bryant always feels the need to continue chatting; he should just be quiet.

I heard what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, and I have listened to the Minister. Unfortunately, I am being urged by many other people, not least those who have told their stories, to go to a vote, because there are people who want a line drawn in the sand here. I shall therefore press amendment 1221 to a Division.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 1221, page 9, line 37, at end insert-

'( ) After paragraph 8 insert-

"Provision of independent information, advice and counselling services for women requesting a termination of pregnancy

8A (1) A local authority must make available to women requesting termination of pregnancy from any clinical commissioning group the option of receiving independent information, advice and counselling.

(2) In this paragraph, information, advice and counselling are independent where they are provided by either-

(a) a private body that does not itself refer, provide or have any financial interest in providing for the termination of pregnancies; or

(b) a statutory body.'.-(Nadine Dorries.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 368. Question accordingly negatived

• Full Debate in Parliament