(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberLet me just finish, I am just about to complete what I was going to say. I am happy to take the question.
The evidence is clear that telemedicine has reduced waiting times; enabled earlier treatment, which is a huge advantage; maintained high safety and effectiveness rates; improved privacy, which is something that most women in these circumstances really appreciate; and increased safeguarding disclosures. It expands choice and keeps women within a regulated clinical framework. That in itself is exceedingly important too.
To weaken or remove telemedical abortion would not improve safety; it would instead reduce access, delay care and create barriers for the most vulnerable women. The system works. It is safe, effective and must be maintained.
My Lords, views on both sides of the debate are sincerely held. We should all respect each other for that. We had a long debate in Committee. This is Report. Members should make their points. Repeated interventions do not help us at this stage. We need to take the temperature down. The House can make its decision known in the Division Lobbies later on.
As the noble Baroness knows, this issue has been raised over a number of weeks now, and I have met several noble Lords to discuss it. As I have said before, it is up to any noble Lord to move at any time that the House do now resume if they wish to do so. I said that I would not come back until 6 pm, but the point is that we set a target every day for Members to get to. If we get to the target, we can go home. If we get to it much earlier, we can leave earlier. The 6 pm time is a maximum—we do not have to go until 6 pm. We could get to our target and go home much earlier if we wanted to. In my discussions with colleagues, I have tried to put in place procedures to help people who need to leave for reasons such as disability or religion.
My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip has rightly pointed to the lack of progress we are making on this Bill. Part of the problem is not how much time we spend on each amendment, but the number of amendments that have been put down, which is unprecedented. I hope that those who are opposed to the Bill will accept that many of us who are in favour of it understand completely the good faith of those who are querying some aspects of it. What we are worried about is that we are not going to be able properly to consider the Bill because of the time being taken on many amendments—quite often rather absurd ones, and some of which completely repeat what has already been brought forward.
Lastly, in defence of my noble and learned friend the Bill’s sponsor, he has responded in these debates with courtesy and consideration and has taken seriously what has been said. It is very unfair to criticise him. He has also responded in a letter, as has already been stated, setting out which amendments he intends to take further and come up with a response to on Report.