Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Luciana Berger

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not going to take his intervention.

The Government, along with the chief medical officer, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives, have said that abortions carried out on the sole premise of foetal sex are illegal. As we have heard, updated guidance and instructions to doctors published within the past 12 months have clarified this. All independent sector providers have also agreed to follow the revised guidance as part of their licensing agreements. Let me be clear: we do not need new clause 1 to make sex-selective abortion illegal. However, it is right that we should send a strong message from this Parliament that gender-selective abortions are wrong. We can do that today by requiring the Government to carry out a thorough assessment and produce an action plan to address the root causes of this practice. That is what new clause 25 would do.

The change to the law proposed in new clause 1 would not only fail to address the root issues that lie behind the problem but have serious unintended consequences. I listened closely to the hon. Member for Congleton and to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I point to the text of new clause 1, which it is worth reading out:

“Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

It says that nothing is to be so interpreted, so that includes medical grounds, the well-being of the mother, and gender-specific abnormalities. At best, this would create uncertainty and doubt for doctors who administer abortions in these situations and a legal grey area for women who are already facing a very difficult decision. I heard the former Attorney-General’s intervention, but I have listened to many legal experts who have written on the pages of many papers—

[Mr Grieve]

I appreciate that there may be policy arguments and all sorts of good arguments to make, but it is simply incorrect to argue that the new clause would have the consequences that have been claimed of preventing, for example, abortion from taking place where, because of the gender, there was a likelihood of disability. The Minister confirmed that. She was a bit hesitant about it, but she eventually did so when I intervened on her, so I repeat her assurance. My view is that this argument is completely groundless.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, but, as we have heard, many legal experts dispute that position. I refer to the specific text of the new clause, which says nothing about, and is in direct conflict with, paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1) of the Abortion Act.

The Genetic Alliance has said that

“the consequences of this amendment could be devastating to women and couples at risk of having a child affected by a serious x-linked condition.”

I have heard from one family where two sisters were carriers of x-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, a disease that affects only boys. After years of thinking, one sister decided not to have any children, because she did not want to risk the chance of having to choose between having a very poorly son or a termination. Her sister decided—also after many years of consideration—to have children and went on to have three healthy daughters. Those were the choices that those women made after much consideration and deliberation with their families. How can Parliament take that decision away from them? I am sure that no one would wish to deprive their daughter, sister or partner of that choice. It is surely not for Parliament to rush this through in the short time available and deny families the opportunity to have children or a healthy baby.

Another serious concern is that new clause 1 is not just a clarification of the law, but a fundamental reform of the essential principles on which existing abortion law in this country been based for 47 years. The Abortion Act 1967 places the physical and mental health of the woman as the overriding concern of a doctor authorising abortion. Our current legislation refers to the foetus rather than the unborn child. That is because, across our legislation and common law, children are accorded a wide range of protections and rights that Parliament has previously agreed should not be accorded to the foetus.

Changing the language of the Abortion Act, as this new clause would do, would send a very different signal to the courts and open up different judicial interpretations of abortion or new consequences and restrictions that would go far beyond the issue of sex selection. For the first time since legislation in 1929, new clause 1, if passed, could afford the foetus rights that would be in conflict with those of the mother and it could seriously jeopardise the future of safe, legal abortion in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Deferred prosecution arrangements can apply only in the case of corporate bodies.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the need for further legislation to address economic crime.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I hold regular meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office where we discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including the need for further legislation to address economic crime, such as on deferred prosecution agreements.

[Luciana Berger]

I wonder whether the Attorney-General has read the speech given by the director of the Serious Fraud Office, Richard Alderman, to University college London? In that speech he said:

“One suggestion that I have is whether the time has come for us to recognise that recklessly running a financial institution may be a ground for criminal liability.”?

Does the Attorney-General agree with him?

[The Attorney-General]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, under the Bribery Act 2010, for example, the reckless running of a financial institution can already constitute a criminal offence. Whether that should be extended further in respect of corporations is a matter that the Government would have to consider carefully, as would the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the position. The provision of specialist co-ordinators and rape prosecutors, the issuing of stalking guidance and the effective monitoring of the measures we have put in place will continue. As I said in answer to the earlier question, the evidence suggests that the good work done by the previous Government is being successfully continued. I want to emphasise that both in terms of the volume of prosecutions and their success rate.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What priorities the Crown Prosecution Service has set during the comprehensive spending review period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I have regular discussions with the DPP on a range of criminal matters. Domestic violence is a serious crime, which has real and lasting effects on the victim, their children, their wider family and society as a whole. I support the work undertaken by the CPS with other agencies to improve the way in which prosecutions are conducted and victims are treated in such cases.

[Luciana Berger]

How will the CPS prosecute domestic violence cases in the approximately 10 areas where proposed court closures include specialist domestic violence courts?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue, of which we are extremely mindful. Work is currently taking place within the court estate rationalisation programme, working in conjunction with the domestic violence national steering group, to issue guidance in those areas where provision may be affected. The detail of that will be finalised once the decisions and announcements are made. The CPS is absolutely determined to maintain the current quality of provision.