Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Edward Leigh and Luciana Berger

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

The impassioned speeches that we have heard in this debate are testament to what a sensitive and complex matter this is. New clause 1 would amend the Abortion Act 1967 and proposes that a pregnancy could not

“be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

New clause 25 would require a review of the evidence relating to abortion on the grounds of gender alone and for this to be followed by a strategic Government plan that addresses concerns about the prevalence of termination on the grounds of the sex of the foetus in England, Scotland and Wales.

I am in favour of new clause 25 as the best way to address concerns about sex-selective abortions. Outwardly, the intentions behind new clause 1 might seem reasonable. However, a wide range of well-respected organisations and experts have raised concerns, pointing out a number of unintended and troubling consequences. The organisations include the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Medical Association, the TUC, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, Genetic Alliance UK, Imkaan and the Southall Black Sisters, among many others.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Luciana Berger]

I am going to continue because we have a lot to get through and many Members wish to speak.

New clause 1 represents a significant departure from the current principles on which abortion law in this country is based. Given that this is a matter of huge significance, the new clause deserves fuller debate and scrutiny than we have the opportunity for in the remaining 24 minutes of this debate.

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy simply because the foetus one is carrying is not the sex one wishes for is a notion that most people find abhorrent. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) confirmed, sex-selective abortion is already illegal under the Abortion Act 1967.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[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—

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

Debate between Edward Leigh and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Luciana Berger]

I am going to make some progress, because I am conscious—referring back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—that we have limited time and many Back Benchers wish to contribute.

It is important to note that the use of these techniques will not be rushed into lightly if Parliament does pass them today, and specialist clinicians will then have to obtain a licence from the HFEA to use the techniques. We heard last night that this will only be in centres of excellence, and the HFEA will consider applications on a case-by-case basis.

We have heard concerns in previous debates that allowing mitochondrial donation is a dangerous road to start down, and that it could potentially lead to designer babies and parents being able to select the physical characteristics of their children. But we have also heard in the public debate that these fears do not take into account the fact that these regulations are very specific and cover only mitochondrial DNA, not the nuclear DNA that determine our physical characteristics. The legislation only permits the use of these techniques in the clearly defined situation of incurable mitochondrial disorders.

The fact that these techniques apply only to the mitochondrial DNA and not to nuclear DNA should provide further reassurance to those Members concerned that this process would result in “three-parent babies.” As we have heard, mitochondrial DNA only controls mitochondrial function and energy production. Importantly, nuclear DNA, which makes us who we are and determines appearance and personality, will not be altered by the techniques that we are discussing today.

The regulations clarify that a mitochondrial donor is not to be treated as a parent, by contrast with the legal position for sperm and egg donors, who are treated as people who would, or might, be the legal parent of a child born from their donation.

There are questions around the safety of these techniques. As we have heard, this technique has received unprecedented scrutiny by the HFEA’s specially convened expert scientific review panel. However, it is possible that side effects could emerge over time and scientists have acknowledged that there would always have to be a “leap of faith” the first time the technique is used in humans.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On the question of safety, does the hon. Lady not consider it significant that the Food and Drug Administration in the United States said that it was not clear that the scientific procedures were effective and safe? The FDA, of course, refused to allow the use of Thalidomide while we did, and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Luciana Berger]

I understand that the FDA has written to the British press in the course of the last week to contradict that position. There is a very different political situation in the US, and there is a very different set-up there in terms of the FDA compared with here and what we are discussing today.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Luciana Berger

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support the Government’s gradualist and sensible approach and I urge the Minister to resist new clause 3. We all regret and are desperately unhappy about vicious attacks by dogs, particularly on children—although also on anybody else—and if legislation could solve that problem and new clause 3 could deal with it without causing massive potential inconvenience to millions of peaceable people who own dogs, I would be in favour of it. However, like all such amendments, it would probably, sadly, do little to control the vicious people who use dogs as weapons and it could impact severely on millions of ordinary, peaceable dog owners.

I declare an interest because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a dog owner. My dog, a little border terrier called William, is a lot smaller than yours. I saw yours in the Westminster dog show last year and many people think that your breed of dog is quite powerful, but I know from having witnessed your dog that it is well brought up and peaceable.

Let us be sensible about this. I know that new clause 3 is well intentioned, but it could have draconian effects. All it states is:

“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control”.

It requires a reasonable belief—that is not probability. We all know that there are disputes between neighbours, or that people have rows with other people. That is such a small bar to get over for an “authorised officer”.

[Luciana Berger]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better not give way, because I do not want Mr Deputy Speaker to set his dogs of war on me. I shall be very brief and will not take any interventions.

Let me make a simple point. Who is this “authorised officer”? What is this “reasonable cause”? Simply because that officer of the state has some sort of belief, which might have been motivated by other people, the dog might have to be muzzled, neutered or prevented from going in particular places. I am very worried about that.

I am also very worried about the other amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was talking about 14-year sentences. It was in the papers last year that somebody had driven their car dangerously and killed somebody while they were looking at their global positioning system device. They did not look out of the window for 18 seconds and they killed a cyclist, and they went to prison for three years. We all think that is ridiculous. Are we really going to send someone to prison for 14 years for this offence?

Let us be honest about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be guard dogs. Even my pathetic little border terrier, William, barks when people come up the garden path. That is what dogs are bred to do. All this nonsense about Liberal party canvassers who are scared of getting their fingers bitten when they put a leaflet through the door—I have delivered thousands of useless Conservative party pamphlets through the door. When I see a dog behind the door, I am delighted not to put the pamphlet through the letterbox. Just show some common sense. Dogs are dogs. We cannot change dogs with legislation.

New clause 3 is just one extra bit of legislation that will not impact on the people who really cause trouble, but will, as I said, impact on millions of dog owners. We should be calm, take a gradualist approach and support what the Government are doing.