[2nd Allocated Day]

I am afraid that we are an hour into an hour-and-a-half debate, and I am anxious to allow time for other Members to speak. The case that the amendment is intended to make is that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request, or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. I might say, after many years in the House, that in matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer we have almost certainly asked the wrong question. The amendment is the opposite of evidence-based policy making. We know that the British Medical Association advises its members:"““A decision to terminate a pregnancy is never an easy one. In making these decisions, patients and doctors should ensure that the decision is supported by appropriate information and counselling about the options and implications.””" We know that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidance on abortion states:"““Women should be given counselling according to their need—including post-abortion if she needs it. All women should be offered standalone counselling. The counselling should include: implications counselling (aims to enable the person concerned to understand the…course of action…); support counselling (aims to give emotional support in times of particular stress) and therapeutic counselling (aims to help people with the consequences of their decision and to help them resolve problems which may arise as a result)””." We know that Department of Health regulations state:"““Counselling must be offered to women who request or appear to need help in deciding on the management of the pregnancy or who are having difficulty in coping emotionally””." We also know that all the clinics that have been discussed in the debate are inspected and regulated. Yet the proposers of the amendment are asking us to believe, on the basis of purely anecdotal evidence, that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers involved in the 190,000 abortions a year are wilfully ignoring both the law and the guidance of the British Medical Association and the Royal Colleges. They go further than that, arguing that tens of thousands of doctors, nurses and charity workers are merely in it for the money. They imply that those men and women are involved in some sort of grotesque piecework. It is almost as though they were paid per abortion. The proposers of the amendment, I might add, also seem to be arguing that thousands of women do not actually know what they are doing. It tells us something about the validity of their claims that they are obliged to smear tens of thousands of doctors and nurses to make any kind of case. No wonder that a journalist for The Sunday Times—no friend of the liberal left, but one who happens to have served as a lay member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—last weekend described the amendments as a ““senseless and sinister bid”” to cut abortions.