CAROLINE FLINT MP, MR HUGH WHITTALL AND MR TED WEBB

12 JULY 2006

  Q100  Bob Spink: Minister, you will be aware that in the run-up to the last election all three party leaders, including the Prime Minister, said that it was time to review the maximum limit for abortions and that should be done. Are you aware of that?

  Caroline Flint: All the Prime Minister said was it was parliamentary practice for proposals for a change in the law to be brought forward by backbenchers and decisions are made from the basis of that.

  Q101  Bob Spink: He said that he would favour a review of the change.

  Caroline Flint: I think he was asked what he thought about Lord Steel's comment. He said: "It is a matter of free vote of conscience on both sides of the House. If it is cited that evidence has shifted it would be sensible to take that into account". What I am saying to the Committee is evidence has not been brought forward by the organisations.

  Q102  Bob Spink: Minister, you have said that three times.

  Caroline Flint: The scientific evidence has not been brought forward by those professional bodies that last time round did bring it forward and asked for work in this area to look at new evidence. If the scientific evidence has not been brought forward then there is no reason for us to change our view.

  Q103  Bob Spink: We heard that, that is the third time. Are you aware of the MORI research which showed that nine in 10 MPs felt that a review of the evidence was appropriate now?

  Caroline Flint: As I said before, Parliament does allow backbenchers to bring forward bills as and when they might if they want to, and that is something which is open to any Member of Parliament.

  Q104  Bob Spink: Are you aware of a change in public perception on the matter of timings for abortions? Have you seen the 4D images of children at 18 weeks, 20 weeks and 24 weeks?

  Caroline Flint: I think some of the 4D images are at 12 weeks, so we need to be clear about some of that. We also have to be clear that clearly abortion for some people is a wrong at any time and, therefore, the context of some of this debate, I think it is fair to say, shows a number of issues around people's views on the totality of abortion, not just in relation to this.

  Q105  Bob Spink: Are you aware of the change in public opinion as a result of those images being made available?

  Caroline Flint: Again, in terms of public opinion, when images are presented it is also important to know what information is being given to the public about those images and what they represent. Certainly in some of the depictions of those images that I have seen they have not always been presented in as straightforward a way and an informing a way as I think is relevant to those images. Clearly what we need to get across more is the fact that there are very few abortions at this time. There are particular reasons why women in these circumstances—

  Q106  Bob Spink: Can you say how many thousand abortions are taking place at 24 weeks or after?

  Caroline Flint: A hundred, 120. I will give you the figures, but I think we are talking about 124. A fraction.

  Chairman: All that is available on the BMA website. You are saying that in this issue Parliament should not be involved nor should the public? You do not take into account what parliamentarians feel and you do not take into account what the public feel?

  Q107  Bob Spink: Or your party leader?

  Caroline Flint: What the Prime Minister said was that if the scientific evidence is there, bring it forward. It has not been brought forward to our Department to suggest there should be a change. If parliamentarians wish to raise this issue, the Prime Minister said it was customary that it was a matter for backbenchers to bring these issues forward and find the time and space within the parliamentary calendar to do that.

  Q108  Chairman: With respect, they cannot bring forward the scientific evidence. All this Committee called for, and indeed the predecessor committee called for, was simply a review of the evidence. If the review of the evidence backs up the position that you are taking, clearly there is at least a body of evidence on which people can have an informed debate. You are saying you will reject that as a proposal?

  Caroline Flint: What I am rejecting is the sense that there is scientific evidence being brought forward which suggests there should be a change in the time limits.

  Q109  Chairman: But you will not test that thesis?

  Caroline Flint: That, to our information and our advice, is not the case. Clearly Parliament, in terms of individual backbenchers and select committees, can decide what they want to do.

  Q110  Dr Harris: You talk about the BMA but do you not think you are being a little selective because the BMA strongly argued against the removal of donor anonymity, yet you ignore that. The BMA does not oppose a review, as the Chairman said, it does not call for a reduction, and you say we rely on the BMA? How are we to judge in which circumstances medical opinion counts for anything and therefore is it not just politics because people are choosing?

  Caroline Flint: I think they are slightly different, with respect. The donor anonymity issue was something which was not about scientific evidence changing per se but was much more about a judgment probably from the BMA's point of view, without trying to second guess them because I was not party at that time as the minister in the Department, about the issues around would this lead to a shortage of donors. I think that is somewhat different from a situation where previously when the legislation was last changed organisations like the BMA and others were coming forward to say, "Look, we have looked at the survival rates of children born at 24 weeks plus. We are able to tell you scientifically about the survival rates but also the probability of serious disability or impairment". That is slightly different from your example of donor anonymity. All I can say to the Committee is certainly in the last year in this job I have not had that sort of suggestion from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to suggest that somehow in the intervening years foetus development has changed in such a way that the percentages—and I do not like to talk about percentages necessarily—have changed dramatically. We know that from the number of neonatal babies who survive in these early 20 weeks as opposed to those over 24, which obviously goes up dramatically and gets better.

  Q111  Dr Harris: The Select Committee recommendations were not just about time limits, they were about general updates to legislation, some stemming from 1967, for example around the need for two doctors' signatures or where abortions could take place. If the BMA, on the same basis, argue that it is now time—in the interest of recognising that things have changed, medical, science and social—to have easier access to early abortion in respect of some of those provisions, because we are not at 1967 anymore, and we do not need to have special specific named places, would the Government recognise that was an argument to look at whether the 1967 Act should be changed in that respect?

  Caroline Flint: Again, I think that would be an issue which has traditionally been raised by Parliament. What I would say on access to earlier abortions, that is something we have taken seriously as a Department. I am really pleased to say that the latest data for 2005 shows that in terms of increase to early access 64% of NHS funded abortions took place at under 10 weeks and that was compared with 51% in 2002.

  Q112  Dr Harris: It is much higher in other countries, is it not? It would be a good thing if we could do that compared with later on?

  Caroline Flint: The parameters of the legislation are something that, people may disagree, are felt should be rightly dealt with in terms of backbencher legislation. What we are trying to do in relation to access to abortion is certainly increase the numbers who get access under 10 weeks and certainly under 13 weeks as well. That is why we have got the PCT with a performance indicator in this area to improve it. We can do that and we are getting on with that.

  Q113  Dr Harris: I understand that point, but it was not quite my question. My last question is how, if you bring forward a HFEA amendment Act, which is what is likely to happen if you are going to make any of these legislative changes, are you going to prevent the backbencher putting in an amendment to section 37 of that Act which deals with time limits? Are you able to prevent that? If so, would it not be a better idea to have a review to inform the debate?

  Mr Webb: Our legal advice on section 37 is that the amendment to the Abortion Act is a spent provision as far as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is concerned.

  Q114  Dr Harris: In other words, it cannot be amended?

  Caroline Flint: Yes.

  Q115  Dr Harris: My other question is 37(3) talks about the power to approve a class of places for abortion. That would enable family planning clinics to be able to carry out early medical abortion, improve access, reduce costs, reduce suffering and trauma to women. That has never been used. Is there a reason why we have 16 year old legislation to make access to abortion at an early stage rather than a later stage easier which has never, as far as I know, been used?

  Caroline Flint: We are looking at some issues around settings, if that is the point.

  Q116  Dr Harris: Yes.

  Caroline Flint: I am sure you appreciate that there are some issues around safety which we have to work through but it is something we are looking at in the Department with some nurses, doctors and others as to whether there are some settings that could be in line with the law but might be appropriate.

  Chairman: On that note, can I thank our witnesses. I am sorry we have not heard from you, Hugh, but I am sure you had lots of wisdom to give the Committee. We would like an understanding of what "spent" means; we would like a definition of that. Minister, thank you very much indeed for coming to this session.