UK Parliament and abortion

It has been intriguing following the media debate surrounding the pro-abortion amendments proposed to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that is to get its third reading in the House of Commons today.

At the weekend there was the "trading" of multiply signed letters in The Times. The first in the print edition and on-line editions for last Friday argued for change in the abortion law. The second appeared in the on-line edition for Saturday - I do not know if it also appeared in the print edition - arguing that the question should not be reduced to one of choice only and that there were important moral issues that were also relevant, such as the protection in law that should be given to the child before birth. There was an intriguing mix of names on the latter letter.

Then the London Evening Standard carried a report headlined "Harman to scrap vote on abortion law reform". This reported the intention of the Leader of the Commons to table a motion that would limit the time available for the third reading of the Bill, effectively making it highly unlikely that there will be time to take and debate the pro-abortion amendments that have been tabled. "Not the right time" and "not the right vehicle" were referred to as explanations for this decision. But the report also included the following, attributed to "government sources", in respect of fears that the House of Lords would subsequently vote in pro-life amendments:

If we open this up in the Commons then the Lords will try to do the same - and we can't be certain how things will go in the Lords ...At the end of the day this is a Bill about embryology, not abortion.

And when this was reported on the Today programme, BBC Radio 4's flagship morning current affairs programme, the rumour was of a deal being struck with the MP's bringing forward the pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill so that Government time will be made available for a Private Members Bill on the subject in two years time. The original Abortion Act in 1967 went through because the Government at the time allowed Government time so that the Bill could complete its stages in Parliament - without that Government time, it would not have had sufficient time to get through. Deja vu, in style.

But two years time is after the next General Election. The complexion of the House of Commons could be rather different by then, though inlikely to be thoroughly pro-life, and reform of the House of Lords might have been further progressed to reduce the chances of them interfering with pro-abortion legislation.

I am intrigued, though, by the following two thoughts, and their implications for the balance of power within the Labour party with regard to abortion:

1. Is the Labour government trying to go in to the next general election with a "neutral" history on abortion law reform, whereas if it had allowed the amendments to the HFE Bill to go through (on a government Bill, with a government whip), it would have been justifiably labelled as being a pro-abortion government?

2. Is the Private Members Bill, that is allowed Government time for completion, a way of supporting abortion "at a distance", whilst somewhat unconvincingly trying to claim neutrality on the subject?

PS. John Smeaton has posted on the part played by politicians from Northern Ireland in these developments.