Northern Ireland Assembly

4.15 pm

The right-to-choose lobby in the pro-abortion camp cannot sustain its argument if a mother's action is to kill another human being - her unborn child. The right to life cannot be replaced by the right to choose to kill. The thought of such a philosophy is absurd and revolting in the extreme.

Abortion is a war on youth. It is the wanton and deliberate killing of the youngest and most defenceless of all young people - unborn children. It is also war on women - a war that is disguised as the promotion of their rights. Abortion has devastating physical and mental effects on mothers, a condition which is now recognised as post-abortion syndrome.

When we talk of abortion we are talking about humans - unborn children. Sometimes there is an unenlightened view that an unborn child is something less than human, or subhuman. Yet a child is a living being right from the time of conception. I lament that the child in the womb is not regarded as having any rights. It is both ironic and tragic that animals which, according to the Bible, we are entitled to kill and eat are afforded greater rights and protection than human beings whom the Lord says we must not kill. The Bible, which, as a Protestant, I accept as the authoritative, infallible word of God, and which I regard as my only rule of faith and practice, teaches plainly that the unborn child is viewed by God as an individual, a human being with a soul and with all the properties that we attribute to an adult, except those of full physical and mental development. For instance, Jeremiah, the prophet, was informed by God

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

One cannot rationalise, explain away or excuse murder. It is not saintly to promote legalisation for abortion. It is more like an unblushing apology for mass murder. Greater access to abortion in our country will surely lead to a litany of broken hearts, ruined lives, butchered babies and the descent of the judgement of God. That price is too high.

I support Mr Wells's motion.

Mr J Kelly:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As has already been said, Sinn Féin has been debating this issue for many years and will continue to do so. I was struck by Dr Paisley's reasoned contribution when he said that the life of the mother comes first, and that her physical and mental circumstances should be considered. That is not far from the Sinn Féin position on this vexing and emotive issue.

A LeasCheann Comhairle. The right to life is fundamental, and debate on this matter should be approached with compassion and not with any idea of criminality. Women who find themselves in circumstances that are beyond their control should not be treated as criminals.

Compassion should underlie our views in this debate. I was apprehensive when I saw this motion put down. I am not sure whether this is a proper forum for discussing an issue that goes to the heart of our humanity, both male and female. It is an issue that questions our attitude to life in a fundamental way. It asks where life begins and when, and in what circumstances, it should be terminated. It brings into play all our emotions about life. It raises the vexed issue of the handicapped and those who are perceived to be handicapped from conception in their mother's womb. I agree with the Members who have said that one can have nothing but admiration for the way the mothers of handicapped children care for them. They did not know that their children would be handicapped, but when they found out they were able to deal with it in a humane, human and motherly fashion.

I want to take up Seamus Close's point about the medical profession. I have twin grandchildren who were born in the Antrim Hospital three months prematurely. They were smaller than the glass in my hand. For two months doctors and nurses in the maternity unit worked round the clock to preserve those two lives. That in itself was a lesson - for me and, I think, for all the rest of us - that there are people in the medical profession who are conscious of their oath to preserve, maintain and care for life. There are others who take advantage of the circumstances that women find themselves in to abuse their profession by offering abortion on demand. Alban Maginness said that this debate is about abortion on demand. I hope that that is not so. I hope that it is about our attempting to take a compassionate, longer view of this vexed issue.

We saw what happened in the Twenty-six Counties, the Free State, and the mess that it found itself in with the way in which it went about the abortion referendum after the "X" case. It still has not resolved that in spite of all the laws, the barristers, the solicitors and the doctors. It still has not found a way out of the dilemma. Abortion is an emotive issue that affects not just Ireland but England, Europe and America. We have had the contradiction of pro-life people murdering abortion supporters. That highlights the contradiction - [Interruption]

Mr Wells, your intervention -

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr J Kelly:

- almost makes me want to oppose anything you or your party colleagues have said. We are talking about an emotional situation. Let us do it in a reasoned way without your stupid and asinine interventions.

As I said, a LeasCheann Comhairle, this is an issue that has aroused emotions throughout the world. We have had pro-life people taking the lives of those they consider to be on the abortion side. Those are the contradictions and emotions that this debate can let loose. That is why I support the amendment. We should take a reasoned, compassionate and unemotional approach to the essence of life: the unborn.

Dr Birnie:

It has been stressed repeatedly that this is a very serious subject, perhaps one of the most weighty that the Assembly can consider. It is not an issue which is directly within our legislative competence, although this could change in the future. By supporting the motion and, by implication, opposing the extension of the 1967 Act provisions from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, I do not wish to demonise those who support wider access to abortion or those who have, regrettably, felt forced to have an abortion. Nevertheless, I believe that the 1967 Act, as modified in 1990, was wrong in principle for Great Britain and would also be wrong for Northern Ireland if we chose to adopt it.

There are several reasons for supporting the motion, and the first relates to the perennial question, which has been referred to several times this afternoon: when does life begin? Like many in the House I believe that a combination of the precautionary principle, that is erring on the side of caution, Judaeo-Christian tradition and the insights of modern medical science point to life's beginning at conception. Even if one does not take that view, it remains clear that the practice of the 1967 and 1990 Abortion Acts allows for the destruction of foetuses which are highly developed in human terms.

Secondly, the 1967 Act, whatever its authors intended, provides for abortion on demand. This is not a matter for controversy. Statistics indicate that, in most cases, abortions have been carried out for social and economic reasons - in many cases, for reasons of convenience.

Thirdly, despite claims to the contrary, the majority of opinion in Northern Ireland is against liberalisation of the law. This was recently confirmed in a Queen's University poll, which was published in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on 22 February 2000.

Fourthly, while there may be cases, the so-called hard cases, where abortion is the lesser of two evils, these represent only a very small percentage - perhaps up to 3% - of all abortions currently taking place in Great Britain, and existing law in Northern Ireland (and this has been referred to by other Members) permits abortion in these cases. The cry has gone up, to some degree, for clarification of the law. The same cry for clarification was also made by the principal author of the 1967 Westminster Abortion Act - David, Lord Steel.

Finally, several Members have claimed that our current position on abortion is hypocritical, that we export the problem and salve our consciences. In 1998 almost 1,600 women from Northern Ireland travelled to Great Britain to have an abortion. I regret that. There is an onus on society - particularly on those of us who oppose abortion in principle - to develop fully compassionate alternatives. This would include, for example, better counselling services. I have little doubt that if the provisions of the 1967 Act applied in Northern Ireland, the 1,600 abortions of Northern Ireland origin would be multiplied by two or three, with a consequent increase in human misery. Therefore I support the motion and reject the amendment.

4.30 pm

Mr Gallagher:

I agree with the Member who said that the debate was about a weighty and powerful issue. I welcome the debate on this issue.

The Health Committee of the Assembly can do much valuable work, particularly in those areas which deal with providing care and support for pregnant mothers. We can provide support, especially in cases where mothers experience difficult pregnancies through medical reasons, and, for example, where they suffer from poverty and inadequate resources.

However, the motion is explicit: it asks us whether or not we support the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act. Respect for life is an important principle for most of us, and for most Christians, and extends to respect for the life of the unborn. Some of the arguments that we have heard earlier today concentrated on the rights of the mother, and the danger to the physical and mental health of the mother of an unwanted pregnancy. The mother's rights must be respected and protected, and her right to life means she is entitled to any treatment necessary to protect her life, even if as a result, the foetus is lost.

However, the abortion debate is not about life-saving treatment for the mother. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported on unplanned pregnancy in 1972. Referring to the life-saving treatment, it said

"It is becoming increasingly recognised that there is no such danger of injury in the majority of these cases, as the indication is purely a social one".

The hundreds of thousands of abortions every year since the legalising of abortion are performed for what is termed social reasons. This is not to suggest that an unwanted pregnancy is a trivial matter for the mother, but her distress and her rights must be weighed against the fundamental right to life of all, including the unborn. We must remember that direct killing of the innocent is always wrong and that no motive, however good, can justify an action which, in itself, is wrong.

The figures for 1996, which are the latest available, showed the number of abortions as 177,225. Under one category - risk to life of mother - 138 abortions were carried out. Under category B, to prevent grave, permanent injury to the mother, there were 2,471 abortions. Under category F, to secure the mother's life, there were three abortions. These figures show that only a small percentage of abortions are being carried out for serious medical reasons.

An Act which was claimed to have been designed to protect mothers from backstreet abortionists, and was to be used to ensure safe abortions for mothers whose lives were endangered by pregnancy, is now interpreted in such a way as to make abortion available virtually on demand. There have been very worthwhile contributions during the past couple of hours.

We have heard references to the new beginning that we are embarking upon in this society, and it has been said that we do not have all the answers to this difficult question, that we need an inquiry. I have no difficulty with that. I have no doubt that it would be helpful.

Other Members have told us that, rather than take a vote on this today, we should take a longer view and get some clarification. However, one thing is crystal clear now: if we are serious about creating a just society, we must uphold the fundamental principle of the right to life. That means not just opposing abortion, but working to create a society in which all life is valued and in which that is reflected in how we look after the needs of the most vulnerable, especially the children and the unborn children.

Mr Poots:

This is certainly a very appropriate debate. Judging by the number of people listening to it in the Strangers' Gallery and the number of people who have put their names down to speak, it is obvious that it is a debate that touches people's deepest emotions and their feelings about how things should be done in our country.

I welcome Mr Wells's bringing this motion before the House and thank him for the way in which he moved it. I had intended to go through many of the details, but much of that has been covered already, so I will concentrate on responding to some of the points that have been raised by other Members.

First, I would like to deal with the issue of abortion on demand. People have said that, legally, we do not have abortion on demand. Well, we may not have it de jure, but we do have it de facto. The simple fact is that the 5·25 million people who had abortions in the United Kingdom over the past 33 years were not raped and their lives were not at grave risk. Many of them had an abortion because a child did not suit their social or career aspirations. A whole host of reasons, but not medical reasons, were put forward so those people could have abortions.

This is something which comes right home to me. I cannot accept that abortion is right or proper. Consider eastern Europe in the Communist era, where abortion was a common practice. In Russia, for example, 70% of pregnancies ended in abortion, and each woman had on average five abortions. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of Communism, countries such as Poland and Croatia and other parts of the former Yugoslavia have seen a fall in the number of abortions. They have more respect for life and for the life of the unborn child.

I have heard the Women's Coalition representative speak many times, particularly on the issue of child abuse, and I respect the arguments that she puts forward on that issue. She articulates them very well. However, in this situation, she is proposing the abuse of the unborn child. What choice does that child have? Pro-choice is pro-death. That may sound emotive, but it is a fact: pro-choice is pro-death. The child has no choice; he is aborted if his mother so chooses, and that is completely and utterly wrong.

Seventy per cent of children born between 20 and 25 weeks will live, given the proper care. Yet we allow those children to be aborted. Some hospitals are working to keep children alive, while other hospitals are killing them.

Whether the child is inside or outside the womb, it is still a child. I have heard different so-called women's rights activists - I question this description because 50% of the children who are aborted would have grown up to be women - saying that if a child were taken out of its mother's womb, it could not live. However, if a child were born after a full-term pregnancy and left to its own devices at the age of one day, two days, a week, or a month, it could not live. It needs the care of an adult, preferably its mother and father. So that argument cannot be sustained.

I am more concerned about the lives of the children than anything else. The one exception is that the mother's life must come first, but this is already allowed for in law. If we were to introduce the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland, the child's life would become of little or no consequence.

Medical evidence has proven that abortion increases the chance of breast cancer by 50%. This is another issue that presents a clear problem for women, and yet we have women's activists promoting abortion, something that will eventually lead to more women dying of breast cancer. Women must look at this issue realistically and act in their best interests as well as those of the children.

The good Protestants, Roman Catholics and dissenters in the Assembly will back the motion because it is one that protects life and the right to life. Some of those who are opposed to the motion were happy enough to be the apologists for murder in our Province over the past number of years, and so it is not surprising that they are content to allow unborn children to be murdered. The use of the word "murder" in this situation may sound like emotive language, but that is what it is. The child is sucked out of the mother's womb against its will, it is dismembered and destroyed. Surely that child has a right to life.

I have heard the arguments about aborting children with mental handicaps. I have a brother who is severely mentally handicapped, and I never once heard my mother say that she wished she did not have him. Many of us can benefit from having a child who has a form of handicap, and it is wrong that that child's life should be destroyed because of it.

Mr Bradley:

I agree with the belief from teachings, expressed by so many Members today, that human life must be recognised and respected from conception. The right to life must not be denied to those unable to defend themselves or to those yet unable to make a case for being allowed to live. Is it not a contradiction for some to champion the cause of civil and human rights 99% of the time and then, conveniently, switch to defend the denial of life to a human yet unborn?

In supporting the motion, I endorse the belief that abortion must never be used as a means of birth control or as a measure to deny life to a child created by God - the same God that most of us believe in and follow in a variety of ways. I have demonstrated respect for life throughout my political career, and I am pleased to be given the opportunity, through Mr Wells's motion, to continue to do so.

Mr Berry:

It is with great pleasure that I support this motion, and I commend my Colleague Mr Jim Wells for tabling it.

4.45 pm

The motion raises many important issues. It is not about rights. That is the lie constantly pedalled by pro-abortionists. The reality that they prefer not to consider is that what they want aborted is a person. They reject that principle and refuse to use the terms child, baby, or unborn baby. They begin by denigrating the unborn baby, slandering it and calling it names to make abortion more acceptable. By reducing the unborn baby to nothing more than the equivalent of a boil, they hope to remove the shock and vileness of what they are advocating.

Even Claire Rayner agrees that abortion is messy, distressing, bad and difficult, which explains postabortion syndrome. By reducing the unborn to a thing, pro-abortionists can salve their consciences. It is not an issue of religious prejudice over freedom, as pro-abortionists would like. They must begin by rejecting the fundamental principles of Christianity. They deny that God has set down principles by which we should live. It is not simply an issue of Christian principle versus nothing. Pro-abortionists have a religious dogma - a hatred of certainty, a hatred of the law of God, and a hatred of the image of God, which is the religious philosophy of Christianity.

Pro-abortionists like to remind us of how many women have to travel to England to seek abortions. They fail to point out that the overwhelming bulk of abortions are for purely social reasons. Very few are because the mother's life is at risk. The issue is about cramping women's personal style. It is about their perceived loss of freedom to do all the things that they want. They see the child as an enemy who must be eliminated. That is why they have abortions. Pro-abortionists want the rest of society to participate in public wickedness. They deliberately fail to acknowledge that by insisting on legalising abortion, they want everyone else to support sin.

The obligates of abortion want the opportunity to practise their vileness, not abroad, but at home at our front door. This is a moral issue of great magnitude. Abortion is but a step to other issues. The pro-abortionists conveniently ignore the hard facts about what happens next. They ignore the fact that the arguments that they use in support of abortion are the same as those used to justify infanticide.

This issue is not about confusion in our law. Pro-abortionists like to pretend that the current legislation is very confusing and that no one is sure of the correct position, not even doctors. That is what pro-abortionists would like us to believe, but it is because the law is clear that they say that, and that is nothing more than a red herring. Were the law to allow abortion on demand, which is the reality in England, they would not have had to falsify the position deliberately. The law is quite simple. There are circumstances when abortion is allowed, and circumstances when it is not.

The pro-abortionists have led a very dirty campaign. One old chestnut, which has succeeded in the past, is about the danger of back-street abortions. They claimed that mothers wanted abortions so badly that they went to the back streets and then died. Pro-abortionists wanted to paint a picture of unrelieved blackness. It is a known fact that in this country, very few back-streets abortions are carried out. Since 1967 scores of women have died, and women are continuing to die every week as a result of legalised abortion.

The pro-abortionists do not want to mention that cost because their real goal is to have a service with only one purpose, and that is to make sure that their lives are not hampered in any way. They are purely selfless and their reasons are social ones.

I am glad to listen to the Chairman and members of the Health Committee. I have had the pleasure of working with them in Committee meetings. I support the motion and I am glad that they also support it. I do not support the amendment. Certainly, I would welcome it in the future, as the Chairman, Dr Hendron, has said, if the matter were to be raised at the Health Committee - and that is the place where it should be raised. It is also very important that the Assembly send out a clear message that it supports the motion put forward by Mr Wells. I am glad that we are speaking for the motion, and I support all the people who have spoken in favour of it today.

Mr Morrow:

I support the motion. If we are guided by the principle that the right to life is sacred, the only conclusion we can reach is to support the motion. There have been some excellent contributions to the debate, although I doubt if any surpassed that of Mr Close. It was an excellent speech, and I want to congratulate him publicly on it. It is regrettable that Mr Kelly of Sinn Feín decided to criticise that speech. Such criticism is very much misplaced indeed, and I say well done to Mr Close.

Those who declared that they would not be supporting the motion, without exception, only considered the rights of the mother. No mention, or indeed very little mention, was made of the rights of the unborn child.

It is a fact of life that if what is done to the child in the mother's womb were to be done to the same child in an incubator, a charge of murder would be considered and in most cases a prosecution would be brought. It is also a fact that where abortion is legal, violence against children is greater. Where human life is afforded less respect than many forms of animal life, the rights of children always suffer.

If every unborn child could be asked, before it was aborted, "Do you wish to live or die?" could we as an Assembly assume what the overwhelmingly response would be? I have no doubt that the answer would be a resounding "Yes, I want to live." There must be something tragically wrong with a society that will, on the one hand, say that it is all right to kill an unborn child but, on the other hand, boldly declare that it is wrong to have capital punishment for those who commit murder. That demands some explanation. Many people raise their voices in protest and their hands in horror at what they call blood sports, or experimentation on live animals, and at the same time condone a strong lobby for the killing of the unborn children by the million.

We are talking about humans today. We are talking about unborn children. I understand that the baby's heart is already beating 23 days after conception. As early as two months after conception the baby can grab an instrument in its palm and after nine weeks it can suck its thumb. After three months the baby can kick its legs and feet. It has its own fingerprints - very significant because fingerprints are what distinguish us, one from another. It starts to breathe through the umbilical cord. It has already reached a stage where it is perfectly formed, where it has its own personality, yet under the Abortion Act 1967 that little human being can be destroyed.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Someone described the unborn child as history's most pitiful victim. My party leader today posed the question: who will speak out in defence of the child? I trust that the Assembly will speak out today and that it will have to be said that the majority of Members were prepared to vote in favour of defending those who cannot defend themselves.

Society is often judged by how it treats its old and aged. It is also judged by how it treats its young and very young. In this case it will be judged by how it treats its unborn. I trust that today the Assembly will rise up in defence of those who are in no position to defend themselves. I fully support the motion.

Mr Attwood:

I did not intend to contribute to this debate. The last time I spoke on this issue was at the thirteenth Annual Conference of the SDLP, which was a long time ago. The contribution I made at that time is basically the same as the one I want to make now.

When Dr Hendron replied to the debate which Jim Wells opened, he stated the SDLP's policy on abortion. Its policy is to oppose it. It is also to understand the social, economic and personal circumstances that give rise to women choosing an option that most in our society do not agree with - abortion. That is the policy of the SDLP, crafted 13 years ago, and that remains its policy. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged.

This issue is very often debated in an extremist and emotional manner. My sense is that this debate, which I have not heard in full, has not been characterised in that way. In the South of Ireland, a place for which I have a great deal of affection, debate on this matter over the last decade or so has often been characterised not only by deep emotional commitment but also by extremist language and behaviour.

It is a credit to the Assembly, and may be, to a degree, a reflection of the responsibility in the wider society, that this debate has not been similarly characterised. It is also extremely healthy that a number of Members have said that whatever their views on this motion or the amendment, they have a responsibility to go back to this issue in its wider context in the Committee. That is a positive reflection upon everybody in this Chamber. Whatever our differences are on this issue - and there may not be many - there is a wider social, community and personal context that has to be addressed if it is to be more properly understood and managed by us as politicians and by the wider society.

In a previous public role I had some involvement with people who were opting for abortion. It was easy neither for those people nor for those of us who had some degree of responsibility in that context.

5.00 pm

The thing that struck me about those women who considered the option of abortion was that they were not selfish, but rather deeply confused and unhappy with the circumstances that had arisen. It was not disrespect for life that led them to choose abortion, but the unhappy and difficult personal circumstances in which they found themselves.

When we deal with this issue we have to acknowledge that, while there are people and societies that choose abortion as a form of contraception, the vast majority of women choose abortion, even if my party and I disagree with that option, in circumstances characterised by their unhappiness and confusion and by the difficulty of the circumstances in which they find themselves. While I have a moral and personal view, I find it difficult to make a judgement about their situations because their circumstances are so difficult that I cannot conceive of them, and I shall never have to.

I hope that when this matter goes to the Committee it will begin to look at the personal, social, economic and cultural reasons for abortions' being an option for so many people on this island and elsewhere. I refer to cultural issues because our society has developed to the point where consumerism and self-interest rather than a sense of collective responsibility and responsibility to the vulnerable often define our culture. This has led to abortions' becoming an option and, very often, an easy option for people, and when our culture and values have changed so much that an option of that nature is easily adopted, the issue is much more profound than the circumstances in which these women find themselves.

I also hope that the personal, social and economic issues that have given rise to this culture and this option are more fully explored, for if our young people are not adequately aware of birth control and the need for individuals to take responsibility, they may also behave in an irresponsible manner.

Unless pregnant women are given every reasonable support, be it financial, psychological or emotional, and especially where circumstances are particularly difficult - where the pregnancy is unwanted, or the mother is alone - we will create the circumstances in which they will opt for abortion. They will not opt for life and for bringing up their children in circumstances that are best for all unless we create those circumstances.

Mr Shannon:

The most basic of all human rights is the right to life. No amount of argument, discussion, debate or analysis could ever undermine that fact. In the huge majority of cases, this assertion can be applied without any further thought or question. While I believe that abortion represents a moral issue, I must also emphasise that the wish to prevent birth for purely selfish reasons, such as merely not wanting a child, is in no way, shape or form an acceptable reason for terminating a pregnancy.

There is no way in which the reasons for an individual's wish to terminate her pregnancy can be standard. Because there can be no defined basis upon which any blanket decision can be made, we can do one of two things.

First, we could apply a rule across the board that in no circumstances, irrespective of the implications of the decision, should anyone be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy. What then do you say to an individual who has been the victim of incest, or to an individual who, through an act of violence, has been condemned to have the child of the man who forced himself on her? How does one justify the emotional pain and suffering inflicted on an individual in these circumstances if she does not have the right to prevent the birth of a child conceived as a result of violent sexual assault?

Mr Wells:

This is a debate on the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act. The areas that the Member is talking about are already covered by legislation that exists in Northern Ireland. The motion is to prevent abortion on demand from coming to Northern Ireland. There is already provision for dealing with these very difficult cases to which the Member refers.

Mr Shannon:

I thank the Member for his intervention. The issue has to be raised because it is an important one for those people, who may be a minority, who have had to deal with it. I am against this Abortion Act's being extended to Northern Ireland. I stated that at the beginning, but this is an issue which does cause some concern. If these circumstances are covered by present legislation, that is to be welcomed.

We must also look at the problems facing the ladies to whom this has happened. The act of conception was unnatural and unwarranted. It represents a gross infringement of their rights. How do we justify a situation where a woman who, at the end of her tether and with nowhere to turn, takes her own life as a direct result of being unable to terminate her pregnancy? If we can ensure, under present legislation, that such a lady can terminate her pregnancy, that is to be welcomed. I would be glad to have that assurance.

I intended to ask the Member if he would clarify that in his summing up, but he has done that already. If even one life is lost because of legislation, or rather because of a lack of it, the system needs to be addressed.

The onus and obligation on us are to those whose circumstances are genuine and honest. Therefore, being committed to the principle of maintaining human life from the moral standpoint, we must support the rights and prevent the suffering of the unborn child. I do not believe that, as elected representatives, we have any other choice in this unfortunate matter.

Ms McWilliams:

This has been a very thorough debate this afternoon. Our amendment contains the words "and related issues". Given the nature of the debate, we believe that "related issues" need to be discussed. Either Members understand the current situation or they do not. Some Members appear to misunderstand it, and other Members suggest that while they have great difficulties with the issue, in certain circumstances they can understand why terminations take place. That is why it is extremely important for us to refer the matter to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee.

Mr Alban Maginness was concerned that a call for an inquiry might be a call for abortion on demand. I assure the Member that that is not the case. When people in the Republic of Ireland made a decision to have a commission on the issue, they were not calling for that. They were calling for an inquiry that would call for opinions from a whole range of medical experts, health professionals, those in education and women themselves. This is an educational issue as well as a health issue. Mr Wells talked about putting an amendment down to his motion, through another Member. His motion is inadequate and needs amendment.

The Northern Ireland Act 1998 refers to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, covering issues such as human genetics, surrogacy and xenotransplantation which have not been discussed in this debate. The Committee on Health, Social Services and Public Safety needs to consider these issues. If we leave it to jurisprudence or to the development of technology, we will be in serious trouble. We will be surpassed and will have to come back to make even more difficult decisions. It is much better to understand the current situation and to find out where Northern Ireland is getting into difficulties.

I say to Members such as Mr Alban Maginness that had he not entered politics he might have gone to the Bench. He could have been in the same position as one of the judges who had to rule in the case of a minor who was raped. What would he have done in that case? I refer too to the term "diminished mental competence", which was another case that came before a court. I ask Mr Jim Wells this question: if he had not gone into urban planning, but had gone into law instead, what would he have done in that case? We need to review these issues because such cases are coming to the courts. It is not to the courts that we should be looking to on health issues. Mental health, non-consensual sex, rape and incest matters, which are not covered under our current legislation, are being ruled on, case by case, in the courts.

Ethics of care should be our approach. Members said that we need to look at the rights of the child, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. Members should understand that we are talking about the principle of consent. Non-consent is a very serious issue. Any Assembly in the world should understand the principle of consent, and this Assembly has had more opinions on that than any other.

Some of the language used today was judgemental. My colleague may have left many women psychologically damaged. I am not sure whether he meant to do that with his reference to murderers, criminals and enemies. There are many women who have had terminations as a result of medical decisions. To refer to them in that way does them an extreme disservice after what has already happened to them, and it may further traumatise them. We need the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee to tackle this issue. I can understand why people become emotive.

We need to hear from those working in neonatology, paediatrics and obstetrics. Visits should be made to both the Royal and the Mater Hospitals. When the Royal presented its case on the maternity services debate between the City and the Royal, it brought all its figures and statistics. It was very clear that there are terminations for foetal abnormality. Such decisions are made every day. Members of the Committee should make such visits to keep themselves informed of the situation.

I am glad that other Members, such as Mr Attwood, talked about the unhappiness and the confusion. It is clear that the Committee could have considered the issue of teenage pregnancies or the care for a mother who chooses to keep her child. Services here are inadequate. It is still the case that both the mother and the pregnancy have been exported, because we have not dealt with this in the proper manner.

5.15 pm

Last night I came from a meeting in London of women parliamentarians from around the world. One was from Kuwait. When asked what it was like for women in their parliament, she said that there were none. We said that obviously that must be difficult. She then said that women are not even allowed to vote in Kuwait. It has been decided that they are not competent to make a voting decision. That is not what we are saying here. We should have referred this issue to the Committee. I hope Members will vote for the amendment. We want to look at the competence of the doctors and of those who are making these decisions, whether they be on foetal abnormality, rape or incest, which, as I said earlier, is currently against the law in Northern Ireland, and the other issues that come before us.

I am grateful to Dr McGleenan of the law department at Queen's University for some information. He notes that there is a great deal of misinformation about the reasons for abortions, particularly in Great Britain. Members may not be aware that abortion after rape and incest is also illegal in Great Britain. That is why Members quoted figures today that put those into other categories: that category does not exist. The situation in Northern Ireland is different. That is why we need this debate about the period of time during which terminations can take place.

No one wants the 1967 Abortion Act transported to Northern Ireland - that is not what I heard in the debate. What I heard was that people want the circumstances and the situation of Northern Ireland to be considered. When we look at that, we need to look at everything that is happening, or not happening, and the difficulties that we face because no decent consideration has been given to this discussion.

Dr Hendron raised the issue - again, our Committee would probably have been the appropriate place to discuss this - of the psychiatric evidence from those who have had terminations and those who have chosen not to do so. That was the issue in the Republic - the "X" case, in which the woman was attempting suicide - which eventually led to an explosion of debate. We said that we would not set up the Assembly to make policy or legislation on the back of tragedies. Make sure that we do not do that and refer this to the Committee.

Mr Wells:

I thank everyone who took part in the debate. Some Members must have written notes containing phrases like "a heated irrational debate full of venom", and then forgotten to delete them when they came to speak. I must have been in a different Chamber, because I did not detect that. I heard a reasonably well-balanced, rational debate, which covered the plethora of public opinion on this difficult issue.

Mr Close's contribution was one of the best I have ever heard in the Chamber, and I have been here longer than some. It was excellent, and far outstripped his contribution to the previous debate in 1984, which I read closely in case he attempted to repeat it today. I was also pleased with the support I received from Dr Birnie, who made a sensible and balanced contribution.

I was delighted with the contribution from Mr A Maginness. I noticed that the clock stopped on several occasions; I wish it had stopped for him and allowed him to continue, because he made some excellent points. I appreciate the wide-ranging support that the motion received. The debate was conducted in good humour and good spirit.

We need to remind Members again about the nature of this motion. It is the recognition of our opposition to the extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland. Quite clearly the 1967 Act has led to abortion on demand in the rest of the United Kingdom. The only Member who dared to suggest otherwise was Mrs Bell. How anyone can interpret 5·3 million abortions as being anything other than abortion on demand defeats me. Eighty-five per cent of the consultants dealing with abortions admit that their hospital has an abortion-on-demand policy. How can anyone claim that there is not abortion on demand in Great Britain? I cannot understand that point of view.

The excesses of the Abortion Act have resulted in huge numbers of people being in a position to demand the termination of their pregnancy, after the most cursory examination of the situation. We do not want that excess imposed in Northern Ireland. Many Members - Mr Morrow and Mr Close in particular - raised the issue of when life starts. Those who spoke against the motion did not question the fact that life begins at conception. The more that we learn about medical science and the complexities of life, the clearer it is becoming that life starts at conception. Children born early, for example, at 30 weeks would have died almost immediately in the past. As a result of medical science increasingly younger lives are now being preserved after premature birth.

Ms McWilliams:

Can the Member make a distinction between the point of conception and the point where a mother's life is at risk? Clearly, the situation is that a termination is performed for an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a pregnancy develops in the fallopian tube. Does the Member accept that while there has been a point of conception, this situation carries an enormous risk for the mother? Would he accept that in this case termination is an acceptable alternative?

Mr Wells:

Dr Paisley put the case extremely well. This debate is not designed to stop abortion when the mother's life is genuinely at risk. It is designed to prevent the excesses of the 1967 Act. As I said earlier, only 0·004% of all terminations under the 1967 Act - 212 cases - were carried out for that reason. That leaves 5,299,980 abortions carried out for other reasons. It is no good putting up straw men. The argument today is whether, as a society, we want the excesses of the 1967 Act, which applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, imposed on us.

Ms McWilliams:

Will the Member accept that maternal mortality is minimal today and that most cases are not recorded as such? They are recorded under other categories, which means that the argument about the minimal number of cases where the mother is at risk is not substantiated. Terminations are listed under headings such as blighted ovum, ectopic pregnancy, and so forth. Currently that is the case in all maternity hospitals in Northern Ireland.

Mr Wells:

I would prefer to give way to people other than Ms McWilliams from now on. She has had more than adequate opportunity to comment.

The situation is that 98·65% of pregnancies terminated in Great Britain are carried out for social purposes, because of a perceived risk to the mental or physical well-being of the mother. This loophole in the law has effectively led to abortion on demand. The only person who disputed this was Mrs Bell.

Mrs Bell:

I wonder how Mr Wells can claim that every termination is a result of abortion on demand. There is no way he can say that.

Mr Wells:

The point I was making is that when 85% of gynaecologists say that there is abortion on demand, I accept their point of view. This is not just my opinion. Effectively, that is what is happening.

I accept that the Northern Ireland legislation is dated. There are those who have cast aspersions on it because it is based on the Offences against the Person Act 1861. However, even though that legislation is cloudy, ambiguous and dated, it has prevented abortion on demand in Northern Ireland.

I am deeply suspicious of those who demand clarification of the present situation in Northern Ireland. Those demands are exactly the same as those that were made in 1966 by David Steel when he was pushing through his Act. His so-called clarification opened the floodgates to abortion on demand throughout Great Britain.

Ms Morrice:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Wells:

Once only.

Ms Morrice:

It is my perception that all the interventions this afternoon from women Assembly Members have either been in favour of our amendment or against the motion. I would like the Member to comment on that.

Mr Wells:

I can assure Members that had the hon Member for Strangford, Mrs Robinson, not been unwell, she would have been here to support my motion fully. As Dr McCrea said earlier, I resent the view that because I am only the father of three children, rather than the mother, I have no right to have a say on this issue. Like Mr Bradley, another Member for South Down, I represent the overwhelming majority view of the people of South Down on this issue. If the letters and phone calls that I have received since this matter became public are anything to go by, I can walk down the main street of Kilkeel, Ballynahinch or Mayobridge - well, perhaps not Mayobridge [Laughter] - or Rathfriland with my head held high.

The case for the Women's Coalition amendment has been very ably put by both its Members. I believe they are deeply split on this issue and do not want to face up to it. They should, like my party, have a free vote. We can vote according to our consciences, and I hope that the same applies to other parties.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Does the Member agree that one of the faults with the Women's Coalition amendment is that, despite all its pleadings today about its concern for this issue, its member on the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has, since the Committee's inception, failed to bring this matter before it? She has failed to make it a matter of public concern and failed to generate debate about it. Fortunately the motion before the House today does so.

Ms McWilliams:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member does not know what has taken place on the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and, therefore, could not possibly make an accurate statement. In fact, it is inaccurate.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you give me a ruling on whether that was a point of order?

Mr Speaker:

The Speaker does not have to make a ruling in that regard. I am not sure of the facts of the situation, and it seems to me that others are not clear about them either.

Dr Hendron:

As Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee I can say that the issue of pro-life or abortion has not been a subject for discussion by the Committee. I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that it has never been raised at some time under any other business, along with other matters, but it has certainly not been a subject for discussion.

Ms McWilliams:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to put on record that we had the gynaecologists and obstetricians from the Royal and City Hospitals in front of us, and the facts and issues of what takes place in the Royal were placed before us for discussion.

Mr Speaker:

A completely extraneous debate is beginning to develop during the winding-up speech on a motion that has been under debate for some three and a half hours. It is best to proceed to the completion of the winding-up speech, which has only a few minutes left. If anyone returns to this debate I will rule that he desist and that the winding-up speech be completed.

5.30 pm

Mr Wells:

I thank the hon Member for North Antrim for his very useful intervention. I would have thought that had this been a really burning issue for the Members from the Women's Coalition, they would have initiated a debate on the Floor of the Assembly by putting down a motion themselves. I notice that - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker:

Order. I have already advised the Member, and he has proclaimed to the Assembly his vast experience in the Chamber. He will therefore know that what he is doing is verging on contempt of the Chair, and he should desist. Please continue with your winding-up speech, Mr Wells.

Mr Wells:

I accept your advice entirely, Mr Speaker.

The other major plank of the Women's Coalition argument is that a four-hour debate on this subject is totally inadequate. The whole issue regarding the outworkings of the 1967 Abortion Act has to be one of the most debated issues ever, both in Parliament and among the public throughout the United Kingdom. There is no new information available. What can the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee possibly do in the six months within which it has promised to complete a report? It is quite clear that all the material, all the statistics and all the information that we need to come to a conclusion on this subject have been available for many years and have been well and truly debated.

I was very impressed this evening by the number of Members who have clearly researched this issue, looked at the statistics and provided reasoned, rational argument. I cannot see what the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee can do to change minds on it. We are well and truly educated about the matter and aware of what is going on. The Women's Coalition wants to hive this issue off into oblivion in the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee in the hope that it will never return.

Why am I insisting that the Assembly come to some decision on this vital issue tonight? In Westminster there is a very active lobby group called Voice for Choice which is seeking to impose the 1967 Abortion Act on this community. I have a leaked document from Voice for Choice, which is supported by 68 MPs. It contains these words:

"to allow abortion on request in the first three months of pregnancy . to place a duty on doctors to declare a conscientious objection to abortion, and refer a woman immediately to another doctor who does not share that view . to extend the amended Act to Northern Ireland."

At present there is pressure in Westminster to extend the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland and Dr Mowlam mentioned that. The last point Dr Mowlam made before she left Northern Ireland was that she wished she had found the time to extend the amended 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. We must send out this evening a very clear, cross-community message - supported by different parties with different viewpoints - that the people of Northern Ireland totally resist any extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to this community. The way to stop that happening, to put the brakes on this process, is to have a massive vote tonight in favour of my motion. I ask Members to reject the amendment and vote to stop abortion on demand in the Province.

I will finish with this. In the time that this debate has taken, 72 more children have been aborted in Great Britain under the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act. That must never happen in this part of the United Kingdom.

5.45 pm

Question put That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 15; Noes 43.

AYES

Gerry Adams, Eileen Bell, David Ervine, Michelle Gildernew, Billy Hutchinson, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O'Hagan, Sue Ramsey.

NOES

Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Arthur Doherty, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, Oliver Gibson, Denis Haughey, William Hay, Joe Hendron, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Alban Maginness, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Maurice Morrow, Danny O'Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, John Tierney, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Cedric Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly is opposed to the extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.

Adjourned at 5.45 pm.

<< Prev