Sir John Hayes and Andrew Rosindell: There’s a hidden partisanship in changes to the law on birth and death, and we Conservatives should fight them

Sir John Hayes is a former Home Office Minister and MP for South Holland and The Deepings. Andrew Rosindell has been Member of Parliament for Romford since 2001.

The week commencing 16th June brought some of the darkest days in recent parliamentary memory.

Deeply troubling for those of us who hold fast to the belief in the sanctity of human life, first came an amendment that effectively legalises DIY abortions of viable babies up to birth – deceptively pushed through the Commons by Labour zealots. Then, just three days later, by a much narrower margin, the Commons passed Kim Leadbeater’s flawed Bill to establish what may fairly be described as a state backed legalised suicide.

It is difficult to imagine a more harrowing week for vulnerable people, whose lives will be endangered by those who doubtless, describe themselves as compassionate. It is hard to think of a week that better illustrates the pitfalls and risks of Labour’s huge majority in the Commons. For, although such matters are subject to a ‘free vote’, in practice a House that is less conservative is likely to make acutely radical decisions without care.

Labour MPs of bygone times like Jim Dobbin and Rob Flello stood as staunch advocates for the vulnerable on matters of life and death and there remain many noble souls in today’s Labour and Liberal Democrat ranks, notably Dame Meg Hillier and Tim Farron. Nevertheless, self-righteous uncompromising social ‘progressives’, like those MPs who forced through these recent extremes, have shifted the dial in their party and Parliament.

The consequences of these votes are profound. In his legal advice to our colleague Sir Edward Leigh, the distinguished KC Stephen Rose made it clear that the direct effect of Tonia Antoniazzi’s abortion amendment would be to remove legal protections entirely, making it lawful for a woman to carry out her own abortion “at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth.” It is inevitable that tragic cases will come to light. The lives of unborn babies will be lost – at late stages of gestation, and consequently, deeply vulnerable women will be made more so.

These women, told this change was introduced on their behalf, will discover, too late, that it has placed them in harm’s way. The doctrine that has driven this change is one which tolerates no restraint – a dogma that regards the unchecked expansion of abortion as a goal to be pursued at any cost. When questioned on Times Radio whether she would be comfortable with the termination of a baby at 35, 36, or even 37 weeks, outrageously, Tonia Antoniazzi answered that she would.

There is no public mandate for such radical policy.

Recent polling shows that just 3 per cent of women support abortion up to birth and it featured in no party’s manifesto. The UK’s abortion law was already among the most permissive in Europe (where a 12-week limit is typical, as opposed to our 24). And yet, after a debate lasting a mere two hours, we are now on course to leave Britain at the bottom of the list of countries that protect unborn life.

As if that were not enough, within three days came the passage of a dangerous assisted suicide Bill. This legislation places vulnerable people at significant risk. No major disability advocacy group in the UK supports it and several of the influential Royal Colleges have voiced serious reservations – despite the fact that at least two of them are notionally neutral on the principle of assisted suicide.

Although there was a marked decline in support between Second and Third Readings – with the Bill’s majority falling by 58 per cent, from 55 to 23 – and notwithstanding the opposition of 160 Labour MPs, the Bill still squeezed through, once more, largely on the back of Labour and Liberal Democrat support, along with a handful of renegade Conservatives.

The battle is not yet lost. The House of Lords remains well within its constitutional right not only to amend this legislation, but to vote it down entirely. After all this is a Private Members’ Bill passed by a narrow Commons majority. What’s more it was included in no party’s manifesto, so the Salisbury Convention does not apply. On that basis, the Lords are not only permitted, but arguably are duty-bound to reject what they judge to be unworkable or socially harmful.

In these dark days a shaft of light brings reason for hope for rarely has the Conservative Party shown such unity in votes on issues of this kind. On the abortion amendment, only four Conservative MPs took the alarming decision to support abortion up to birth. Our party leader, Kemi Badenoch, issued a powerful and principled statement after the vote, clearly articulating her strong opposition to these extreme proposals.

Similarly, on the matter of assisted suicide, just 17 per cent of Conservative MPs supported the flawed and dangerous Bill, and again, Kemi Badenoch was forthright in her opposition.

But we must now go further.

The issues of abortion and euthanasia have long been considered ‘matters of conscience matters’ – in other words subjects on which individual MPs are free to make personal decisions, unconstrained by a party line.

Ultimately, however, it is the Government’s responsibility to deliver a system that works.  Future Ministers, not past Parliaments, will be judged when things go wrong or when safeguards fail. And, as a party, we aspire to govern.

In doing so it will be our responsibility, as a Government which aims to shape Britain’s future, to ensure that we protect the vulnerable and guard against abuses.

We already know, from experience elsewhere, that these laws are not safe. We can be certain that they will lead to avoidable tragedies because the deficiencies are inherent in the legislation.  Accordingly, we know that ignoring these rapid and rash attempts to change the law are neither clever nor wise.

We cannot, in good conscience, wash our hands of these ramifications. The Conservative Party must not merely observe Labour’s reckless progressivism; we must crusade against it.

If we, as Conservatives, are serious about forming the next Government, then we must unequivocally pledge to repeal and replace these misguided laws at the earliest opportunity.