Health and Care Bill — After Clause 148 — Permitted Locations for Abortion Treatment — 30 Mar 2022 at 17:11

The majority of MPs voted to permit drug-mediated abortion, up-to ten weeks into a pregnancy, without requiring an in-person consultation with a registered medical practitioner, and to permit the drugs to be taken at home.

The majority of MPs voted to permit the required consultation with a registered medical professional to take place in person, by telephone or by electronic means.

MPs were considering the Health and Care Bill.[1][2][3]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • Amendment (a) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 92.

Lords amendment 92 began:[4]

  • Insert the following new Clause—
  • Permitted locations for abortion treatment
  • (1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
  • (2) In subsection 1(3) after the first “section” insert “, or section 1A of this Act”.
  • (3) After section 1 insert—
  • 1A Approved places
  • (1) The home of a registered medical practitioner is approved as a class of place for treatment for the termination of pregnancy for the purposes only of prescribing the medicines known as Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be used in treatment carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).
  • (2) The home of a pregnant woman who is undergoing treatment for the purposes of termination of her pregnancy is approved as a class of place where the treatment for termination of pregnancy may be carried out where that treatment is carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).
  • (3) The treatment must be carried out in the following manner—
  • (a) the pregnant woman has—
  • (i) attended an approved place,
  • (ii) had a consultation with an approved place via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means, or
  • (iii) had a consultation with a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means; and
  • (b) the pregnant woman is prescribed Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be taken for the purposes of the termination of her pregnancy and the gestation of the pregnancy has not exceeded nine weeks and six days at the time the Mifepristone is taken

Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments state:[5]

  • Lords Amendment 92 would insert a new clause ('Medical Termination of Pregnancy') into the Bill, which would amend the Abortion Act 1967 to allow the medication for early medical abortion to take place in the home (in England) of the pregnant woman where the pregnancy has not exceeded 10 weeks. It would also permit registered medical practitioners to prescribe the medication for early medical abortion from their homes (in England). This would maintain the existing provisions of at-home early medical abortion following a telephone or video consultation with a clinician, which were adopted in March 2020.

Amendment (a) which was supported by a majority of MPs in this vote stated:[6]

  • Page 127, line 39, at end insert the following new Clause—
  • Early medical termination of pregnancy
  • (1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
  • (2) In subsection (3), for “subsection” substitute “subsections (3B) to”.
  • (3) In subsection (3A)—
  • (a) the words from “includes” to the end become paragraph (a);
  • (b) after that paragraph insert—
  • “(b) is not limited by subsections (3C) and (3D).”
  • (4) After subsection (3A) insert—
  • “(3B) Subsections (3C) and (3D) apply where—
  • (a) the treatment referred to in subsection (3) consists of the prescription and administration of medicine, and
  • (b) the registered medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that, if the medicine is administered in accordance with their instructions, the pregnancy will not exceed ten weeks at the time when the medicine is administered (or in the case of a course of medicine, when the first medicine in the course is administered).
  • (3C) If the usual place of residence of the registered medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy is in England or Wales, the medicine may be prescribed from that place by the registered medical practitioner.
  • (3D) If the pregnant woman’s usual place of residence is in England or Wales and she has had a consultation (in person, by telephone or by electronic means) with a registered medical practitioner, registered nurse or registered midwife about the termination of the pregnancy, the medicine may be self-administered by the pregnant woman at that place.””

Amendment (a) appears to seek the same aim as Lords amendment 92, however it does not refer to any specific drugs, and has different wording in-respect of the 10 week limit.

This appears to be a case of the Government accepting the principle of an amendment but placing it its own words before approving it. Indeed the minister speaking to explain amendment (a) prior to the vote stated it was intended as a "legally robust amendment in lieu" to "achieve the intended purpose of" amendment 92.[7]

It is important context that MPs had already rejected Lords amendment 92 prior to this vote, so the vote was on if to permit drug-mediated abortion, up-to ten weeks into a pregnancy, without requiring an in-person visit to a clinic. The vote was not to decide between the two versions of the provision, but on if to have the provision at all. The consequence of amendment (a) not being supported would have been to require those seeking a drug-mediated abortion, up-to ten weeks into a pregnancy, after 29 August 2022, to have an in-person consultation with a registered medical professional at a hospital or clinic and, if prescribed, and wishing to take, drugs to effect an abortion, to be required to take the first course of those drugs at the hospital or clinic.[8][9][10][11][12].

--

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance1 00100.0%
Con69 172 (+2 tell)368.0%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green1 00100.0%
Independent2 0040.0%
Lab125 (+2 tell) 4065.5%
LDem10 1084.6%
PC3 00100.0%
SDLP1 0050.0%
Total:212 184367.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by vote

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Victoria AtkinsLouth and HorncastleCon (front bench)aye
Siobhan BaillieStroudCon (front bench)aye
Aaron BellNewcastle-under-LymeCon (front bench)aye
Paul BeresfordMole ValleyConaye
Crispin BluntReigateConaye
Peter BottomleyWorthing WestCon (front bench)aye
Rob ButlerAylesburyCon (front bench)aye
Greg ClarkTunbridge WellsCon (front bench)aye
Theo ClarkeStaffordCon (front bench)aye
Chris ClarksonHeywood and MiddletonCon (front bench)aye
Geoffrey Clifton-BrownThe CotswoldsCon (front bench)aye
Elliot ColburnCarshalton and WallingtonCon (front bench)aye
Claire CoutinhoEast SurreyConaye
Dehenna DavisonBishop AucklandCon (front bench)aye
Caroline DinenageGosportCon (front bench)aye
Jonathan DjanoglyHuntingdonConaye
James DuddridgeRochford and Southend EastConaye
Mark EastwoodDewsburyConaye
Ruth EdwardsRushcliffeConaye
Luke EvansBosworthCon (front bench)aye
Ben EverittMilton Keynes NorthCon (front bench)aye
Michael FabricantLichfieldCon (front bench)aye
Laura FarrisNewburyCon (front bench)aye
Anna FirthSouthend WestCon (front bench)aye
Katherine FletcherSouth RibbleCon (front bench)aye
Vicky FordChelmsfordCon (front bench)aye
Mark GarnierWyre ForestCon (front bench)aye
Richard GrahamGloucesterCon (front bench)aye
Robert HalfonHarlowCon (front bench)aye
Luke HallThornbury and YateConaye
Trudy HarrisonCopelandCon (front bench)aye
Richard HoldenNorth West DurhamCon (front bench)aye
Kevin HollinrakeThirsk and MaltonCon (front bench)aye
Paul HolmesEastleighCon (front bench)aye
John HowellHenleyConaye
Robert JenrickNewarkConaye
Andrew JonesHarrogate and KnaresboroughCon (front bench)aye
Fay JonesBrecon and RadnorshireCon (front bench)aye
Alicia KearnsRutland and MeltonCon (front bench)aye
Robert LarganHigh PeakCon (front bench)aye
Brandon LewisGreat YarmouthCon (front bench)aye
Kit MalthouseNorth West HampshireCon (front bench)aye
Anthony MangnallTotnesCon (front bench)aye
Theresa MayMaidenheadConaye
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConaye
Johnny MercerPlymouth, Moor ViewCon (front bench)aye
Huw MerrimanBexhill and BattleCon (front bench)aye
Maria MillerBasingstokeCon (front bench)aye
Nigel MillsAmber ValleyCon (front bench)aye
Penny MordauntPortsmouth NorthCon (front bench)aye
Jill MortimerHartlepoolConaye
Holly Mumby-CroftScunthorpeConaye
Caroline NokesRomsey and Southampton NorthCon (front bench)aye
Jesse NormanHereford and South HerefordshireConaye
John PenroseWeston-Super-MareConaye
Chris PhilpCroydon SouthCon (front bench)aye
Angela RichardsonGuildfordCon (front bench)aye
Grant ShappsWelwyn HatfieldCon (front bench)aye
Alec ShelbrookeElmet and RothwellConaye
Chris SkidmoreKingswoodConaye
Julian SmithSkipton and RiponConaye
Mark SpencerSherwoodCon (front bench)aye
Laura TrottSevenoaksCon (front bench)aye
Shailesh VaraNorth West CambridgeshireCon (front bench)aye
Jamie WallisBridgendCon (front bench)aye
Matt WarmanBoston and SkegnessConaye
Giles WatlingClactonCon (front bench)aye
Helen WhatelyFaversham and Mid KentCon (front bench)aye
Gavin WilliamsonSouth StaffordshireConaye
Tim FarronWestmorland and LonsdaleLDem (front bench)no
Mary GlindonNorth TynesideLab (minister)no
Meg HillierHackney South and ShoreditchLab (minister)no
Kate HollernBlackburnLab (minister)no
Rachael MaskellYork CentralLab (minister)no
Felicity BuchanKensingtonCon (front bench)both
Rehman ChishtiGillingham and RainhamConboth
Suzanne WebbStourbridgeCon (front bench)both

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive