At its meeting in May, the Synod sent an Appeal and Protest regarding the Abortion Act to Government ministers. The Clerk has received the following reply from the Scottish Home and Health Department of date 15th June and it is reproduced here for the interest of readers of the magazine
Dear Mr MacLean,
I have been asked to reply to the letters of 31 May which you sent to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, enclosing a Protest and Appeal prepared by the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in relation to the Abortion Act 1967.
The Ministers concerned are aware that you will be writing with the Scottish position particularly in mind, though the substance of Synod’s observations relate to an Act which, as you may know, applies in its present form throughout Great Britain.
Following expressions of public concern about the working of the Abortion Act after it had been in operation for a very few years, the then Government decided in 1971 to establish a committee to review the operation of the Act. This committee, chaired by Mrs Justice Lane, reported in April 1974. In February 1975 a Bill in the name of Mr James White, which provided for certain restrictions in abortion practice, had its second reading in the House of Commons. The House decided that any requirements for new legislation in this field following the Lane Committee Report should be considered by a Parliamentary Select Committee.
The Select Committee established in the same sessions as a result of this decision produced a report which recommended a series of measures designed to improve the operation of the 1967 Act, none of which in fact required legislative change. These recommendations were fully accepted by the Government and action to implement them has been taken for the most part in Scotland as in other parts of Great Britain. A further report by the Select Committee following its re-establishment aroused controversy because of the resignation of some of the members and this report was not debated. In the following session Parliament had before it Mr William Benyon’s Bill, which would also have reduced the circumstances in which abortions could be carried out, but which failed to progress beyond Standing Committee because of lack of parliamentary time.
In relation to all three Private Member’s Bills (and Sir Bernard Braine’s Bill in the present session) the Government has maintained an attitude of neutrality, in accordance with its view that in respect of the main elements of the law regulating this subject, Members should be free to vote according to conscience. It is seen as a necessary part of such neutrality that assistance should not be given to a measure which favours one side or other in the argument for changes in abortion law and for which no clear consensus is seen to exist.
I am asked to assure the Synod that the Government is very much aware of the sincerely held views of those who are opposed to the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 (and the views of those who feel that these provisions are unduly restrictive) and fully accepts that fundamental moral issues are involved in the surrounding controversy. It is for the reasons that the Secretary of State, along with his Government colleague continues to adopt a broadly neutral attitude to the question of future legislation.
The account of events since 1974 serves to indicate the very extensive consideration which has been given by Parliament to the law on abortion over the past few years. Against this background I am sure that Synod will see the very severe difficulties of the proposal made for repeal of the present law on the initiative of the Government. I appreciate that this reply may not give the satisfaction required by the Petition but I can assure Synod that the matter has received the very close attention of the Secretary of State as the Government Minister responsible for the law of abortion in Scotland. — Yours sincerely,
D. A. Bennet.