Britain’s law on abortion, which makes it illegal to provide abortion on the basis of gender has become “meaningless”, MPs have warned, after the country’s most senior prosecutor was accused of putting doctors who agreed to arrange illegal terminations above the law.  

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, described as “very dubious” the decision overseen by his successor, Keir Starmer QC, not to charge two doctors who agreed to arrange abortions of baby girls purely because of their gender, the Daily Telegraph reports.

Meanwhile, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain’s biggest abortion provider, declared that the decision showed that terminating babies because of their gender is not necessarily a crime.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has told two doctors, who were exposed by an undercover Daily Telegraph investigation last year, that they will not be charged even though there was enough evidence, because it did not consider the issue to be in the public interest.

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, who oversees the work of the CPS, confirmed that he was in discussions to “understand the issues” leading to the decision.

It followed a request from the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for “urgent clarification” to explain why charges were not brought.

The CPS said the key reason for the decision was that the doctors would still be investigated by the General Medical Council.

But Lord Macdonald said this amounted to letting them “avoid criminal action” because of their professional status — undermining the basic principle that “everyone is equal under the law”.  

Tonight the GMC distanced itself from the CPS’s decision, insisting that, as a professional regulator, it should not be seen as a “substitute” for the criminal justice system and is not there to “punish doctors”.

Further doubt was cast over the credibility of abortion laws as the CPS issued a public explanation for its decision, arguing that it was down to doctors to “interpret the law” and that they had “wide discretion” to assess whether a termination is legal or not.

The CPS’s ruling attracted cross-party criticism. Labour’s shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, wrote to Mr Starmer calling for an urgent review of the decision.

Pro-life campaigners claimed that the uncertainty over so-called gender-selection abortion was the “tip of the iceberg” and that other limitations under the 1967 Abortion Act are being bypassed routinely.

David Burrowes, a Tory member of the all-party parliamentary Pro-Life Group, raised the issue in the Commons.

He said: “There is urgent need for a statement to clarify whether the restrictions on choice in the Abortion Act are now meaningless.”

He indicated support for plans to bring a private prosecution if the CPS does not reconsider on the basis that the evidential threshold has already been met.

Campaign groups are also taking advice on challenging the decision in the High Court through a judicial review.

Lord Macdonald indicated that such a move might succeed because there is usually a “strong public interest” in prosecuting crimes which are hard to detect, such as sex-selection abortion.

He warned that it would be a “dangerous path” to go down to allow cultural sensitivities to be a factor in a prosecuting decision, and questioned the rationale behind passing the matter to the GMC.

“It seems to me that it would be a slightly odd thesis that a professional person can avoid criminal sanction, criminal action, simply because he or she is subject to statutory regulation,” he told the BBC.

He added: “Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law and that includes, of course, professional people. Of course professional regulation is a threat, but there is no reason why people who are subject to professional regulation should thereby avoid criminal action — it is very common for both to take place together.”

Mr Starmer took the unusual step of justifying the decision personally.