A proposed law on the reporting of complications from abortions in England has been branded a “back door to try and limit” access to terminations using “statistical jiggery pokery”.

The private member’s Bill, put forward by Conservative peer Lord Moylan, would require the Government to publish an annual report containing certain data relating to abortion complications.

In the Bill’s second reading, Lord Moylan argued that the current reporting of data on complications is incomplete, as it does not always include patients that present to hospital, their GP or 111 further down the line.

However, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Scriven argued that imperfect data reporting is not limited to abortions, but is actually a problem across healthcare as a whole.

This Bill is a backdoor attempt to try and limit abortion in this country using statistical jiggery pokery as a smokescreen to do that

He asked: “So why just pick out one of thousands of poor and conflicting data of treatments within our healthcare system?”

The Liberal Democrat healthcare spokesman said: “This Bill is a backdoor attempt to try and limit abortion in this country using statistical jiggery pokery as a smokescreen to do that.

“I’m sorry, this just won’t wash.

“The real motives need to be exposed.”

Tory peer Baroness Sugg added that, while access to information is important to make informed choices, singling out abortion risks stigmatising it further.

She said: “Unlike other medical procedures, abortion would be singled out for mandatory complication reporting and no other procedure is subject to this.

“Doing so for abortion could create a false impression that it is uniquely dangerous and, in reality, complications from abortion are rare…

“By treating it differently, it could be that we do add this stigma and do think it’s important to consider this in the context of the current politicisation of the abortion debate around the world.”

She added: “Many women, especially those facing domestic violence or reproductive coercion, may not want their procedure recorded and confidentiality is crucial for safety.

“A lack of privacy could deter women from seeking care, putting them at greater risk.”

Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Barker claimed that the the Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill is “a really insidious part” of an international campaign aiming to “destroy human rights”.

She said this campaign is anti-LGBT rights, anti-state sex and relationships education, anti-surrogacy and anti-abortion and that it aims to “restore the natural order, a selective reading of an interpretation of biblical order”.

Lady Barker, who is the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health, went on to say that the Bill is about “challenging the medical evidence that doesn’t suit their campaign objectives”.

She insisted she is “in favour of the collection and improvement of data”, but is not in favour of the “corruption of medical science by the production of data for a purpose”.

Another Liberal Democrat peer, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, added: “It’s taken centuries to get to a place where backstreet abortions are a thing of the past in this country and I don’t wish to see us make any move that makes us arrive at a place of less safety.”

However, Conservative peer Baroness Lawlor argued that more information is necessarily better.

She said: “I am a great supporter of patient empowerment and one sure way to give patients power is to arm them with knowledge and the medical options available to them.”

The Bill, which is not supported by the Tory frontbench, was also rejected by the Government.

What is so strange about the advocates of choice here in this debate is that they are so defensive, they speak as though they are surrounded by conspiracy - I actually don't think they are

Health minister Baroness Merron argued that legislation is not needed because there are “other reasonable processes in place” to collect health data and that an annual report is not a good use of resources.

She said: “This is an unnecessary process, mechanisms do already exist, it will not add to patient safety and it is therefore not appropriate to legislate further.”

Lord Moylan hit back at criticism of the Bill, branding Lord Scriven’s accusation a “conspiracy theory” and said Baroness Barker “lives in a world I simply don’t recognise”.

He added: “What is so strange about the advocates of choice here in this debate is that they are so defensive, they speak as though they are surrounded by conspiracy – I actually don’t think they are.”