Crustaceans have more statutory protection under UK law than unborn children. That was the message to the House of Lords from pro-life Conservative Peer Lord Daniel Moylan as he introduced the Foetal Sentience Committee Bill for its Second Reading on Friday, 22 March. In what at times threatened to become a bad-tempered debate, Lord Moylan described his Bill as a modest proposal to establish a committee of specialists to examine the latest scientific evidence relating to foetal sentience. The committee, he stressed, would be formed of independent experts selected by the Secretary of State for Health but capable of providing impartial advice to the government.

Legal protections for lobsters

Citing the precedent of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which was established to consider the question of sentience and its implications for the treatment of animals, Lord Moylan reminded his colleagues that that Act “declares mammals and certain categories of shellfish to be sentient. I would be surprised if my noble friend the Minister wanted to say that a human foetus should be denied the same esteem as a lobster, but in fact, that is the current position. We have legal protections for lobsters and decapod crustaceans …as well as all mammals, but we have no view, let alone protection, for the human foetus.”

Although the Bill makes no reference to abortion, Baroness Helena Kennedy responded to Lord Moylan’s speech by launching into a vitriolic attack on the UK’s pro-life movement. “Dark money,” she claimed, “has surged into the United Kingdom’s anti-abortion groups in recent years. We should be concerned about overseas political influence inside our country. Sadly, many far-right organisations are being funded by such sources. Shadowy funds whose sources are obscured or not fully disclosed play an alarming part in enabling think tanks and far-right political groups to distort our politics.”

Intervening during the outburst, Lord Moylan asked Baroness Kennedy to clarify that she was not accusing him of receiving so-called “dark money”. She responded with “I am perfectly happy to say that some innocent dupes are used by some of the organisations funded in this way.”

Commenting on the exchange, Conservative Lord Jackson of Peterborough said: “I had hoped that we would restrict our debate to empirical evidence on the merits of this modest Bill, rather than hear smears about right-wing dark money and conspiracies.”

Then added “…if the noble Baroness satisfactorily answers my question about the involvement of Marie Stopes International and BPAS in the RCOG [Royal Colleague of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist] I will gladly debate with her on the issues that she raises.”

Liberal Democrat Peer Baroness Barker denounced the Bill as “part of a far wider anti-gender, anti-LGBT attack on human rights.”

No Government backing

While there was sufficient support for the Bill to proceed to its Committee Stage, Lord Markham, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care made it clear that it would not have the backing of the Government.

Disappointed by this decision Lord Moylan concluded the debate by saying that the Government was rejecting an opportunity to make policy-making more robust and evidence-based.

“The Minister said, in effect, that the Government’s view was that crustaceans deserve higher esteem and regard than the human foetus. Neither position, in my view, is sustainable,” he said.