Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 424 seeks to remove Clause 208. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, this clause passed the Commons without any evidence, scrutiny, public consultation or impact assessment, although it is momentous. It is a radical proposal with implications for the mental and physical health of the woman and lethal consequences for the viable unborn child. Clause 208 would allow mothers to self-administer the abortion of their unborn child for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy right up to full term. This is not just its consequential effect; it is its intended effect. The clause states:

“For the purposes of the law related to abortion … no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”.


The unborn child, in many cases more developed than those successfully looked after in premature baby units, would have no legal protection. As my honourable friend Julia Lopez said in the other place:

“This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/06/25; col. 330.]


This in part was a reference to the fact that a woman may be coerced into having an illegal abortion at home. The law as it stands—

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, if Clause 208 became law, abortion law would continue to apply to doctors and healthcare professionals and they would still be subject to time limits and all other aspects of the current abortion law?

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

Dr Alison Wright, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, has written to Peers protesting that women may continue to face police investigations and criminal charges solely for ending their own pregnancy unless this clause is supported. She, speaking on behalf of the college, makes no distinction whatever between the abortion of a viable child at full term and a first-trimester termination. Indeed, the infant who without the intervention of lethal drugs would be fully a living person at that stage, if born, is completely unmentioned. It is as if this is unmentionable. Dr Wright describes the women concerned as being at the most vulnerable times in their lives. That may be true, but the most vulnerable and defenceless person here is the unborn viable child. Obviously, it is deeply distressing, as we have heard, for the mother to be questioned by the police in the aftermath of an illegal abortion. This should be done with compassion and sensitivity, but the police cannot act as if nothing has happened.

Clause 208 also endangers women by removing the current legal deterrent against administering an abortion away from a clinical setting right up to birth. Women may be incentivised to perform their own life-threatening abortion late in pregnancy. This is particularly the case given how easily women can obtain abortion pills through the pills by post scheme, beyond the legal limit and without a reliable gestational age check. These pills are not meant to be used after the 10th week of pregnancy for a very good reason. I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 425 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which would reinstate mandatory in-person medical consultations and abolish the pills by post scheme, which was started during Covid lockdowns and should have been rescinded after the pandemic, as was originally intended.

More than 1,000 medical professionals have written to us opposing Clause 208, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, former president of the British Medical Association, for her support for my amendment. One letter I received pointed out that—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Baroness refers to 1,000 doctors writing, but is she aware that the British Medical Association has sent briefings to Members in support of the Bill as it now stands and that it alone represents more than 200,000 doctors?

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

The British Medical Association is a trade union, not a royal college.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I am very sorry—I have to carry on or I am going to run out of time. This is Report and I am going to continue.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled not to take any interventions. We will make better progress if people just agree to take interventions or not, and then we will be able to hear from everyone.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

One letter I received pointed out that 22 week-plus babies aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanised prior to surgery with a lethal injection into the heart. What would happen, she asked in her letter, to babies aborted at home and born alive? Would the baby be left to die? How would the baby be disposed of? Would the mother be charged with infanticide?

Clause 208, as confirmed by a legal opinion obtained by the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh, in the other place, would also make it legal for a woman to perform her own abortion on sex-selective grounds at any time. Data from NHS England shows that there is already an imbalance in the sex of children among certain communities that cannot be explained by pure chance. Do the proposers of this clause want to further facilitate what has been called femicide?

Let me be clear about what Clause 208 does not do. It does not, despite the claims of its promoters, leave the current law intact. If the 24-week limit can no longer be defended when women induce their own abortions, and they can obtain pills through the post via a phone call, the limit set by Parliament in 1990 is rendered meaningless. The reason why it was then lowered from 28 weeks was precisely because of concerns about the termination of viable children.

The most basic justification for all abortions is that the unborn child in question is unwanted. The slogan is that every child should be a wanted child, but we all know that there are so many couples who for medical reasons cannot have families themselves yet desperately want a family. When you think of the fate of a viable baby being aborted as unwanted when there are so many families yearning to provide that love and support via adoption, this clause is morally questionable, even on the purely utilitarian grounds of the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that

“the child … needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”.

Removing the offence of a woman terminating her own pregnancy, even at full term, would remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children.

I am sure that the proposers of Clause 208 genuinely believe that they will thereby create a kinder and more civilised society, but I fear that the consequences, if this is passed, will be precisely the opposite.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is normal to take questions and interventions as this is a debate so, before the noble Baroness sits down, can I ask her whether she believes that all 50 countries that have decriminalised abortion are wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest]

424: Leave out Clause 208

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I have listened to opinions from across the House but am not satisfied that the mother or the unborn baby is protected. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 13th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, when a doctor, the very person entrusted to preserve life and relieve suffering, raises the possibility of assisted dying, it is no longer a neutral act. For some people, particularly those who are depressed, isolated or overwhelmed, the mere introduction of the possibility of an assisted death risks planting the idea that this course is rational or even expected. In an inherently unequal doctor-patient relationship, suggestion is easily perceived as a recommendation.

There is no requirement for an independent advocate—somebody to sit beside the patient and help them process and grasp what is being said. We are leaving some of the most consequential conversations a person can ever have to take place in isolation, within an asymmetrical, authoritarian relationship. There is no requirement for the discussion to take place with someone with specialist expertise. A “registered medical practitioner” could be a locum doctor who the patient has never met before, a foundation-year doctor in their early years of practice, or someone with no training in palliative care or experience of autism or learning disabilities, and yet they are the people who may introduce a conversation that could seriously alter the trajectory of a life.

No clinician should be allowed to initiate such a conversation; it should arise only if a patient independently raises it themselves, and even then the doctor’s role should be limited to acknowledging the request and directing the patient to an independent body while remaining firmly focused on diagnosis, treatment and the provision of appropriate and timely palliative care, as needed. Assisted dying must not be presented as an equivalent option alongside treatment, support and comfort. To do so risks the medical service being seen as one that no longer values preserving and improving life but rather one that enables the end of life.

The Royal College of GPs has stated that the role of a GP should be limited to signposting patients to a designated specialist service if, and only if, the patient raises the subject. This week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists wrote to me expressing its continuing concern. Its view is that

“all applicants should receive a holistic, multidisciplinary assessment at the preliminary discussion stage, including for mental health needs”;

in other words, something much more like the multidisciplinary panel proposed by my noble friend Lady Finlay in the previous group. I therefore suggest that Clause 5, and, in consequence, Clause 6, should not stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 205 is in my name, as well as those of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I declare an interest as founder of Team Domenica, and as the mother of a young woman with Down syndrome. As several of my points have already been covered by other noble Lords, I will be brief.

My amendment is simple and proportionate. It reflects the concern I raised at Second Reading: it is incomprehensible that people with learning disabilities will not be allowed a family member or, in the absence of a family member, a learning disability nurse or qualified practitioner to be with them when a doctor initiates the conversation about assisted suicide. People with learning disabilities may chronologically be adults, but many are still children who lack understanding of abstract principles. It is true that Clause 5(2) specifies that a doctor must exercise

“their professional judgement to decide if, and when, it is appropriate to discuss”

assisted suicide, but I am not satisfied that that provision is sufficiently strong. My amendment would provide an additional layer of protection for this vulnerable group, many of whom have a limited understanding of the concept of death and dying and would therefore be panicked and frightened. This combination of fear and lack of understanding would be, emotionally, absolutely devastating.

As we have heard, there is also—I see this in my own daughter—a desire to please, which is a way of seeking to belong. My daughter is also terrified of doctors, hospitals, dentists and anything medical. I dare not imagine what it would be like for anyone with a learning disability to be in a situation of having a conversation about killing themselves, probably in front of a doctor who they may never have even met, without a family member present. Yes, the Bill requires that there is mental capacity and a clear, settled and informed wish to die, but assessing capacity for people with learning difficulties is complicated on so many levels. I cannot begin to imagine how it would be done. Would it be through an easy-read leaflet with diagrams? It does not even bear thinking about.

I acknowledge—I know that this will come up—that not all families are perfect and that malign family dynamics are a reality, but I suggest that the greater threat would come from a process that fails to accommodate the specific vulnerabilities of people with learning disabilities. I find this lack of understanding extraordinary, but then, people with learning disabilities are so often ignored and forgotten. As my noble friend Lord Harper has already pointed out, during Covid, people with learning disabilities had “do not resuscitate” notices put at the end of their beds. Then came the clinical frailty scale, with nine categories going from category 1, meaning “fit”, to category 9, meaning “terminally ill”. The guidance was to deny those in categories 7 to 9 life-saving treatment. My daughter fell into category 7; thank God we did not have to send her to hospital when she got Covid.

In the Bill, this discrimination may be about saving money. The Government’s own impact assessment has revealed a saving of £2,323 if an independent advocate is not used. It is easy to work out cost, but it is much harder to measure the value of a human life.

Before I end, I thank all the parents who have written to me about the Bill. Some of them have said that they are too scared to die themselves because they do not know what on earth would happen to their adult children. These are parents who have spent a lifetime fighting. One mother wrote to me, as she digested the implications of the Bill for her own child, saying, “Sometimes, it’s easier to cry about the small things”.

My daughter has taught me a different way of looking at the world. She has taught me to live more fully and to be courageous. She has given me the strength to fight for people with learning disabilities so that they are not defined by being different. Their story is our story. We have a shared humanity and an absolute duty of care for this most vulnerable group, from the beginning of their lives to the end. It is on their behalf that I stand in your Lordships’ House and ask noble Lords to support my amendment.

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 154, 210 and 211 are in my name. I also support my noble friend Lady Goudie’s Amendments 202, 208 and 209; she is unable to be in her place today. I will endeavour to be brief. Together, these amendments address two questions that I believe unite noble Lords across the House: how we can protect vulnerable people from coercion; and how we can safeguard young people.

On preventing coercion, Amendment 154 would establish a simple but essential safeguard: that assisted dying should be patient-initiated, so a doctor or other health professional should not raise the subject unless the patient has done so first. The proposed legislation rests heavily on patient choice and the absence of coercion or pressure. If freedom from pressure is the legal foundation of the Bill, the design of the process must minimise avoidable influence. Dr Matthew Doré of the Association for Palliative Medicine cautioned the Commons Committee that, if clinicians introduce the subject of assisted dying, vulnerable patients may reasonably perceive that as an endorsement or even a recommendation, particularly given the power imbalance that is already in place.

We have rightly heard how much agency and patient choice play a role in these debates, but, if an assisted death is truly a matter of patient choice, why allow the authority figure in the room to introduce the option? The Bill already makes it clear that there is no duty on doctors to raise assisted dying. If there is no duty and preventing coercion is central, why not make that safeguard explicit in the Bill? I ask my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton this: if the Bill’s case rests on patient choice and the absence of pressure, why resist the clear rule that this conversation must always be initiated by the patient themselves?