SPUC has expressed relief after an amendment that would have criminalised people for taking part in peaceful pro-life vigils was withdrawn at the committee stage. But SPUC has also condemned the “shocking” and “offensive” rhetoric of Rupa Huq MP, responsible for tabling the amendment.

Dr Rupa Huq, the pro-abortion Labour MP for Ealing Central, had yet again tabled an amendment to introduce buffer zones around abortion facilities in England in Wales, this time to the Public Order Bill.

However, after admitting that “it could be improved”, Dr Huq has decided not to take her amendment to a vote, and so the amendment has now been withdrawn.

But during this process, Dr Huq made serious and unsubstantiated allegations against pro-life people. For example, Dr Huq claimed that, in the United States, women seeking abortions have their cars booby-trapped, and that “we are going down that road here [in the UK]”.

Dr Huq also twice compared vigils outside abortion facilities to the brutal murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021.

In her opening statement, Dr Huq said that the Government should accept her amendment “so they can show that the Sarah Everard case wasn’t in vain”. Later, after complaining that women around the abortion facility in Ealing couldn’t “use the pavement” because of pro-life activity, she added: “It was said after Sarah Everard, she was only walking home. Every woman should be able to do that.”

“Disproportionate and unworkable”

The buffer zones amendment was opposed by Nathalie Elphicke, MP for Dover, who said its scope was much wider than local PSPOs in place around abortion facilities, and only criminalises people who disapprove of abortion.

Ms Elphicke also pointed out that having a set area of 150 metres around an abortion facility, where no disapproval of abortion could be uttered, presents many problems. She said that the East London BPAS centre is within 150 metres of a doctor's surgery, a school, a midwifery centre, and many residential homes.

“What is the position of the local doctor, teacher, social worker?” she asked. Ms Elphicke concluded that the clause was disproportionate and unworkable, especially as it risked criminalising the “parents, teachers, lovers” of women considering abortion.

Ms Elphicke’s concerns were dismissed by Dr Huq as “whataboutery”.

The Government minister also opposed the clause, saying that a blanket ban was a disproportionate reaction, especially given the 2018 Home Office Review that had come to that conclusion.

“Shocking” and “highly offensive”

Alithea Williams, SPUC’s Public Policy Manager, said: “It is a relief that this clause has fallen. It is outrageous that Parliament was even considering jailing people for up to two years just for expressing an opinion on abortion and trying to help women.

“However, the debate today was very troubling. Dr Huq was actually comparing pro-life vigils – peacefully offering help to women seeking abortion – to the brutal and unprovoked murder of a young woman. This is highly offensive on many levels, and a shocking escalation in the vilification of pro-life citizens. Such rhetoric must, and will be, challenged.”