Multiple members of the House of Lords spoke out strongly against the buffer zones clause inserted into the Public Order Bill when it was debated at Second Reading yesterday.

While the Bill received an unopposed second reading, according to parliamentary convention, the issue is likely to be revived and voted on at the Committee stage in a few weeks time. SPUC is therefore urging supporters to keep writing to members of the House of Lords, asking them to oppose Clause 9, as the buffer zones amendment is now called.

Peers were scrutinising the amendment introduced by Stella Creasy MP in the House of Commons, which will, if signed into law, create so-called “buffer zones” around abortion facilities, and make it illegal to interfere “with any person's decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone” – an offence punishable by up to 2 years in prison.  The Government has admitted that the inclusion of Clause 9 now means that the Bill is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Buffer zones interfere with freedom of speech and religion

Many Lords questioned the proportionality of this measure. The Bishop of St Albans said “I have serious concerns about this clause as it stands. The term ‘interferes with’ is so broadly defined that it includes seeking to influence, merely expressing an opinion, or attempting ‘to inform about abortion services’. I cannot believe that this is proportionate given the existing powers possessed by the police and local authorities.” Lord Beith was similarly concerned by this aspect, saying: “However, I cannot support a clause which criminalises a person who ‘seeks to influence’, provides information or ‘expresses opinion.’ This is the most profound restriction on free speech I have ever seen in any UK legislation, and I cannot support it if it remains in its present form.”

Baroness Fox of Buckley, despite being a “long-standing pro-choice campaigner” with “little sympathy with people who are viewed as anti-abortion cranks”, also slammed Clause 9 as inferring with freedom of speech and religion. “This sets a precedent that will inevitably lead to attempts to prevent speech, expression, information sharing and assembly in relation to other controversial and unpopular causes,” she said. “It is also worth noting that at least five councils with PSPO buffer zones around abortion clinics have banned silent prayers. This institutes a law of genuine thought crime and betrays any commitment to religious freedom, and we should totally oppose it.”

Pro-life vigils support vulnerable women

In addition, several Peers defended people who take part in pro-life vigils from accusations of intimidation and harassment. Baroness O’Loan said: “When ‘protests’ take place, they are typically quiet prayer groups which occasionally display signs or placards. However, participants do not cajole or harass women. There is no interference with access to or the provision of abortion services.” She also eloquently expressed why pro-life vigils outside clinics can be so vital: “The reality is that many of those taking part in these vigils often provide help to vulnerable women. Historically, as a result of expressions of prayer and offers of help, women have been able to avail themselves of practical, emotional and other forms of support of which they may previously have been unaware or were unable to access. Some women, who may be uncertain but feel forced to terminate a pregnancy because of their fears that they cannot cope, and who might be reassured by what they might hear before they get into the clinic, will inevitably suffer if a disproportionate ban is enforced. Some of these women have never had the opportunity to receive impartial counsel and support as they consider their options.”

In an excellent contribution, Labour peer Lord McAvoy made a similar point. “It is absolutely the case that women experiencing crisis pregnancies can often be under a great deal of pressure and are therefore deserving of our support,” he said. However, the pressure can also cause many women to feel that they have only one option: to terminate the pregnancy. Volunteers outside abortion clinics recognise this fact and are simply trying to help women to find out what help is available. People like that should not be sentenced to prison for six months—that is what this clause does, according to my reading of it. Are those in support of this clause really in favour of criminalising people who seek to help women with housing, protection from domestic abuse, the provision of clothing or a variety of other financial and legal support?”

Buffer zones criminalise innocent volunteers

He also highlighted the wider dangers of this clause. “We cannot start using blunt instruments such as this clause to criminalise innocent volunteers. If we make it illegal to hand out a leaflet with offers of housing or support, we embark on a slippery slope that could lead to bans on other leaflets with which we disagree. Who among us would condone such a policy being imposed on the Members of the other place during an election? Yet that outcome becomes a possibility if this clause becomes law. Let us strongly oppose Clause 9, and let the Government get the message here from what seems to be all sides of the House, so that they consider how they can protect the ability to offer valuable help to vulnerable women when they need it most.”

Ask the House of Lord to vote against Clause 9

Alithea Williams, SPUC’s Public Policy Manager, said: “The debate last night showed the many problems with the buffer zones clause. Peers from across the House, and with different views on abortion, spelt out how it threatens free speech, harms vulnerable women, and criminalises people for the simple act of offering a leaflet.

“We must keep up the pressure on the House of Lords to throw out this amendment. Buffer zones will be debated again at Committee stage, which will likely take place on Wednesday 16 November. If you have already been corresponding with Peers, please reply to them asking them to vote against Clause 9, and if necessary, the whole Bill at Committee stage. You can also use our write to Lords tool to contact more Lords.”