Clause 9 of the Public Order Bill, which threatens pro-life demonstrators with fines and imprisonment and even outlaws silent prayer, was again strongly criticised when it was debated in the House of Lords, on Tuesday 22 November, on the second of two days set aside for the Bill’s committee stage.

Following a previous debate at Second reading, peers again scrutinised the buffer zones amendment introduced by Stella Creasy MP in the House of Commons.

Concerns over the draconian nature of the proposal were raised not only by pro-life members of the House but by abortion advocates disturbed by the implications it held for freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest.

Baroness Claire Fox, a “long-standing pro-choice campaigner” who has tabled several amendments to Clause 9, highlighted the vague but sweeping nature of the proposal. She argued that the “most contentious aspects of the clause centre on the definition of [the phrase] ‘interfering with’, which criminalises a wide range of activities usually associated with free speech and the right to assemble.”

She went on to warn the House of its dangers:

“We must resist the temptation to create a law that criminalises otherwise legal activities based on a distaste for those activities. How the Bill defines ‘interferes with’ will make an extraordinary range of activities in a particular area punishable by lengthy stints in prison or unlimited fines.”

She concluded by saying that: “The problem with Clause 9 is that it is redundant on this basis because safe access to abortion services is not threatened by people gathering outside.”

“Unworkable… vague and ambiguous”

Baroness Kate Hoey also criticised the “vague and ambiguous” language in the clause. She argued that it is “so broadly worded that it can mean anything to anyone”.

Baroness Nuala O’Loan described Clause 9 in its current form as unworkable. Speaking in a measured and moderate tone, she presented the grave implications of it becoming law.

“We do not live in a totalitarian state which arbitrarily removes the right of freedom of expression, yet what we have in Clause 9 is a total silencing of freedom of expression, within a fairly extensive and arbitrary limit around a range of facilities, with no consideration of other buildings that may exist in the vicinity of an abortion clinic. The overreach of Clause 9 is of breathtaking magnitude.”

Among those who spoke in favour of so-called “buffer zones”, the Conservative peer, Douglas Hogg, Viscount Hailsham, argued that freedom of speech and the right to protest were not absolute. Clause 9, he said, got the balance right. He accused pro-life activists of subjecting women to “intemperate bullying of an extremely nasty kind” and suggested that this was the reason MPs had backed the proposal by 297 votes to 110.

“I was in the House of Commons for nearly 30 years…and I was well aware of, in many circumstances, from evidence which came from many quarters, the kind of abuse to which women seeking an abortion were subjected by those who demonstrated outside abortion clinics. I strongly suspect that is why the House of Commons voted for Clause 9 in such substantial numbers because it knew it was happening and that it was wrong.”

At this point Baroness O’Loan challenged Lord Hailsham regarding the harassment he claimed frequently occurred at pro-life vigils asking:

“Is the noble Viscount aware of any statistics on the number of people now who are being prosecuted or who have been convicted of harassment of people at abortion clinics? I am completely unaware of that, and none of those who are promoting this clause has produced any such evidence.

Hailsham admitted that he had no evidence to back up his allegations but insisted that they were based on personal experience.

“Shockingly illiberal”

At the end of the debate, none of the amendments to Clause 9 were put to a vote. Baroness Fox explained: “I will withdraw my amendment now, but I think that I will be back …to ensure that the intentions of those responsible for Clause 9 do not actually damage civil liberties in this country.”

Alithea Williams, SPUC’s Public Policy Manager, said: “As we expected, no amendments were moved to a vote at this stage. This is because amendments that are defeated at Committee stage cannot be brought back. Clause 9 as it stands will progress to the report stage sometime in January 2023, when its opponents are likely to attempt to amend the worst aspects of the proposal. We will therefore continue to encourage supporters to write to Peers to call on them to reject this shockingly illiberal and anti-life clause.”