Public Order Bill

Written evidence submitted by Right To Life UK (POB06)

Public Bill Committee: Public Order Bill

1. About us

1.1. Right To Life UK is a charitable organisation focused on life issues. [1]

1.2. We protect and defend the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death through our work across education, politics, the media and through a large network of people in constituencies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

1.3. We are committed to an evidence-based approach to life issues, uniting people from different political ideologies and philosophical beliefs (including those who are non-religious, religious, or agnostic).

2. Summary

2.1. Right To Life UK welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Public Bill Committee for the Public Order Bill.

2.2. Our particular focus is on amendment (NC1) tabled to the Bill, ‘Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services’, which would mandate censorship zones at abortion clinics nationwide. [2]

2.3. We are deeply concerned that this amendment, if added to the Bill, will lead to the criminalisation of free speech.

2.4. The amendment is not needed as legislation already exists to protect women if they face harassment or intimidation.

2.5. Furthermore, the Government has recently considered the issue of censorship zones in depth, concluding in 2018 that "introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response". [3]

2.6. Censorship zones infringe on free speech and human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, which are enshrined in domestic law and international convention. Furthermore, they are opposed by a range of organisations and individuals, including some who support abortion access.

2.7. A recently passed Bill in Northern Ireland to implement censorship zones has been referred to the UK Supreme Court, meaning there is a risk that any legislation Parliament takes forward may ultimately conflict with whatever decision is made. [4]

2.8. The public opposes censorship zones, with polling from 2021 showing just 21% of people support ‘buffer’ zones around abortion clinics nationwide. [5]

2.9. In responding to NC1, we urge Members of Parliament to reject this amendment when the Bill Committee considers the Public Order Bill.

3. Proposed amendment NC1

3.1. Censorship zones (also known as ‘buffer’ or ‘safe’ zones) would effectively ban volunteers from peacefully praying and offering support to women entering abortion clinics, yet hundreds of women have been helped by such support, and current laws protect women if they face genuine harassment. [6]

3.2. The amendment is so broad it would criminalise people who interfered "with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone."

3.3. More specfically, the wording "interferes with" is so broadly defined it includes seeking influence, merely expressing an opinion, or attempting "to inform about abortion services". Crucially, the amendment does not distinguish between activities causing harm and activities with which people may disagree.

3.4. If made law, it would mean the criminalisation of anyone within 150 metres of an abortion clinic offering a woman practical, emotional, or financial support to be able to continue a pregnancy if she wanted to do so.

3.5. The offence outlined in the amendment far outweighs the supposed crime as anyone found guilty is subject to severe criminal punishment - liable, in the first instance, to imprisonment for up to 6 months and/or an unlimited fine, and on further instances up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

3.6. This amendment, identical in content, was tabled by Dr Rupa Huq MP at both Committee and Report Stages of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in 2021, where it was withdrawn following substantial Parliamentary and public opposition, as well as being opposed by the Government. [7]

4. Existing legislation is sufficient to protect women from harm and criminal behaviour

4.1. Current laws already provide wide-ranging powers for authorities to keep public order and protect women and the public from genuine harassment and intimidation, including outside abortion clinics.

4.2. Specifically, the Local Government Act 1972, Public Order Act 1986, The Criminal Justice Act 1988, Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 all offer effective and sufficient protection for authorities to tackle threatening or abusive behaviour that might cause intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. [8]

4.3. Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) already provide for a form of censorship (‘buffer’) zones in the UK. The first such zone around an abortion clinic was established in Rupa Huq’s constituency in 2018 by Ealing Council using a PSPO, which requires individuals offering assistance to women seeking abortion to remain 100m away from the clinic gates. [9]

4.4. Since 2018, two further PSPOs have been implemented; one in the Borough of Richmond in April 2019, and another, in October 2020, in Manchester. Where councils have evidence that demonstrations outside of a local abortion clinic are causing issues, they are able to implement a PSPO. [10]

4.5. In 2021, then Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins said, in a debate on censorship zones (also from a provision brought forward by Rupa Huq MP), that "PSPOs, which are targeted and have been upheld by the Court of Appeal, seem to be the most effective way of managing these very difficult circumstances outside particular service providers". [11]

4.6. It is also worth noting that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act allows police to intervene in demonstrations causing an ‘impact’ or ‘serious disruption’ and, given the ambiguous nature of the terms ‘impact’ and ‘serious disruption’, offers of support or demonstrations/vigils outside abortion facilities could (under the plain meaning of the law) be deemed by police to be a serious disruption and therefore banned. [12]

4.7. The Public Order Bill itself already introduces Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, which are intended as preventative court orders targeting protestors who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. [13]

5. The Government has recently concluded national censorship zones are not necessary

5.1. In 2018, the Home Office conducted an in depth review into the scale and nature of vigils outside abortion clinics. Following this, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid concluded there was no need to introduce censorship zones, saying "I am adamant that where a crime is committed, the police have the powers to act so that people feel protected." [14]

5.2. Javid further said that "introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature. In making my decision, I am also aware that legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others."

5.3. According to the review, less than 10% (36 of 363) of all hospitals and clinics that provide abortion in England and Wales "experienced anti-abortion demonstrations" in 2017. Recent Government figures show little increase since. [15]

5.4. In 2021, the then Home Office Minister Victoria Atkins reaffirmed the Government’s position, saying that "a blanket ban across all of the service providers may not be proportionate, given that the majority of clinics and the overwhelming majority of hospitals that provide these services do not appear to have been affected by protest activity thus far." [16]

6. Censorship zones raise serious concerns about implications for freedom of speech

6.1. Well-established human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority, and freedom of assembly and association, are enshrined both in domestic law and international convention. [17]

6.2. The proposal to implement nationwide censorship zones would breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Specifically, the HRA requires that "primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights" (rights laid out in the ECHR), which include Article 8 (respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). [18]

6.3. Compatibility of the legislation with ECHR rests on whether it is necessary and proportionate. Thus, under this law in order for a censorship zone to exist, a court would need to be satisfied that there is no more proportionate (less restrictive) means of protecting the rights of the staff and visitors of abortion centres. [19]

6.4. Censorship zones also violate the long-established British principle of ‘minimal criminalisation’, which argues that citizens should not be criminalised for otherwise legal activities, such as praying in the street or handing out leaflets. [20]

6.5. The longstanding tradition in the UK that people are free to gather together to demonstrate their views, as the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid said, is "something to be rightly proud of". [21]

6.6. Similarly, Home Office Minister Kit Malthouse noted in March 2021: "The right to protest is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Government is absolutely committed to maintaining freedom of expression." [22]

6.7. In October 2020 Home Secretary Priti Patel tweeted in support of protecting freedom of speech, [23] which reaffirmed the Government’s stated commitment to freedom of expression outlined in its 2019 Manifesto.

7. Campaigners who support abortion access are opposed to censorship zones

7.1. Groups and individuals opposed to censorship zones include those do not take a pro-life position on abortion but who oppose censorship zones as a threat to freedom of speech.

7.2. For example human rights group Liberty expressed concerns when they reviewed the issue in 2020, stating that "any interference with expression of religious belief should be closely scrutinised before Liberty endorses a particular piece of legislation. Interference with protest rights should also be kept to a minimum. Liberty’s view is that legislation should only go as far as necessary to enable people to access abortion services safely." [24]

7.3. Prominent human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who supports abortion access, published an open letter calling on MPs to oppose an identical censorship zone amendment in July 2021, on the basis that it undermined freedom of speech and the right to protest. [25]

7.4. Other groups and campaigners opposing the introduction of censorship zones include Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship, the Freedom Association, and the Manifesto Club. [26]

8. A similar Bill in Northern Ireland has been referred to the Supreme Court to see if it complies with European human rights laws

8.1. The Northern Ireland Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill includes provision for "the establishment of ‘safe access’ zones around registered pregnancy advisory bureaux and clinics, in which anti-abortion activity cannot take place." The Bill includes vague terminology such as a ban on 'influencing' within a 100 metres of the relevant abortion clinic. [27]

8.2. The Northern Ireland Attorney General’s office said that "one of the grounds on which a bill may be found to be outside the competence of the Assembly is if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights." [28] As a result, the Bill has been referred to the UK Supreme Court to consider whether the offence created by clause 5(2)(a) of the bill is "a proportionate interference with the rights of those who wish to express opposition to abortion services in Northern Ireland". [29] The Supreme Court will consider whether the unprecedented ban on ‘influencing’ proposed in clause 5, along with the omission of a defence of "reasonable excuse" is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, thus exceeding the assembly’s legislative competence.

8.3. If the Court rules that the offence created by clause 5(2)(a) is not a proportionate response, given the similarities between the Northern Ireland law and the nationwide ban proposed in amendment NC1, it is likely that NC1 would also be deemed disproportionate and therefore incompatible with human rights law.

9. Polling shows the public do not support censorship zones

9.1. A June 2021 poll undertaken by SavantaComRes shows that only 21% of the population supported the previous amendment brought forward by Rupa Huq MP to introduce ‘buffer’ zones around abortion clinics nationwide. [30]

9.2. Support was lowest among 18-34 year olds, with only 15% supporting the proposals.

9.3. The polling also showed that among the general population, a majority support either having no restrictions on speaking about the issue of abortion outside abortion clinics or restrictions in line with current legislation (that is, no new legislation is needed).

10. Many women appreciate the assistance provided by pro-life outreach every year.

10.1. Mothers in the UK who have benefited from help from those offering assistance (i.e. counselling, financial aid, etc.) outside abortion clinics have launched the campaign Be Here For Me, as testimony to the support offered outside of abortion facilities, highlighting that censorship zones would ban support where it is needed most. [31]

10.2. Pro-life vigils typically consist of the following activities: Offers of practical support, dissemination / reception of information, prayer, and expression of conscience. These activities are carried out, and support is offered (including counselling, help with rent/housing, providing maternity and baby clothes and other financial support, legal advice, and protection from domestic abuse, among other things) ‘at the gate’, where women walk into clinics, because that is the place of need.

10.3. One mother who benefited from this help, Alina, shares, "You don’t have to disagree with abortion to see that simply offering alternatives should be legally permissable. The day that I turned up to my abortion appointment, a volunteer outside the clinic gave me a leaflet. It offered the help that I had been searching for." She further states "there are hundreds of women just like me who have benefited [from support]." [32]

June 2022