Have YOUR SAY on Buffer Zones

As you probably know, the government has voted in ‘Safe Access Zones’ (commonly known as ‘Buffer Zones’) around abortion facilities in England and Wales but this has not yet been put into effect. The Home Office has now issued some draft guidance on how this should be enforced and the public are being offered the chance to respond in a public consultation. It is very important that we do this before the deadline of Mon January 22nd.

We of course do not think ‘Safe Access Zones’ are necessary considering there are already laws on harassment or intimidation of women and yet there are no examples of women being treated in this manner outside abortion centres. It goes without saying that pro-lifers would never condone this. We have put together below some ideas on how you can respond to the guidance. Please do this as soon as possible and before Mon 22nd January.

Please read the Guidance before answering the questions. You can read the guidance here

Please answer IN YOUR OWN WORDS. This is very important and could affect how much weight is given to your response.

Feel free to contact us if you are unsure about any of the questions or answers. 

To respond to the consultation please click here after reading our guide below.

(Questions 1 and 2 refer to Section 2 of the Guidance)

Q1. In your view, are the contents of Section 2 (prohibited activities) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: No

Example explanation: In 2.11 The example of ‘A large, obtrusive, religious gathering directly outside a clinic to promote the pro-life cause could be offensive’ is not helpful in as much as it isn’t clear which of these specifics are the offending ones. It is concerning that the word ‘religious’ is used at all – is it being suggested that if the large, obtrusive gathering directly outside the clinic promoting the pro-life cause was NOT religious, would it be more acceptable and if so, why? 

We have already seen cases of religious discrimination with people being arrested or fined because their thoughts are directed towards God, it would be helpful to have some clarity that religious beliefs, particularly Christian ones (Which constitute a lot of active pro-life groups) will not be singled out for persecution.

It would additionally be helpful to have clarity on whether religious but not pro-life processions are still acceptable if they go through a Safe Access Zone. 

Q2. Are you content that the guidance provided under Section 2 (prohibited activities) accurately reflects the Section 9 offence? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer.

We suggest you answer: Yes 

(Questions 3 and 4 refer to Section 3 of the Guidance)

Q3. In your view, are the contents of Section 3 (location) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: No

In 3.5 it states ‘a sermon about abortion inside a church within a Safe Access Zone . . . would not be unlawful. Similarly, discussion about abortion within a house or flat not impacting on relevant persons outside would not be unlawful. However, if people lean out of their windows or stand on their driveways and call out comments to passers-by about abortion, they could commit an offence.’ It is not stated however whether signage that could be deemed in any way to be pro-life but is inside/on private property is allowed eg a sign outside a church which indicates help that is available for pregnant women. 

Q4. Are you content that the guidance provided under Section 3 (location) accurately reflects the Section 9 offence? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes

(Questions 5 and 6 refer to Section 4 of the Guidance)

Q5. In your view, are the contents of Section 4 (purpose of presence in the zone) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: No 

In 4.1 it states ‘A hospital chaplain giving a religious view on abortion to a patient who is not at the hospital for abortion services would not be captured by the offence.’ What if a hospital chaplain was called to a hospital inside the zone for a woman who WAS there for an abortion and had complications. If a chaplain was ministering to her could he discuss Christian/Catholic beliefs on abortion without fear of breaking any law? For some chaplains it may be their religious duty/obligation to talk about the morality of abortion as their religion sees it.

Q6. Are you content that the guidance provided under Section 4 (purpose of presence in the zone) accurately reflects the Section 9 offence? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer.

We suggest you answer: Yes

(Questions 7 and 8 refer to Section 5 of the Guidance)

Q7. In your view, are the contents of Section 5 (use of police powers) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: No

In view of previous situations we have seen eg people being arrested repeatedly for silent prayer in PSPO zones etc I believe the police should be given clearer guidance on what are or are not ‘observable acts’ of influencing, obstructing or causing alarm, harassment or distress contrary to section 9. 

In 5.7 it states ‘The mere presence of someone in a Safe Access Zone with no indication they are going to engage with anyone accessing, providing or facilitating abortion services should never attract police action.’ Although the aim of this statement might be to give greater clarity to those who are merely present in the Safe Access Zone it could create confusion to those who wish to consensually inform, discuss or offer help as described in 2.5. It seems to have been recognised in this guidance (2.5) that conversation which is consensual and simply informing, discussing or offering help is acceptable and to find out if someone wishes to engage in that consensual conversation one might have to have some initial engagement with another. The above statement from 5.7 could be misinterpreted that even indicating that you are open to engagement in consensual conversation is unacceptable. It would provide greater clarity to say ‘Mere presence alone in a Safe Access Zone should never attract police action unless coupled with another prohibited activity’.

Q8. Are you content that the guidance provided under Section 5 (use of police powers) accurately reflects the Section 9 offence? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes 

(Questions 9 and 10 refer to Section 6 of the Guidance)

Q9. In your view, are the contents of Section 6 (use of police training) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes

Q10. Are you content that the guidance provided under Section 6 (use of police training) accurately reflects the Section 9 offence? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes 

(Questions 11 and 12 refer to Section 7 of the Guidance)

Q11. In your view, are the contents of Section 7 (signage) sufficiently clear and easy to understand? Yes/No If no, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes – please see answer to question 12  

Q.12. Do you think that abortion clinics/hospitals and local authorities should erect signage to clearly mark SAZs within their jurisdiction? Yes / No Please explain your answer.

We suggest you answer: Yes – Signage is absolutely essential and should be required not merely advised. We have already had various instances where police have challenged pro-life volunteers to move when in actual fact they were already outside PSPO zones. It is clear then that without accurate signage to show where the boundaries of the Safe Access Zone lie it will be a point of confusion for both police and the public.

Q13. Do you have any further comments on this non-statutory guidance? Yes/No If yes, please explain your answer. 

We suggest you answer: Yes

• Although I disagree that Safe Access Zones were needed at all considering we already have existing laws that deal with harassment or intimidation I believe that there are some welcome clarifications in this guidance. 

• I welcome the clarification on silent prayer in 2.7 

• I welcome the clarification in 2.5 that informing, discussing or offering help does not necessarily amount to influence.

• I welcome the clarification in 4.1 that holding a pro-life vigil in the area when the clinic is closed and no staff or patients are in the area would not be a criminal offence.

• I would like greater clarification on quiet, vocal prayer.

• I would like greater assurance that those manifesting their religious beliefs will not be discriminated against.

• I would like greater assurance that churches or private homes inside Safe Access Zones will not be stifled in how they manifest their private beliefs on their private property.

• I would like greater assurance that Chaplains/religious ministers will not be asked to go against their own consciences and be able to observe their religious duties/obligations.

• I would like to stress that clear signage is vital in order to make this in any way reasonable.

• I am concerned that the unlimited fine attached to this mentioned in 8.1 is entirely disproportionate.

Finally you will be asked your name, job title and company name (if applicable) and the capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise.

This is for your own discernment but it could be helpful to tick the box ‘Abortion Provider/Health Professional’ if indeed you are a health professional.

If you have had an abortion and so are a former service user then it could be helpful to tick the box ‘Service user/former service user’.

If you live near an abortion centre/hospital then it could be helpful to tick the box ‘local resident of an abortion clinic/hospital/passerby’.

If you are a member of the police force please tick that box.

Or you may wish to tick the box ‘member of public’ or ‘pro-life activist/supporter/organisation’