Agenda item

RESOLVED:

That Cabinet:

      I.          Considered the evidence of the impact and effect of the Order on the behaviours targeted.

     II.          Considered the outcome of the statutory consultation undertaken from 23 November 2023 to 15 January 2024.

   III.          Assessed all of the evidence presented and decided that it was proportionate and necessary to extend the Order and therefore authorised the Strategic Director for Housing & Environment to extend the period for which the existing Order has effect, for a period of 3 years with effect from 11 April 2024 until 10 April 2027.

REASON FOR DECISION AND OPTIONS CONSIDERED:

1.     As outlined in Section 4 of the report, since its introduction in 2018 the Order had been complied with for the most part and it had been successful in tackling the activities found to be having a detrimental effect on women accessing the Clinic, Clinic staff and others in the locality.

2.     The Order was never intended to completely stop abortion related protest or prayer from occurring; it was designed to prevent the activities found to be having a detrimental effect from occurring within a very precise and clearly defined area where their impact was most acute. Since being in place it has almost entirely achieved that purpose.

3.     As outlined, the Order permits some abortion related protest / vigil activities within the footprint of the Order, within a clearly identified designated area, in which certain requirements and prohibitions still remain. In addition, it was worth highlighting that the PSPO did not impose any restrictions on protests which take place in a location outside of the Safe Zone area.

4.     There have been occasions during the period where groups of individuals who had been involved in protest / vigil in the immediate locality of the Clinic have attended Ealing civic centre (Perceval House) instead, where they have stood outside and displayed signs and images objecting to abortion.

5.     The on-going near daily use of the designated area by the Pro-Life groups, the sporadic protests / vigils at Perceval House and the regular presence of groups involved in protest / prayer at the threshold of the area covered by the Order, all indicate a continued interest in the location by the Pro-Life groups who had previously been congregating at the entrance to the Clinic. The breaches committed by self-styled Pro-Life campaigners have also point to the likely recurrence of the behaviours targeted by the Order. It is reasonable to conclude from the continued presence of protestors and campaigners at these sites that, were the order to expire, they would return to the area outside the Clinic and continue the activities previously engaged in at this location.

6.     The Pro-Choice group, Sister Supporter, that had been regularly present outside the Clinic prior to the introduction of the Order had chosen not to use the designated area to continue their activities, although it had always been open to them to do so, provided their activities complied with the provisions which apply to that space.

7.     The 2018 report detailed the various options that were considered by the Council before taking the decision to make the Order and a detailed Options Assessment was included as part of the extensive appendices; these options would not be repeated here. Officers had reviewed the previous options assessment and considered whether any of the alternatives the Order within that assessment may now be a preferred solution or whether there were any new options that may be considered.

8.     One notable change in the national picture since the Council’s decision in 2021 to renew the Order has been the introduction of Safe Access Zones in parts of the UK. Safe Access Zones were now in place in Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Government is in the process of considering a Safe Access Zones Bill. In England and Wales, Safe Access Zones were introduced in May 2023 as part of an amendment to the Public Order Act (2023). However, this provision was not currently in force and there had been a disappointing lack of any indication from the government as to when the legislation would come into force. The latest development in relation to the Public Order Act offences is a period of Government consultation on a document published by the Home Office called “Non-Statutory Guidance on Abortion Clinic Safe Access Zones”. The consultation ran from 11 December 2023 – 22 January 2023. As currently drafted the consultation appeared to undermine various aspects of the offence created by the 2023 Act. If the guidance is adopted in its current form the Council may still require a local PSPO to regulate the evidenced detrimental effect that has taken place at the Clinic. Further consideration would need to be given to this once the contents of the final guidance is known.

9.     Additionally, there have been some developments on a local level in parts of the country following Ealing’s introduction of Ealing’s Safe Zone. A number of other councils have taken similar action, using their powers to create a PSPO with similarly crafted prohibitions and requirements to tackle similar behaviours occurring in the locality of clinics offering abortion services within their area. Ealing is aware of two of these orders being challenged in the Courts since Ealing’s own PSPO was appealed. The abortion clinic related PSPOs made by both Birmingham and Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch (BCP) Councils have each been appealed in the courts. In December 2023 the High Court dismissed both the statutory challenge and the judicial review that was issued in respect of the BCP PSPO. The Birmingham litigation was still in progress and had not yet reached a conclusion, it was understood that this was on hold pending the outcome of the BCP litigation.

10. In reviewing the PSPO the Council had reviewed the abortion clinic orders made by the other councils. Most of the other orders have followed a similar format to Ealing’s Order (this being the first PSPO of this type of have been implemented) and in made with the prevailing local circumstances in mind. The Council has given careful consideration to whether the Ealing PSPO should be amended in view of these other orders. There was nothing in this review of the PSPO that suggested that Ealing’s Order required amendment; it continued to serve the local circumstances well and had been largely successful in reducing the detrimental effect that was being experienced at this location. Furthermore, it had been upheld in the courts in full and there was nothing to suggest that it required amendment.

11. At this stage, it remained the case that no new national powers exist to deal with the issues. Officers remain of the view that the other options previously considered were either not suitable to tackle the activities or were less suitable than the existing Order. It was officers’ conclusion from the review of existing evidence and the feedback from the consultation that the effectiveness of the Order indicates that it is an appropriate measure to deal with the activities which had been having a detrimental effect.

12. The period for which a PSPO has effect can be extended for up to three years and it was the recommendation of the report that the Order is extended for the full three-year period.

13. Officers had given consideration to whether a shorter period of extension may be appropriate. With the anticipated implementation of the Public Order Act (2023) in England and Wales, it was possible the requirement for Ealing’s Safe Zone may reduce or cease entirely. However, given the lack of clarity from government as to the timetable for this national legislation coming into force and the significant resourcing and statutory consultation required when considering any future extensions, there would be significant risks in the Council choosing to extend the Order for only a short period of time. This was particularly clear when one considers the high probability of the behaviours found to have a detrimental effect returning to the location as soon as the Order comes to an end.

14. It was not recommended that a shorter time period for extension is applied; it was recommended that extension is for the full three-year period. It was reasonable to conclude that, without the Order in place, the activities found to have had a detrimental effect on those in the locality would re-occur.

15. It was worth noting that, as and when appropriate national legislation was in place that is proven to afford the same appropriate level of protection as the current Order does to Ealing residents, Clinic users and staff from the detrimental effect of the behaviours identified, a decision may be taken at any time by Cabinet to end the Order prior to April 2027.

16. It was for these reasons that the recommendation is that Cabinet extend the Order for the full period of three years.

Cllr Mason, on behalf of Cabinet, put on record his thanks to officers for their hard work and efforts, working on the process of the renewal. Cllr Mason stated that, it was entirely appropriate on the weight of evidence, to move forward with the renewal. It was highlighted that, there could be significant additional challenges in the future relating to the new statutory guidance that was currently out for consultation by the government on how PSPO zones should be policed. Cllr Mason confirmed that he and Cllr Anand had made representations to the home office to encourage them to rethink the nature of the guidance that they had issued, fundamentally on the basis of the fact that it would undermine an act of parliament. It was important to acknowledge the current situation.