On 17 March 2009, the ProLife Alliance represented by leading barrister Paul Diamond, won a significant victory before the Information Tribunal. Paul Diamond succeeded in convincing the Tribunal that the Department of Health must find a witness by 21 April 2009, who would agree to give evidence on Government abortion statistics, without anonymity. The hearing will not be held in public, but the ProLife Alliance will be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The hearing continues.
Background Information
The ProLife Alliance participates as an Additional Party at a Tribunal Hearing between the Department of Health (‘DoH’) and the Information Commissioner ('IC') in relation to an appeal against a ruling by the IC, which stated that the ProLife Alliance is entitled to receive full statistical information about abortions performed under Ground E (abortion for disability) of the Abortion Act 1967/Regulations 1991.
Prior to 2003, the information requested by the ProLife Alliance was readily available and published in the official statistics, but has subsequently been suppressed, or presented in a way so as to make it impossible to identify the exact grounds on which the abortions were performed.
The ProLife Alliance initiated the process of requesting information about abortions for disability from the Department of Health in February 2005, which was refused after considerable delay. In May 2006, the Pro Life Alliance invoked the Freedom of Information Act, and obtained a ruling in its favour from the Information Commissioner in July 2008. The DoH is appealing against the Judgment.
The preliminary hearing, which took place on 5 March 2009, had to determine to what extent the ProLife Alliance should be allowed to be present at the actual hearing. Initially, DoH were trying to have the ProLife Alliance (and the public) totally excluded from the full hearing, but at the very last minute they changed their position, seeking instead that any details of the disputed information, or cross-examination of open or closed witnesses be given in private with the exclusion of the ProLife Alliance. The security provisions they were asking for are unjustifiable in a democratic society.
A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said:
‘The extent to which healthcare statistics should or should not be readily available is an important area of public policy, which is the position the ProLife Alliance wants to have addressed. We are arguing in favour of maximum transparency when it comes to abortion provision. The HFEA is currently consulting on this very principle in relationship to IVF treatment and patient confidentiality, as researchers seek to study the various consequences of nearly two decades of assisted fertility treatment.
‘The interest of the ProLife Alliance in full provision of statistics in relationship to abortion is primarily to ensure full compliance with the law. Abortion is only permitted under the 1967 Act if it can be shown to fulfil the various exemption clauses of the Act, one of which is Clause E, whereby abortions are allowed up to birth if there is evidence of a serious abnormality in the developing baby.
‘We are also involved in the study of the medical and psychological effects of abortion on the health of women and on subsequent pregnancies, which can only be fruitful if full statistics are available. This particular concern is shared by many medical professionals who do not share our position on abortion per se. One of our witnesses, Professor Stuart Campbell, represents such professionals, and he is in agreement that there should be no backtracking in providing this statistical information.
‘The Rt. Hon. Miss Ann Widdecombe is also a witness for the ProLife Alliance, and she underlines the respectability of our organisation and campaigns, and the pro-life movement in general in this country. She states that she “would regard it as establishing a dangerous precedent if a bona fide campaigning organisation were to be denied its rights to a fair hearing.”
‘We draw attention to the unacceptable way in which the ProLife Alliance is being treated in this case. First the unsuccessful but unpleasant attempt to have us totally excluded from the hearing, and now revised arguments, which will be put forward tomorrow for partial exclusion at the whim of the Department of Health.
‘These arguments will be based on suggestions that there is “a real risk that witnesses, if identified publicly, may have their Article 8 rights violated and may cause substantial distress and anxiety”, and “a virtual certainty that the nature and subject matter of these proceedings is bound to attract prominent coverage in the national print, television and radio media such that the Article 8 interference risks are extremely high.” (Skeleton Argument of DoH)
‘This is despicable scaremongering. The ProLife Alliance is a reputable organisation, campaigning democratically against abortion, and there is absolutely no evidence to justify the position adopted by the Department of Health in our regard. To exclude us (and the public) when their witnesses are giving evidence, is to deprive us of a fair right of reply to any accusations they may choose to make against us, and is an outrage to freedom of speech and democracy.’
CCFON
CCFON welcomes the decision of the Tribunal. The ProLife Alliance is a public-interest lobby group, which campaigns peacefully and lawfully in defence of the rights of the unborn child. Accurate statistical information, held on the DoH’s database, is essential for political discourse and to ensure informed, balanced, sensitive and fact-based public debate.