Centre for reproductive research and communication

Request 714544754

The ‘Lived experiences of termination of pregnancy in Jersey’ report was commissioned by the Government, and produced by the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication at a cost of £10,790. 

Please can the government provide: 

1) all emails and documents related to the decision to choose the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication for reviewing Jersey's abortion provision. 

2) the names of other independent research companies that were considered for this piece of work and why they were not chosen.

3) how the government determined that the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication are independent given that this organisation is run by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is an industry group for abortionists. On the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication website it states that they "draw directly on BPAS’ own work as a reproductive health provider to inform our agenda and work in collaboration and through strategic partnerships to achieve our mission." Further, on BPAS's website it states that this organisation "is committed to furthering reproductive choice both through our service delivery and our campaigns." Given that BPAS is a self-described campaigner group for expanding access to abortion, how does the government justify describing this organisation's think tank as independent?

Response

1

The Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication was not commissioned to review Jersey’s abortion provision. As set out in the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication report, it was “commissioned to undertake qualitative interviews with Jersey residents to document the lived experiences of those who have sought or accessed a termination of pregnancy whilst living in Jersey.”

Correspondence has been reviewed, and documentation relating to the commissioning process for this piece of research has been prepared for disclosure. Duplicate emails have been removed and correspondence has been redacted in consideration of Freedom of Information legislation to protect the privacy of individuals and protect the commercial interests of the Government of Jersey and / or others from prejudicial impact. Redactions have been colour coded for ease of reference, as follows:

Yellow             Personal Information of individuals, including Government of Jersey employees below Tier 2 – Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011​

Green              Commercial Interests – Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011​

Freedom of Information response 714544754 - Attachment.pdf​

For this disclosure, the identities (and identifiable detail) of third-party organisations, including those that were not selected for this piece of research or who advised they could not undertake the work for whatever reason, have been protected. This anonymity enables more of the detail included in the correspondence to be disclosed whilst mitigating against the prejudice that could feasibly impact upon the commercial interests of the third parties involved, or others.

2

Four other organisations that have undertaken research related to termination of pregnancy, women’s health and associated matters were asked to tender for the work. All four declined to tender for various reasons, including capacity and timescales. Names of the organisations are not provided, in consideration of the commercial sensitivity of the commissioning process, as explained above. Therefore, Article 33 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied.

3

The Government of Jersey has not described or presented the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication as an independent organisation. Its relationship to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service is clearly acknowledged in the Termination of Pregnancy Public Consultation Feedback Report, which states:

Analysis of women with experience of termination in Jersey interviews

The interviews conducted with women who have experience of termination in Jersey were carried out by the Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication (“CCRC"). It is recognised that the CRRC is situated within the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (“BPAS") which has a clearly stated public commitment to protecting and extending women's reproductive rights and choices. The decision to engage the CRRC was taken on the basis of their expertise in speaking with women about their experiences of termination. It does not indicate support for the position of BPAS.​

The full report is published on the Government website, as linked below:

ToP public consultation feedback report.pdf​

Articles applied

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

Article 33 - Commercial interests

Information is qualified exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).

Public Interest Test

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and, as such, Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) has conducted a public interest test as required by law.

When responding to requests of this nature, HCJ has to balance the public interest with the impact that disclosing this information would, or would be likely to, have upon the organisation and / or third parties. Whilst it may be in the public interest to understand the commissioning of services, protecting the commercial interests of HCJ is an essential component in controlling public finances, which in itself is in the public interest.

A commissioning and tender process involves handling commercially sensitive information which could negatively impact a supplier's competitive position, or that of the Government of Jersey, if disclosed. As such, protecting commercially sensitive information is often necessary to ensure fair competition and prevent harm to suppliers and / or the Government.

HCJ has assessed whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in supplying the information is outweighed by the prejudice that would likely result by doing so. 

It is recognised that there is a public interest in transparency, particularly regarding Government contracts. However, having considered the public interest, HCJ has concluded that the public interest in disclosing financial information and third-party specific data is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result.

​For this disclosure, the identities (and identifiable detail) of third-party organisations, including those that were not selected for this piece of research or who advised they could not undertake the work for whatever reason, have been protected. This anonymity enables more of the detail included in the correspondence to be disclosed whilst mitigating against the prejudice that could feasibly impact upon the commercial interests of the third parties involved, or others.​​​​​​