EXEMPTIONS (Hansard, 29 April 1988)

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 21, at end insert— `or would indicate the intentions of the practitioner in respect of the individual'.

The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I can deal with these amendments very briefly. They are designed to bring the Bill into line with the Data Protection Act 1984. Some Members may feel, as I do, that that Act has some way to go before it can be regarded as a model disclosure Act. The Government have stressed, however—quite properly, in my view—the need for single common standards for disclosure, particularly in the limited area of medical information. I have sought to improve on the Data Protection Act, but I accept that it would not be helpful to have two conflicting sets of complicated rules.
Amendment No. 7 adopts the basic premise found in section 1(3) of the Data Protection Act, which rules that while an opinion is disclosable an expression of intention is not. I fully accept that. Amendment No. 8 deletes a minor divergence from the standard laid down in the Data Protection Act about access to health records. Amendment No. 9 adopts the exemption on national security grounds contained in that Act and specifies identical procedures.

§ Mrs. Currie
When we considered the Bill in detail we found one or two slight difficulties. For example, information relating to national security could have been released in a way that was possibly not desirable. We drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to those deficiencies and we are pleased that he has tabled amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which not only achieve consistency with the Data Protection Act, but, in one or two cases, will possibly be very much in the national interest. We are therefore glad to see the amendments and do not oppose them.

§ Mr. Corbett
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about single common standards, but amendment No. 9 is unacceptable. With regard to the Data Protection Act, single common standards are all right only if the standards themselves are all right.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government wish to extract from the Data Protection Act this kind of cover for material, the release of which, it is said, would jeopardise national security. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly where this might lead. The hon. Lady will know that a judgment was delivered yesterday, affecting a group of ex-service men and women, who, as part of their service, were forced to take part, in the sense of witnessing, in tests with nuclear weapons in Australia about 25 years ago. The result of that judgment is that they are now free to sue the Crown for what they say are diseases caused by having to undertake those duties.
I can imagine a Minister of the Crown getting a piece of paper and writing, "I say that the release of that information would jeopardise national security", then handing it to a general practitioner, and saying, "That is secret, because I say that it is secret." That is what the amendment allows the general practitioner or medical practitioner to do. At least those ex-service men and women can now go to court. One hopes that the Government will see the sense of trying to deal with that matter more sensibly, but that is up to them. However, if Ministers could have taken the action that I have just described, that information may never have come out. It could have been buried, locked deep away in a doctor's file. I hope that the Minister will not try to persuade the Committee that nobody would ever do that.
Unhappily, the clause could be used restrictively by Ministers. I do not doubt that they would do it with their hands on their hearts and say that they were right, but that would not make it right. I cannot for the life of me see the need for this measure in the context of medical reports. What, in a medical report, could jeopardise national security?
We should remember that access to medical reports is for employment or insurance purposes. Will the fact that I occasionally suffer from corns jeopardise national security? Probably not. Let us imagine that I have a disease which at the moment is incurable, but with which I can cope because I have medication to help me. If a doctor states such facts about an individual in a medical report, in what possible circumstances would a Cabinet Minister come down the road on a great charger, waving a bit of paper, and saying, "Keep that quiet. If they found out about that in the Kremlin, all hell would be let loose."?
Never mind the other arguments about the Data Protection Act 1984; we are talking about opinions and judgments formed on the basis of facts. Medical records overwhelmingly record the facts of a patient's health over the years. It is a fact that I broke my elbow at the start of the general election in 1979. I am quite clumsy. The Minister will no doubt rib me about that later. It is a fact that I started last new year by tripping over a kerbstone, which I did not see, falling against a wall and cracking a couple of ribs. That is a medical fact, which will be on my medical records. I hope that everything else on my medical records are matters of medical fact.
Medical records also record treatment. One goes into the surgery complaining about belly ache or whatever, there is an examination, a bit of chat, "Take this" or "Do 686 not take the other", one is told to stop eating this, that or the other. That treatment is recorded in the medical record. As we have said, those records are gone through for report purposes. There may or may not be an examination, but a report is drawn up. Because the circumstances outlined in amendment No. 9 relate to facts and do not deal with anything other than opinions and judgments formed on the basis of those facts, what use is that information for insurance purposes? The sort of questions asked are: "Is the applicant in reasonably good health? Yes/No. Has the applicant suffered from any major illness or disease during the past … years? Yes/No. If yes, give details."
1.45 pm
I understand why the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to table the amendment. I hope that he will forgive me for phrasing it that way. It was not his idea. The Minister's paw prints are all over it. I am making a song and dance about it because the Home Secretary has promised us a White Paper on reforming the Official Secrets Act by the end of next month. I bet that any new Act will be as restrictive as the current Act, but more smartly written. When we object to the sort of provision contained in the amendment being part of the Official Secrets Act mark II, the Home Secretary will say, "What is all the fuss about? It is already contained in the Access to Medical Records Bill and the Data Protection Act, so I am doing nothing new. What are you worried about?" That is the danger.
This amendment is taking a mighty big Exocet to impose a small provision. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it could possibly be justified.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway
I wish to allay the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Someone might enter a sensitive job in the security services with a serious health problem. Should that be known? There may be circumstances in which it might help the security of the state for that fact not to be made broadly known.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
What?

§ Mr. Greenway
The hon. Gentleman might express surprise, but it all depends on the circumstances. Such a health problem should certainly be known to a prospective employer. It is the use of that information from that point onwards that is in question. In certain circumstances, the security of the state could be at risk, so I support the amendment.

§ Mrs. Currie
When it comes to firing Exocets, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has just shown us how it is done. I wonder how much advice he has sought from his many hon. Friends who have actively supported improved access to information, especially to medical records. Indeed, on many occasions they have been more active supporters than the Government. The hon. Gentleman's words were not really part of today's debate, but part of a quite different debate that he may seek to have through the usual channels. If he felt so strongly about the matter, I am surprised that he did not discuss it with the Bill's sponsor or make any effort to verify the status of the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the people who yesterday were granted the right to sue the Government, but I am sure that he does not expect me to comment on 687 that. He should remember that the Bill seeks to increase, not diminish, access to information. Perhaps he should give further thought to whether he wants to jeopardise its passage in the way that his strong words have suggested, and also to whether it would be appropriate to do that today.
We asked for amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to be included partly because it is wise and sensible not to have a wide diversity of legislation on similar issues. It makes sense to have legislation on similar issues. It has long been the Government's view—whichever colour the Government happens to be—that it is wise to include a provision that, where national security might be involved, there should be an exclusion. That has long been the practice. As a student I well recall spending many hours listening to the row between Mr. Wilson and the D Notice Committee. Efforts were then made of a similar kind, perhaps unnecessarily. We firmly believe that national security issues are likely to arise in relation to medical reports only on extremely rare occasions. Therefore, it is in the interests of the individuals concerned, and perhaps hon. Members, that the clause should be inserted. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have such strong views on that topic—observing the Opposition Benches, it does not look as though the other 220-odd Labour Members share his views—they may take them up in debates on that topic elsewhere or at different times. It may well be that if the Bill proceeds in its passage today, they may wish to take them up in the other place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may like to take some proper advice about it. It is for the promoter of the Bill to decide whether the amendment should stand or be withdrawn. It is our view that it improves the Bill. We would wish to take further advice if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
This has been an interesting debate. All things being equal, and if I were in charge of the legislative programme of Her Majesty's Government, the wording of the clause, and particularly that of amendment No. 9, is not what I would have wanted. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that it is the most acceptable agreement that could be reached in the time available. I hope that he will continue to discuss this important matter, but not in Committee this afternoon.