RIGHT OF ACCESS (Hansard, 29 April 1988)

§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert 'and prepared after the date of commencement of this Act', It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain that although I have tabled a number of amendments which appear quite substantial, many can be dealt with fairly briefly. I am pleased to say that amendment No. 1 is one of those.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude explicitly any retrospective right of access. The right of access under the Bill will thus apply only to reports prepared after the Bill becomes law. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie)
Events this morning have meant that we have perhaps slightly longer to discuss certain aspects of this important and valuable little Bill than we might otherwise have expected. I welcome this opportunity. As I was not able to be present for the Second Reading on 12 February, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on getting his Bill so far.
This important, small Bill is part of a general trend towards greater access to patient records, greater openness about health care, and greater awareness of the need for co-operation between practitioners and the patients whom they seek to assist. This is a feature of a noticeable change of attitude in recent years, which, broadly speaking, we welcome.
The Government's overall attitude towards the Bill is one of neutrality. We would not have sought to promote it ourselves. My task throughout has been to try to ensure that the details of the legislation are effective and will achieve what the promoter seeks, without causing undue difficulties for those who have to implement them.
Therefore, on that basis, the amendment is not essential, but I am sure that it will assist the passage of the Bill.
The Bill seeks to change the attitude, which has been deeply held for a long time, that records belong, not to the patient, but to the doctor. That attitude has been held in the belief that general access would harm the patient.
When efforts are made to put into legislation the shifts of attitude that are occurring, that should not be done retrospectively but should take us on from where we are. The Association of British Insurers has made that point strongly, as has the British Medical Association, which represents the medical profession, and I felt obliged to put that to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) whenever I met him to discuss the details of the Bill. I am glad therefore that he has tabled the amendment. He knows that, broadly speaking, he has my support, and that of many of my hon. Friends, in 672 everything that he is seeking to do to open up patients' access to their medical records. It is important that we have the full co-operation of all concerned.
It is important that those who are calling for these changes, including employers and insurers, and, perhaps more importantly, the practitioner who writes the records and deals with the health care of a person, should not feel that records of days gone by, when the law did not exist in this form, or when attitudes were different, should be open to scrutiny.
I know that part of the hon. Gentleman's objective is to improve the quality and standards of the records. He, and many Conservative Members, feel that if records are more open to scrutiny, that will result in exactly what he wants. On that basis, we do not seek to object to the Bill. Indeed, at all stages I have tried to advise him in small but important ways on how the clause might be improved. I wait to hear the will of the House on this amendment.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
The Minister's wise advice on the amendment meets the anxieties of some of those who are likely to be affected by it. I hope that those who will be tolerant towards the purpose of the Bill. While the amendment makes it clear that retrospection is not intended, or implied, it would be unfortunate if that rare circumstance arose where the tick of a clock marking the end of one day and the beginning of another gave one individual rights while keeping those rights away from another. I am sure that if such problems arise, there would be a sensible way around them, without sticking to the letter of the law.