Access to Medical Reports Bill

HL Deb 07 June 1988 vol 497 cc1307-18

7.36 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Tordoff).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Right of access]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 5, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of this Act").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose to move Amendment No. 1 and at the same time to speak to all the other amendments standing in my name. I shall move the amendments in sequence when the time comes.

There is a very large number of amendments but they are largely redrafting amendments, although there have been one or two changes consequent upon that redrafting. At Second Reading the Minister was good enough to promise that parliamentary counsel would take a careful look at the Bill before it reached the Committee. That has been done and the amendments that I have tabled are the result of that scrutiny. As will be seen on examination they are mostly technical amendments which are designed to improve the drafting and structure of the Bill. They do not make any substantial change to its provisions. I shall indicate those places where there are changes to the provisions. In my view, they are all improvements to the Bill.

The Committee will note that the amendments to Clause I all fall into that category. In fact the first two amendments are perhaps symptomatic of what happens when a Bill comes into the hands of a professional parliamentary draftsman. In other words, by leaving out of line 5 the words: Subject to the provisions of this Act and inserting in line 6: , in accordance with the provisions of this Act, some magical mystery is performed which makes the Bill more acceptable. Nevertheless, it is not for me to quibble about these matters and I am indeed grateful for the work that has been carried out on these amendments.

Some changes have been made to the wording of the Bill,, and there is one substantial change; namely, that the bar on retrospective access is removed from this clause (by Amendment No. 4) and is moved to Clause 9, where it has been felt to be more appropriate. The changes to Clause 2 involve minor improvements to definitions. The term "the applicant" has been introduced by Amendment No. 5 to refer to the person seeking a medical report—that is the employer or the insurance company. The definition of "employment purposes" has been widened (by Amendment No. 7) to bring in a self-employed person acting under a contract of service, which, as the Committee will remember, was something that we were hoping to be able to achieve when we discussed this point at Second Reading. I am grateful that a way has been found to extend that definition of "employment purposes".

The definition of "care" has been modified to make clear that the Bill applies only to reports produced by a doctor who is or has been responsible for treating the individual. A report produced by an independent doctor acting purely for an insurance company or for an employer would not be subject to the Bill. At Second Reading I explained that the Bill was not intended to cover such independent reports. This amendment is designed to remove any possible doubt on that point.

I am proposing that the existing Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill are removed and replaced by new clauses under Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, which we believe improve its structure. I should like to refer to a letter which I understand many noble Lords have received today from the Association of British Insurers, which is a little worried about Amendment No. 13 with reference to subsection (1) (a). It is worried about the use of the word "proposes" in the second line of the paragraph. The amendment provides that the applicant: has notified the individual that he proposes to make the application". The Association of British Insurers does not believe that the word "proposes" is appropriate in this context. It would much prefer that the paragraph is amended to provide that, he might seek to make the application".

I have taken advice on this matter. In fact a considerable amount of discussion has been going on most of the day. However, we have come to the conclusion that the word "proposes" is the appropriate word here. It defines the point at which the operation of the other parts of the Bill commences. I can understand that to state "might seek to make application" may meet what I was going to call some of the bureaucratic needs of the association, although that is perhaps unfair; to say that it might meet some of their internal documentation might be fairer. However, I believe that to clarify the position in the Bill it is right that the word "proposes" should be included. When that proposal is made the rest of the Bill is triggered under Amendment No. 13, the new clause.

Members of the Committee will see from this that before applying for a medical report an employer or an insurance company would still have to obtain the consent of the individual and would have to have informed the individual of his or her rights to see the report, to correct inaccuracies and, after seeing what the doctor proposed to say, to withhold consent as a final, rather drastic step. As I said at Second Reading, that might well prevent people from getting insurance or obtaining a job for which they were applying. Nevertheless, this is a provision which we believe should be in the Bill because that final pulling of the plug should be in the hands of the person about whom the report is being written.

The individual would be able to indicate to the insurance company or employer that he or she wished to see the report before the doctor supplied it. In this case, as before, the doctor would have to give the individual up to 21 days to take steps to arrange to see the report or to obtain a copy for which a charge could be made. Again, if the individual asked the doctor to amend anything that was incorrect or misleading, the doctor would have the option either of making the change or, if no change seems justified, of attaching the statement prepared by the individual to the medical report. As I said again at Second Reading, the individual would not have the power to force the doctor to change or remove anything that he believed ought to be in the report. If there is disagreement, the Bill's solution is to ensure that the individual's point of view is conveyed to the insurance company or the employer.

The right of access would continue for at least six months after the report had been sent, and doctors would be required to keep copies of their reports on file for this period.

The amendments to Clause 6 include the omission of the national security exemption which the Government previously felt would be necessary. There was considerable contention in another place when that exclusion was put into the Bill. Mr. Robin Corbett, I believe it was, in another place was very worried about the insertion of that exemption. The Government have now had another look at it and have decided that it is not necessary in this Bill. I am most grateful to them for that consideration. It is so easy for departments to say, "We would rather have it in the Bill", when it is not entirely necessary. I am glad that on this occasion the Government have seen fit to allow us to take it out because it is not necessary.

The exemptions that will remain allow information to be withheld if it relates to a third party or if disclosure would cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual. These are the exemptions which apply if someone seeks access to his or her computerised medical records under the Data Protection Act. Amendment No. 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will be seeking to make an addition to that point. I shall comment on his amendment when the time comes. It will not be my intention to oppose that amendment if he seeks to press it.

Under Clause 6 information about the intentions of the doctor towards the patient can also he withheld. The Government have asked for this exemption in order to keep in line with the Data Protection Act. That is another mystery which is slightly beyond me but it does not seem to do the Bill any harm. If the Government feel that the provision should be compatible with the Data Protection Act, so much the better. One notes that a couple of weeks ago the Data Protection Registrar published a consultation document reviewing the working of the Act. It points out that this exemption was designed to prevent employees learning that they had been earmarked for redundancy by their employer. I have my doubts whether that exemption should apply to all kinds of records, including medical records, but doubtless this can be examined in the review. If any change in the Data Protection Act ultimately results, one hopes that the corresponding change in legislation such as this will follow when the Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it does.

The existing Clause 7 of the Bill would no longer be needed if the new clauses are included. They repeat the provisions of the original clause. That goes out. Clause 8 allows an appeal to the court if the individual believes that he or she is not being treated in accordance with the Act's requirements. The amendment here involves a slight re-phrasing.

The final new clause makes it clear that notifications under the Bill must be in writing and can be made by post. That is quite a useful step forward. It was perhaps an omission on our part not to provide that they should be made in writing. However, the provision that they can be made by post is obviously an improvement. The final amendment is the provision preventing retrospection. That has been moved from Clause 1.

I hope that Members of the Committee will think that these amendments improve the Bill's drafting and structure, as well as correcting one or two oversights. They are the work of extremely careful examination of the Bill by parliamentary counsel, to whom one is particularly grateful; and also to the officials involved. They have made considerable efforts on our behalf to get this Bill to its finished state. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

I have listened with great care to the explanation of the noble Lord in support of the redrafting of Clauses 3 to 8 of the Bill. He knows better than anyone what this Bill seeks to achieve. If he is satisfied that the amendments which are now before the Committee give better effect to the underlying provisions of the Bill or to its structure, we are content to accept his judgment and his guidance. We do not oppose any of the amendments. It may therefore be appropriate for me to make a few observations on two or three of the amendments, if that is in order.

I note that Amendment No. 6 relates to the meaning of the word "care". It is used only in Clause 6(2)(b) where reference is made to, a health professional who has been involved in the care of an individual". We then have this definition clause which, as originally drawn, appeared to include examination, investigation and diagnosis. It is not immediately apparent that the word includes treatment. I am wondering whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the word as now defined includes treatment. Perhaps that is something upon which one can comment when we reach Amendment No. 6.

I have one or two comments on Amendment No. 14. First, what is the meaning of the phrase "individual access" to a medical report? That phrase is used twice in Amendment No. 14, subsection (2) and then it is used in Amendment No. 16, subsection (2). What is interesting is that when the phrase is used in the context of Amendment No. 14 it is not defined but when it is used in the context of Amendment No. 16 it is defined. It is defined in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 16. Should not the definition which is to be found in Amendment No. 16 also apply to Amendment No. 14? If that is the intention and if it is to have the same meaning—we are concerned with the meaning of definitions—the definition should perhaps be brought forward to the interpretation clause, Clause 2.

Still on Amendment No. 14, on reading subsection (2)(a) it would appear that as soon as the individual has had access to the report, the medical practitioner can send it forthwith to the applicant. But one has to read Amendment No. 15 before we find that the individual has also to give his consent to the report being supplied. That is a small matter, but we suggest that it would have been helpful to the medical practitioner if there had been a reference in Amendment No. 14 to the need for the consent required by Amendment No. 15 to be available; otherwise it might be overlooked.

My final comment concerns the use and the meaning in Amendment No. 14, subsection (2)(b) of the phrase: the individual having taken steps to arrange to have access to [the medical report]". That is an important phrase because if the individual has not taken the steps within 21 days then the medical practitioner can release the report to the applicant without the individual's consent. So what does the phrase really mean? Perhaps I can best pose A question to illustrate the possible difficulty. If the individual writes to the medical practitioner on day 20 that he requires access to the report but his letter is not received until day 21 or day 22, has he taken steps within the meaning of the clause to arrange to have access to the report within 21 days? That is my question.

It could probably be argued that a request which obviously one party can put in train is not an arrangement which probably, or possibly inevitably, requires the agreement of two or more of the parties. There is a reference in subsection (3) which supports my interpretation that there must be an arrangement. Therefore for the request to be sent even on day 20 or day 22 would not amount to an arrangement. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that there is this vital difference between applying for access to the report and making arrangements for access to it. If there is that distinction, the individual should not be led to believe that he can merely rely on a letter requesting a copy of the report. He must go beyond and thus ensure that there is an arrangement. Those are just a few comments that we should like to offer on the amendment.

The Earl of Arran

I should like to pay tribute again to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for their success in steering the Bill so far. We are especially grateful to the noble Lord for his ready willingness in allowing parliamentary counsel the opportunity to cast his eye over the Bill. I recognise the additional burdens that that has caused to the noble Lord and his advisers since we last considered the Bill in this Chamber.

The Government have an interest in seeing that any legislation that reaches the statute book is satisfactory. The amendments do not serve to change the substance of the objectives of the Bill. They are purely technical and are designed to remove any ambiguity in parts of the Bill which noble Lords considered previously. The amendments also serve to improve the structure of the Bill.

The Government are satisfied that the Bill with the amendments put before the Committee is acceptable and we therefore do not propose to oppose it. We commend the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to the Committee.

Lord Brain

I have two fairly small points and I wish to follow up points made from the Bench in front of me. In his introductory speech the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said in relation to Amendment No. 13 that a person "shall receive a copy" when given the opportunity of access. Amendment No. 13 does not in any way refer to receiving a copy and I believe that this again returns to the point of defining what access means and that it may mean receiving a copy rather than having to go to the surgery to see what is written.

I also wonder in Amendment No. 13 whether the new definition of, A person shall not apply to a medical practitioner", could not be rather tightly drawn under the new definitions of Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 which refer to somebody who will be doing the employing or carrying out the insurance contract. Often it is an individual doctor who writes to another medical practitioner seeking a medical report. I have a suspicion that the new drafting of the clause might make it difficult for a doctor, and he himself might have to notify the applicant that he proposes to write to the medical practitioner. I query that.

I also wonder about one other small matter. In Amendment No. 14, subsection (3) in the last line of paragraph (a) I wonder whether mentioning subsection (2)(a) is not a duplication, because "subsection (2) above" refers one back to subsection (1). Might it not be more economical to insert "subsection (1)" there? Those are my points.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall take his last point first, before I forget it. He may be right that there is a slight leapfrogging process here, but the drafting has been carried out by some better brains than mine. I hope that what I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, answers some of the noble Lord's other questions, but if not perhaps he would like to raise the matter again.

The question of care occurs not only in the definition of "health professionals", as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested. It is fundamental to the definition of medical report. It is there to distinguish—I can see now the difficulty that the Government sometimes have on these occasions—a report by an independent doctor from that of a doctor who has been treating the individual.

I believe that the inclusion of Amendment No. 6 goes some way to answering the question about care. It adds the words, for the purposes of, or in connection with, any form of medical treatment". I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me prior notice of the points he wished to raise. In relation to Amendment No. 14 he said that there should be a reference there as in other amendments. If the noble Lord looks at subsection (4) of Amendment No. 14 he will see that it states: References in this section and section … below to giving an individual access to a medical report are references to making the report or a copy of it available for his inspection; or supplying him with a copy of it". The matter is defined there as it is in Amendment No. 15.

8 p.m.

Lord Brain

Will the noble Lord give way? He may solve the problem if in Amendment No. 13, which states: (Access to reports before they are supplied) (1) to (3) he instead inserted "(1) to (4)". The point would then be included.

Lord Tordoff

I should like to consider that matter if I may and perhaps come back to the noble Lord later. I do not think that at this stage of the game I can guarantee to make any changes of that kind. As regards the second comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in respect of Amendment No. 14, the answer is that one can have different layouts for Bills. This Bill seeks to have a logical, chronological progression through the various phases. In other words, Amendment No. 13 deals with the consent to applications; Amendment No. 14 deals with the access before the supply of that information; and Amendment No. 15 deals with the consent to supply and also with the mechanics of the consent to supply. It would be difficult to place the first part of Amendment No. 15 in a different part where it is disconnected from the mechanics of consent. Indeed, it is signalled in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 14.

Turning to the case of the chap who writes to his doctor on the 20th but the letter may not arrive until the 22nd, the noble Lord will see that subsection (3) (b) of Amendment No. 14 states that the medical practitioner must receive a notification. Therefore the point that strikes home is that the medical practitioner must be in receipt of the notification by the individual before he is bound by the following part of the paragraph—in other words, to hold back for a further 21 days.

It is difficult to write into the Bill the vagaries of the Post Office. However, if the letter arrives on the 22nd I am afraid it is out of time. There must be a cut-off point somewhere in the process and it would be unfortunate if it was posted on the 20th and arrived by first-class post on the 22nd. However, there is a great deal of flexibility in the system. For instance, if individuals were going on holiday they could take up the early provisions of notifying the doctor before the application was sent by the insurance company or their employer.

Although one cannot have perfection in such matters I believe that the Bill caters for as many possible varieties of timing as is possible in any Bill. I hope that that assists the noble Lord. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, to his department and to the draftsmen in his office for doing what they have for the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4: Page 1, line 6, after ("access") insert (", in accordance with the provisions of this Act,"). Page 1, line 6, leave out ("himself or herself prepared") and insert ("the individual which is to be, or has been, supplied"). Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 9.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Interpretation]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 10, at end insert— (" "the applicant" means the person referred to in section (Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes) (1) below:")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 12: Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("for the purposes of, or in connection with, any form of medical treatment"). Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert— (" "employment purposes", in the case of any individual, means the purposes in relation to the individual of any person by whom he is or has been, or is seeking to be, employed (whether under a contract of service or otherwise);"). Page 1, line 15, leave out ("Article 2 of"). Page 1, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 21 and insert— (" "insurance purposes", in the case of any individual, means the purposes in relation to the individual of any person carrying on an insurance business with whom the individual has entered into, or is seeking to enter into, a contract of insurance,"). Page 1, line 21, leave out ("has the meaning given") and insert ("and "contract of insurance" have the same meaning as"). Page 1, line 25, after first ("report"), insert (", in the case of an individual,"). Page 1, line 26, leave out ("an") and insert ("the").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 13: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes.

.—(1) A person shall not apply to a medical practitioner for a medical report relating to any individual to be supplied to him for employment or insurance purposes unless—

1. (a) that person ("the applicant") has notified the individual that he proposes to make the application; and
2. (b) the individual has notified the applicant that he consents to the making of the application.

(2) Any notification given under subsection (1)(a) above must inform the individual of his right to withhold his consent to the making of the application, and of the following rights under this Act, namely—

1. (a) the rights arising under sections (Access to reports before they are supplied) (1) to (3) and (Retention of reports) (2) below with respect to access to the report before or after it is supplied,
2. (b) the right to withhold consent under subsection (1) of section (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) below, and
3. (c) the right to request the amendment of the report under subsection (2) of that section,

as well as of the effect of section 6 below.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 14: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Access to reports before they are supplied.

.—(1) An individual who gives his consent under section (Consent to applications for medical reports for employment or insurance purposes) above to the making of an application shall be entitled, when giving his consent, to state that he wishes to have access to the report to be supplied in response to the application before it is so supplied; and, if he does so, the applicant shall—

1. (a) notify the medical practitioner of that fact at the time when the application is made, and
2. (b) at the same time notify the individual of the making of the application;

and each such notification shall contain a statement of the effect of subsection (2) below.

(2) Where a medical practitioner is notified by the applicant under subsection (1) above that the individual in question wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied, the practitioner shall not supply the report unless—

1. (a) he has given the individual access to it, or
2. (b) the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the making of the application has elapsed without the individual having taken steps to arrange to have access to it.

(3) Where a medical practitioner—

1. (a) receives an application for a medical report to be supplied for employment or insurance purposes without being notified by the applicant as mentioned in subsection (2) above, but
2. (b) before supplying the report receives a notification from the individual that he wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied,

the practitioner shall not supply the report unless—

1. (i) he has given the individual access to it, or
2. (ii) the period of 21 days beginning with the date of that notification has elapsed without the individual having taken steps (either when giving the notification or otherwise) to arrange to have access to it.

(4) References in this section and section (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) below to giving an individual access to a medical report are references to—

1. (a) making the report or a copy of it available for his inspection; or
2. (b) supplying him with a copy of it;

and where a copy is supplied at the request, or otherwise with the consent, of the individual the practitioner may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of supplying it.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 15: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors.

.—(1) Where an individual has been given access to a report under section (Access to reports before they are supplied) above the report shall not be supplied in response to the application in question unless the individual has notified the medical practitioner that he consents to its being so supplied.

(2) The individual shall be entitled, before giving his consent under subsection (1) above, to request the medical practitioner to amend any part of the report which the individual considers to be incorrect or misleading; and, if the individual does so, the practitioner—

1. (a) if he is to any extent prepared to accede to the individual's request, shall amend the report accordingly;
2. (b) if he is to any extent not prepared to accede to it but the individual requests him to attach to the report a statement of the individual's views in respect of any part of the report which he is declining to amend, shall attach such a statement to the report.

(3) Any request made by an individual under subsection (2) above shall be made in writing.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 16: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Retention of reports.

.—(1) A copy of any medical report which a medical practitioner has supplied for employment or insurance purposes shall be' retained by him for at least six months from the date on which it was supplied.

(2) A medical practitioner shall, if so requested by an individual, give the individual access to any medical report relating to him which the practitioner has supplied for employment or insurance purposes in the previous six months.

(3) The reference in subsection (2) above to giving an individual access to a medical report is a reference to—

1. (a) making a copy of the report available for his inspection; or
2. (b) supplying him with a copy of it;

and where a copy is supplied at the request, or otherwise with the consent, of the individual the practitioner may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of supplying it.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Consent and notification of rights]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

I beg to move that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 negatived.

Clause 4 [Access before supply of report]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

From the looks I am receiving from the Clerk I am not sure that I am doing this correctly. Is it all right? I beg to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 negatived.

Clause 5 [Giving of access]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

I beg to move that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 negatived.

Clause 6 [Exemptions]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 17: Page 3, line 31, leave out ("make available to an individual") and insert ("give an individual access, in accordance with the provisions of section (Access to reports before they are supplied) (4) or (Retention of reports) (3) above, to").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 18: Page 3, line 34, after ("individual") insert ("or others").

The noble Lord said: I referred to this proposed amendment on Second Reading on 18th May. My remarks appear in the Official Report at cols. 375 and 376. Members of the Committee may remember that I said I would seek to block any loopholes which might arise whereby people could be endangered as a result of situations I described.

As further emphasis to that, I should like to quote from a letter written by the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, which backs up what I was saying. It states: Psychiatrists receive a great deal of important confidential information from third parties, particularly from relatives and friends. Our reports to other doctors, particularly general practitioners, often contain this information and the identity of the source of the information. We know that excerpts from our reports, or indeed the complete reports, may be quoted or appended to the reports prepared by the general practitioner for insurance or employment purposes and thus the identity of third parties may be revealed".

The issue is addressed in Clause 6(2) of the Bill, which states quite appropriately that the identity of the health professional supplying the information to the practitioner should be revealed to the person concerned. The Royal College is worried that the identity of the person providing the information to the health professional will also be revealed unless it is specifically stated that that identification should be protected. That was the point I made in explaining my Amendment No. 18 on Second Reading.

At that time the Minister said that he would look at the points that I made when the matter was considered in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that he has no objection to my amendment and I hope that my noble friend equally will not object. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

I am bound to say that the circumstances which require information to be withheld on the grounds that serious harm may be caused not to the individual but to someone else must be extremely rare, and often difficult to justify. Such circumstances might conceivably arise when dealing with seriously mentally ill people. This Bill is about giving greater access to reports about them, and that is consistent with our philosophy on medical records generally. On the basis that such a provision is only likely to be used under the most exceptional circumstances, we do not seek to oppose this amendment.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for explaining to the Committee the purport of his amendment. I can only go back to what I said on Second Reading; namely, that I believe that the Bill already covers these circumstances and I believe that his argument would have more force if we were talking about access to medical records. I think that in this rather narrow field of medical reports it is unlikely that this situation will ever occur. However, far be it from me to leave a situation where anybody is at risk as a result of this Bill, and as it is argued that it does not damage the Bill in any way we are happy to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21: Page 3, line 36, leave out ("make available to an individual") and insert ("give an individual access, in accordance with those provisions, to") Page 3, line 45, leave out subsections (3) and (4) Page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("(5) Where it appears to a medical practitioner that subsection (1) or (2) above is applicable to any part (but not the whole) of a medical report—

1. (a) he shall notify the individual of that fact; and
2. (b) references in the preceding sections of this Act to the individual being given access to the report shall be construed as references to his being given access to the remainder of it;

and other references to the report in sections (Access to reports before they are supplied) (4), (Consent to supplying of report and correction of errors) (2) and (Retention of reports) (3) above shall similarly be construed as references to the remainder of the report. (6) Where it appears to a medical practitioner that subsection (1) or (2) above is applicable to the whole of a medical report—

1. (a) he shall notify the individual of that fact; but
2. (b) he shall not supply the report unless he is notified by the individual that the individual consents to its being supplied;

and accordingly, if he is so notified by the individual, the restrictions imposed by section (Access to reports before they are supplied) (2) and (3) above on the supply of the report shall not have effect in relation to it.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [Retention of reports]:

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

I beg to move that Clause 7 shall not stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 negatived.

Clause 8 [Application to the court]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 22: Page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) If a court is satisfied on the application of an individual that any person, in connection with a medical report relating to that individual, has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any requirement of this Act, the court may order that person to comply with that requirement.".

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 23: After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:

("Notifications under this Act.

Any new notification required or authorised to be given under this Act—

1. (a) shall be given in writing; and
2. (b) may be given by post.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 24: Page 4, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this Act applies to a medical report prepared before the coming into force of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.