Concerns that we鈥檝e raised about the impact the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill could have on confidentiality were mentioned during a House of Lords debate.

We joined the British Psychological Society (BPS) to brief Peers on the bill ahead of the debate.

In the joint briefing, we urged the Government to amend the 聽in order to withdraw Clauses 9, 15 and 16 in Chapter 1, which would afford police the power to override the duty of medical confidentiality.

We said there鈥檚 already a system in place which allows police to access confidential information in the exceptional circumstances where this is necessary for public safety.

An amendment explaining this was put forward by Baroness Brinton, Lord Patel, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Paddick at the second committee stage debate.聽

The Government has now agreed to organise a meeting with Baroness Brinton to discuss this issue further, ahead of the bill going forward to the next stage in the process, known as the report stage.

Ethical dimension

Martin Bell, our Head of Policy and Public Affairs, said: 鈥淭his was an important opportunity to challenge the Government,聽 on behalf of our members,聽 to think again about the ethical dimension of their proposals on patient confidentiality. We鈥檙e grateful for Baroness Brinton and Lord Paddick for their support and securing further discussions with Government.聽

鈥淲e hope these lead to the eventual withdrawal of these damaging clauses. 香港六合彩精准资料鈥檚 policy team will continue to monitor this situation closely and will be working with the British Psychological Society on next steps in advance of report stage鈥�.

During the debate Lord Paddick, a Liberal Democrat peer, referenced our briefing and mentioned both 香港六合彩精准资料 and BPS.

He said: 鈥淭hey believe that the Bill as drafted allows the police to override the duty of medical confidentiality, eroding trust and confidence in clinical psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists with the associated threat to public health, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who also believes that it will undermine the relationship between him as a doctor and his patients.鈥�

He added: 鈥淲hether we are talking about doctors in general practice or psychiatrists, psychologists or counsellors, there are already well-established, well-understood policies and procedures, practices and protocols to deal with the balance between patient confidentiality and the police being able to access confidential information in the exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for public safety.鈥�

We also worked closely with the British Medical Association (BMA) to coordinate our responses and strengthen our voices in recognition that this issue is bigger than counselling and psychotherapy.

Baroness Brinton, a Liberal Democrat peer, thanked us, BPS, BMA and the General Medical Council for the briefings.

What happens next?

At the end of the debate, Baroness Williams of Trafford responded on behalf of the Government to note the debate had been 鈥渋ncredibly informative鈥�.

She鈥檚 agreed to organise a meeting with Baroness Brinton to discuss the issues of confidentiality further ahead of the next stage in the process.

Although the amendment was withdrawn, it鈥檚 now likely to return as a new amendment with potentially slightly different wording at the next stage of the bill process.

It will be debated again before a final decision is made on whether to include it.

We鈥檒l continue to follow the progress of the bill and will potentially reach out to Peers again and look to work the BMA and BPS to put together another joint response that reflects the importance of this issue.