We join BPS in calling for changes to draft crime Bill
News from BACP

20 October 2021

We've briefed Peers ahead of a debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

We’ve joined with the British Psychological Society (BPS) to brief Peers on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Our joint briefing has been sent to Peers ahead of seven days of committee consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords, which is due to start on Wednesday.

In it, we’ve urged the Government to amend the Bill 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.

There’s already a system in place which allows police to access confidential information in the exceptional circumstances where this is necessary for public safety, the joint briefing said.

As well as working with BPS on the briefing, we’ve 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.

Martin Bell, our Head of Policy and Public Affairs, said: “Confidentiality lies at the heart of the therapeutic process and we know that many of our members share our concerns about the Bill falling short of well-established ethical criteria for the sharing of confidential health information.

“Patients must feel safe that they can speak openly about their issues, knowing that this information will be kept safe and private.

“The common law of duty of confidentiality upholds the trust of patients in health services, which can be extremely hard to gain. Hence, to compromise it would compromise the health of patients and put them at risk of further harm.”

Introduction

The British Psychological Society (BPS), the representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK, and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP), the largest professional body for counselling and psychotherapy in the UK, urges the Government to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 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.

The Queen’s Speech said that the Bill will “increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders and ensure the timely administration of justice”. While BPS and BACP support the Government’s initiatives to empower the police to uphold public safety, we believe that the proposed changes that would enforce data-sharing between NHS bodies and the police would erode trust and confidence in clinical psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists and other healthcare workers and pose a threat to public health.

The existing system of disclosure on “public interest” grounds is effective and does not need to be replaced with enforced data sharing:

Clause 16 of the Bill would legally require Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Local Health Boards (LGBs) to provide confidential health information to the police and Clauses 9 and 15 would grant CCGs and LGBs permission to share confidential health information with a wider list of recipients such as councils and educational authorities, as well as the police.

This would introduce a mandatory blanket obligation for CCGs and LHBs to share confidential health information with the police; replacing the existing system which allows clinical psychologists, counsellors and psychotherapists, and other health care professionals to disclose confidential information on “public interest” grounds, on a case-by-case basis, if it is necessary for the prevention, detection, or prosecution of serious crime or where there is an imminent risk of serious harm to an individual. Hence, we already have a system in place which allows the police to access confidential information in the exceptional circumstances where this is necessary for public safety.

The Serious Violence Duty can be achieved through the use of anonymised data rather than personal data:

The BPS and BACP also recognise that Clause 9 of the Bill supports the Serious Violence Duty which will require local authorities, the police, fire and rescue authorities, specified criminal justice agencies and health authorities, to work together to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in a local area, and then produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. However, we believe that this can be achieved through the systematic collection of anonymised data without having to access personal data in a manner that intrudes on the privacy of individuals.

Conclusion

Given that the current existing legislation already makes the necessary provisions for the police to access confidential health information in the circumstances in which it serves the interests of public safety, and that anonymised data can be used to produce analytics that help with prevention and reduction of violent crime, there appear to be no additional advantages which are brought about by the introduction of a mandatory, blanket obligation of data-sharing.

In order for psychological therapies to be effective, patients must feel safe that they can speak openly about their issues, knowing that this information will be kept safe and private. The common law of duty of confidentiality upholds the trust of patients in health services, which can be extremely hard to gain. Hence, to compromise it would compromise the health of patients and put them at risk of further harm.

Influencing decision makers

We work with with politicians and decision makers from all four nations to help them understand the positive changes that counselling can make to people's lives.

Protecting the public

How we safeguard clients and raise public confidence in the counselling professions

Advancing the profession

How we work to promote counselling and psychotherapy