Agenda item

Andrew tabled a note giving an update on the situation with regard to Medigold.  He referred to the discussion at the last meeting reminding that there had been no clarity with regard to the issue of confidentiality from Medigold and that he had undertaken to look at best practice elsewhere.  He subsequently contacted UNISON, the T H Trust and the D R Commission.  The responses from each were outlined in the note tabled.  In response to the query the Terence Higgins Trust had responded by saying that they were lobbying to make such a question on an insurance form illegal and were also asking the question why an employer would need that information.  With regard to UNISON they had advised that since 2002 it had been a UNISON policy that pre-job screening for HIV in areas where public safety was an issue should be accompanied by a guarantee that the test would be taken on a voluntary basis and that the procedure ensured that there would be no detriment in terms of employment status for those testing positive.  Furthermore they made the comment that it was possible that even asking the question on a pre-employment questionnaire could be discriminatory.  The Disability Rights Commission commented that the fact such a question was asked might subsequently be used as evidence of discrimination.  Also short listing on the basis of an applicant’s responses to a medical questionnaire may be discriminatory if the employer had not ascertained the likely effects of a disability or medical condition on the applicant’s ability to do the job or whether reasonable adjustments would overcome any disadvantage it caused.  They further commented that even where there were medical requirements which must be met it was good practice for employers not to require job applicants to answer a medical questionnaire until after a conditional job offer had been made.  In terms of further developments on the issue it was understood that at the occupational health meeting between Consortium employers and Medigold on 18 April after a full debate there was final agreement to withdraw the question about testing.  It was to be replaced by a block question around, “Have you ever suffered from …” to include HIV etc.  The wording of the question was being consulted and agreed around the consortium.  However this still did raise a number of questions such as, “What was the rationale for all potential employees being asked about their HIV status?”  Medigold have been asked for a statement on this.  Also if such disclosure was given to Medigold who else would get to know and under what circumstances and how was confidentiality maintained.  As a way forward on this issue it was being recommended that this Forum write to the Chief Executive of Northampton Borough Copuncil asking these questions and seeking a clear rationale for needing to know the HIV status of its employees.  Tom expressed the view that there also needed to be assurance that there would be no reference from Medigold to the General Practitioners.  P Crofts commented that in his view it was strange that these questions were being asked and that it was sending out negative messages about HIV and AIDS..  As such it was agreed that this issue would be kept on the agenda for further discussion at the next meeting and that in the mean time a letter would be formulated to send to the Town’s two MPs once the General Election had taken place in case there were any changes to the Town’s MP’s.