Agenda item

A Bewers reiterated the background to this issue and a note received by email from the Borough Council’s Personnel Section was circulated in response to the questions raised at the last meeting.  Andrew asked whether this was the Borough Council’s official response to the letter sent out by this Forum.  L Ambrose advised that it was sent in the absence of any HR Managers being able to attend this meeting due to prior commitments but had indicated that they would be happy to come along to a future meeting of the Forum to discuss the issue further.  The email had been sent so that there was a response for this evening’s meeting.  It was noted that the matter had also been raised at the Disabled Peoples Forum and Andrew had been invited to attend their next meeting to speak on the issue.  The email advised that the partners would be discussing the issue further at their next meeting in July.  In the meantime the Human Resource Team did not wish to disadvantage any group under the DDA and would use the question as currently advised by Medigold.  Medigold had been asked to outline the reasons why the question was included and it was understood that it was because it was a tried and tested (and industry wide) pre-employment screening question.  Medigold’s comments were as follows

(1)       That the question should be looked at solely from a medical disability point of view.

(2)       The clinical reasons behind the HIV and Hepatitis questions were two fold.

(A)  A Health and Safety question in respect of certain risks of certain occupations that potential Council employees may undertake eg secure child care, secure mental health care, some forms of water works and refuse collection.  There was also the issue of giving specific instructions to HIV positive employees and carriers for Hepatitis B and C in respect of First Aiders.

(B)  The clinical risks of HIV sufferers going onto Aids and thus being unable to give regular and effective service through illness.  The employer has a right to know this and judge those risks subject to occupational health advice in advance just like any other illness revealed in pre employment questionnaires such as MS, diabetes, recurrent mental illness, chronic pancreatic etc.

(C)  There may be implications for insurance and pension entry in some schemes.  Comment from the Borough Council’s Personnel was that it was a clear view that HIV and Hepatitis questions should remain within the questionnaire but reassurance should be given to applicants who were concerned about this that the Council did not discriminate in any way (positively or negatively) to applicants who were HIV positive and that this information was kept strictly confidential by the medical staff at Medigold and not revealed without the individuals express consent in cases where it was necessary for clinical reasons.  Furthermore HIV / Aids were accepted as potential disabilities with the Disability Discrimination Act 1998 and potential employees had equal protection under the law to sufferers of other disabilities under the Act.

In discussing the response the Forum expressed the view that the issue should now be raised with the Towns MP and also copied to the Terence Higgin Trust.  It was also suggested that other authorities be approached to get more information on best practice and L Ambrose undertook to action this and approach other authorities including Manchester City Council, Brighton, Birmingham etc.  It was also suggested that other contacts regarding this issue include the Insurance Ombudsman, the Borough’s Welfare Officer, the Police Organisation SPECTRUM and any other organisations that would raise awareness of this issue.