Once someone is employed there is no reason why you cannot ask them to declare any pre-existing medical conditions or any medication they are currently taking. You cannot force them to provide such information unless it is safety critical to the role that they perform but where information is disclosed ask them for written permission to disclose such information to fellow employees who would need the disclosed information in the event of an emergency. Such persons may include supervisors, first aiders, fire wardens etc. The information should only be disclosed to essential personnel and not all in sundry.

Agree with Kate! You can't disclose personal information of that nature anyway without the individuals consent.

I'd add that it's not particularly useful to know "your new colleague has angina" (there's nothing people can do with this information) whereas it might indeed be useful to tell a colleague "If I suddenly seem out of breath then please get me my medication which is in ..."

We have a system such that any person can VOLUNTARILY fill out a "confidential emergency medical form" highlighting medical conditions that may be useful to emergency/first-aid related response in case the casualty is unconscious. It is kept in a sealed envelope in our security/reception building and only opened if the person who has filled requires first aid and is rendered unconscious. Our first aid procedure includes checking whether such information has been made available. This may not be practical for all workplaces as our first aiders and other emergency responders all carry radios so communication is fast.

Many thanks, a few different perspectives, but to those asking how is it going to help?? I'm dismayed that very few think it relevant for a gang of scaffolders working at height (I do not want to talk about SG4: eradicating the work at height argument) to know a new employee may have an intrinsically dangerous condition in the circumstances. I have met said scaffolders during my time in the trade who suffer hypoglycemic attacks and have refused to tell fellow scaffolders of this. The question I raised on a safety issue was based round the fact that realistically, scaffolders do not have a 1st aider per gang. So if the employer failed to find a way to notify other parties within their undertakings (as many employ on a labour only sub-contracting basis for piece work), what extent would their liability be under HASAWA 2(2)(c) or MHSWR Reg 10 ? It is information regarding those other gang members H&S, no? Co-operation from ambulance chasing employees whilst counter-productive and counter-intuitive isn't unheard of in these times.

Since he cannot tell anyone without written consent of the person it is largely irrelevant. That's if the person even informs his employer/contractor that he has an illness/disability. Unless you are considering having a mandatory employment medical with full gp disclosure (again, needing consent). Even with the medical, you still cannot disclose without consent. And since you are so paranoid: How about the DDA ? Another can of worms. Not that telling most first-aiders would make any difference since they are so far up their own backsides with their extensive medical knowledge. Not.

Am I missing something? Our employees are health screened at induction and annually. They MUST disclose any medical conditions that may affect their work, and ultimately, their or their colleagues safety. e.g Vertigo,(working at heights), heart conditions, (working at heights) diabetes,(driving) allergies (CoSHH considerations) It is not enough to say "if this happens do this" , as any first aider or medical professorial needs to know the cause of the medical problem. e.g scenario- (and highly relevant) My wife can go into anaphylaxis by exposure to latex in the atmosphere. As a first aider you arrive and her colleague says," she fell down struggling to breathe and now unconscious" You as the first aider NEED to know she is allergic to latex before you go slapping latex face masks on her and the paramedic starts using latex gloves, catheters and other equipment which OFTEN still contains latex. You NEED to know she need 2 epipen injections and a hydro cortisone injection or she will be dead in 10 minutes. Or was she having an asthma attack? In which case you have different problems. Symptoms for medical problems can be similar for many different conditions. We have 1 member of staff who reacts to 1 chemical we use at work. We can't avoid using it, it's the only option we have. But he knows what it is, how to protect himself from it (simply by using his PPE properly) AND his colleagues know what the problem is and what causes it so they can pass on information to medical professionals if required. For HIS safety we inform the first aiders what the problem is and how to deal with it. All this talk about data protection is clouding the issue of protecting and caring for the workforce.

Regrettably, the situation arising in the original question, 'on the practicality of disclosing health information of employees for the sake of risk reduction' relates to a judgment in the High Court in 2009 which casts profound doubt on several of the well-intentioned comments. In Cheltenham Borough Council v Christine Susan Laird [2009] EWHC 1253 QB, the employer lost their claim for £1m. against a former chief executive who had falsely completed her form of application in so far as she didn't declare a history of depression prior to her appointment. In post, due to health problems she was repeated absent and eventually lost her job, followed by years of litigation, with - in her view - nobody winning, as she had to pay her own costs. The critical conclusion was that the employers had failed to conduct an appropriate process of assessment prior to the appointment. As a result, nobody in the Cheltenham Borough Council was in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment about Ms. Laird vulnerability in her role. While not many safety and health professionals may be faced with issues about assessing the mental health of chief executives prior to their appointment, the judgment in this case can be used to argue the case about the psychological health (mental and emotional) about any employee. Who needs to have relevant knowledge if an individual has needed psychiatric treatment in the past? Almost certainly, his/her line manager if he/she is to be in a position to make appropriate judgments about the level of stress he/she can manage. Not simply when operating a crane or navigating a ladder or scaffold - the stresses associated with phonecalls and meetings, as in the case of Ms. Laird, are much more likely to be the kinds of issues you should be in a position to evaluate with reliable, valid data. Or refer appropriately on a timely basis - or leave your employer open to a claim under The Equality Act 2010, without any upper limit.

Thanks Keiron, but does that case not fundamentally one of the presiding outcomes from Hatton V Sutherland, whereby employers can take at face value the honesty which a prospective employee response gives, regarding their mental health. I think that is maybe straying though from my original point. I'm coming to think If they complete the company medical questionnaire correctly, and chose not to inform their gang members, the company is either at risk from not keeping other employees safe by providing info (under (2(2)(c)), at risk of liability from Data Protection Act if no consent given, and at risk from choosing to protect employees by not allowing him to work without consent to advise his gang members from EA2010. In which case reliance on an outcome similar to Coxhall V Goodyear, where health and safety over-ruled other legislation. interesting comments and thanks for the help