|
Mr. Lansley: May we therefore conclude that in the case of a former medical student who has retained his
Column Number: 139
skeleton, but who has no scheduled purpose in mind, it would no longer be lawful to retain that holding, and in particular to hold it at home, or elsewhere not on licensed premises, or, further to that, to sell it?
4.30 pm
Dr. Ladyman: My understanding is that private use would be acceptable under the circumstances, but the holder could not sell it. So in the coming years some skeletons may need to be donated to future medical students. They can be passed on but they cannot be sold.
Dr. Harris: I am intrigued by the idea of private use. Does that mean, for instance, that if the hon. Member for Wyre Forest sits at home with his skeleton, stroking it in a loving manner—but no more—that is private use? I do not understand what private use is in that respect as distinct from other uses.
Dr. Ladyman: Public display would not be lawful, but private use—presumably the hon. Member for Wyre Forest would be using the skeleton for his personal education, which was why he initially obtained it—would be acceptable. I hope that with those assurances, and as long as Opposition Members do not have any more skeletons in their cupboards, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Dr. Murrison: I am not entirely clear on this matter, and it is an interesting and important point. Is the Under-Secretary saying that medical students will no longer be able to sell their skeletons to each other?
Dr. Ladyman: That is correct. I have concluded my comments and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Dr. Taylor: The first part of the Under-Secretary's contribution was rather above me, but I understood the last part absolutely. If medical students can currently afford to buy a half skeleton, which, going by the rate of inflation, costs as much as £240, and they are not allowed to—
Dr. Ladyman: I should point out that we will be providing them with much more generous student loans.
Dr. Taylor: As I am reassured, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) rose—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is too late.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Harry Cohen: I want to pick up on the point about students being unable to sell a skeleton that they own to another student. The Under-Secretary said that it would not be allowed under the terms of the Bill. I cannot see why, under those restricted circumstances, selling would be unreasonable. The Under-Secretary should consider that and enable a student who has finished using his skeleton to sell it to another student for the same purpose.
Dr. Ladyman: I will consider that. The important point is that the student cannot make a profit. They
Column Number: 140
could exchange it for the same price, but I suspect that there will be an increased use of plastic skeletons in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Existing anatomical specimens
Dr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in
clause 8, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (9).
I cannot promise that the amendment will be anything like as entertaining as the previous one; indeed, I can promise that it will be extremely dull.
The Under-Secretary will appreciate the concerns of many hon. Members about the powers that the Secretary of State might have under the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to tease out a description of what is meant by amending subsection (8) and the qualifying purposes therein.
Dr. Ladyman: I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman the entertaining explanation that he is looking for. It would be unfortunate to remove the order-making power because it necessarily reflects the order-making power in clause 1(8).
The activities that are authorised to be carried out with former anatomical specimens are set out in clause 8(8) by reference to the purposes in schedule 1, in common with the Bill's theme to deal with those purposes. The purposes listed in schedule 1 can be altered by order under clause 1(8). If the proposed power were to be exercised, it could make a nonsense of clause 8(8). We therefore need an order-making power to ensure that any order under clause 1(8) can be accompanied by the necessary consequential amendments to clause 8(8). With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Dr. Murrison: The Under-Secretary was quite right: that was a very dull explanation. Nevertheless, the hour is late, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Coroners
Mr. Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 9, page 8, line 17, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
The Chairman: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 25, in
clause 9, page 8, line 22, leave out 'with the consent' and insert 'under the authority'.
Mr. Lansley: The amendments deal essentially with the same point. The clause relates to the coroner's powers. As we understand the position, we are not legislating to interfere with their existing practices, which is fine. Indeed, subsection (1) states:
''Nothing in this Part applies to anything done for purposes of functions of a coroner or under the authority of a coroner.''
Column Number: 141
What is done under the authority of a coroner that is not for the purposes of their functions? Why does the clause say:
''or under the authority of a coroner'',
rather than ''and under the authority of a coroner''? An action would then have to be both for the coroner's purposes and with his authority.
Amendment No. 25 relates to subsection (2)(b), which specifies that people who deal with material that should be in the hands of the coroner for the purposes of the coroner cannot act on the authority available under clause 1. However, the end of subsection (2) adds the words:
''except with the consent of the coroner.''
Like the ''or'' in subsection (1), that suggests that we are dealing with activities that go beyond the purposes of the functions of a coroner, but which coroners may authorise in lieu of consent. I am not at all sure that we intend them to act in that way. As it happens, amendment No. 26 makes the same point on requiring an activity that is no longer for the purposes of the functions of a coroner to be undertaken with appropriate or qualifying consent, depending on whether it is a scheduled purpose or DNA analysis.
The question at the heart of the amendments is, therefore, whether the Government permit activities that go beyond the functions of a coroner, on the authority of a coroner who is acting in lieu of consent. That was not our understanding of the purpose of clause 9.
Dr. Ladyman: The intention is certainly that the Bill should not interfere with the powers and duties of coroners. I think that we all understand that. However, coroners have a duty to act in different circumstances, and we would not want a nominated representative to interfere with those duties. I am sure that there would be no dispute between us over the fact that the coroner's powers should be protected if he suspected, for example, that something had to be investigated. However, coroners have other, wider duties under case law. For example, they may wish to order the storage and retention of bodies for the purposes of a defendant who needs the material to mount a defence in a case in which they are accused of having acted improperly. The coroner therefore has a wide range of responsibilities, which we must ensure are protected.
Amendment No. 13 would constrain a coroner from giving, in the interest of justice, a lawful direction to retain a body or human remains. If a coroner were able only to authorise retention or use in connection with his statutory functions, the nominated representative or person in a qualifying relationship would be able to prevent further examination of the remains on behalf of a person charged with connection of the death. That could result in failure to convict the guilty or acquit the innocent.
Mr. Lansley: I do not understand that. Would that not be covered by the exceptions under clause 40?
Column Number: 142
Dr. Ladyman: As the Bill stands, the coroner's interest is protected, but we are discussing the impact of the hon. Gentleman's amendment on the Bill. I believe that he can be reassured.
Mr. Lansley: Let me explain to the Under-Secretary. Even if he were right about the impact of our amendment—I do not concede that he is—the example he is using is drawn from the conduct of a prosecution, but the conduct of a prosecution is specifically exempted from the impact of clauses relating to consent by the terms of clause 40(1)(b).
Dr. Ladyman: It has been suggested to me that clause 40 relates only to the licensing regime under part 2 and not consent under part 1, so that is probably the technical answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. However, we are not necessarily talking about the coroner's duties in respect of a prosecution. There may be a wider duty for the coroner to protect evidence in relation to other matters where people have been wrongly accused or may feel that material is necessary to some future action. It is those powers that we need to protect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead raised the point during the previous session that we have to protect the duty of a coroner to carry out his wider functions and not allow people who may be nominated or in a qualifying relationship to interfere with those duties. That is how the Bill is drafted.
Dr. Harris: The Under-Secretary talked about needing to protect the ability of the coroner to carry out his wider functions, but surely that would be covered by the first part of subsection (1), which states:
''purposes of functions of a coroner''.
Therefore the alternate phrase—
''or under the authority of a coroner''—
is not required.
| 
