Human Tissue Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): The Retained Organs Commission finishes in a couple of months' time. Clearly, the Human Tissue Authority will not be up and running by then, possibly not even in shadow form. Who will carry on the commission's work, which will still need to be done, during that interim period?

Ms Winterton: The Retained Organs Commission, as the hon. Gentleman says, is due to close on 31 March. However, the Department of Health is in close contact with the commission about the process for handing over its work in the first instance to strategic

Column Number: 151

health authorities. There will certainly be continuity with the central telephone advice line. At the moment, the commission is working with strategic health authorities so that they follow its guidance on inquiries from families and so on. The hon. Gentleman will know that a lot of expertise has been gained during the past three years on how to deal with such sensitive issues.

Mr. Lansley: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). The proposition is that the responsibilities and expertise acquired by the Retained Organs Commission should be let go, and that much of it should be recreated in the Human Tissue Authority after an intervening period in which strategic health authorities try to deal with the same issues in the same way. On the face of it, that is not the best way of proceeding. It seems that we are dispersing responsibilities around the country and gathering them back together at the Human Tissue Authority. Is there not a case for continuing the work of the Retained Organs Commission until the shadow Human Tissue Authority can pick up its responsibilities and some of the staffing at the centre?

Ms Winterton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we have to be clear about what the Retained Organs Commission will be able to do and what one would expect it to be doing at this stage, given the work that has already been done. We are talking about the retention of organs and tissue that has taken place over a number of years. The job of the Retained Organs Commission is to ensure that, wherever possible, retained organs and tissue are returned as quickly as possible—if that is appropriate and what families wish—or that such organs and tissue are retained for medical research and so on. We want that to continue.

The Retained Organs Commission is talking with trusts and strategic health authorities at a local level—the level at which we feel that decisions and guidance can be most adequately dealt with. It is not a question of handing responsibility over. It is appropriate that such expertise is passed on to individual trusts and to strategic health authorities so that the casework and the support for families also transfers to the local level. Much of the work has been completed, but there will be advice and draft guidance, which the shadow Human Tissue Authority can pass on if necessary. Initially, it is most appropriate for trusts and strategic health authorities to deal with and build on the valuable expertise that the Retained Organs Commission has established.

9.30 am

Dr. Murrison: I am a little concerned because the Retained Organs Commission will be a repository for the experience of the civil servants working for it. Does the Minister envisage that expertise going elsewhere and individuals being reappointed? The natural corollary of what she is saying is that those people will be subsumed within the shadow authority and ultimately the HTA. However, under the scheme that

Column Number: 152

she outlined, those civil servants will presumably be reappointed to areas completely outside the sphere, and that would represent a huge loss of experience.

Ms Winterton: As I have said, the Department will continue to work closely with trusts and strategic health authorities to ensure that they are able to follow the guidance that the commission will pass on. The scheme is an appropriate way to continue the commission's work, and some civil servants involved with it may join the shadow authority. We have been working closely with the commission to ensure that we are fully aware of the guidance and the expertise that it has accumulated and will disperse to trusts and strategic health authorities.

I hope that that provides reassurance, both on the timetable for the establishment of the shadow authority, and on the fact that we understand the need for the authority to have proper expertise. The proposals outlined in the Bill are the best way to secure that, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the range of subjects that were raised. I shall deal first with the timetable. Given that the shadow authority may be established in the summer if the Bill receives Royal Assent before the summer recess, I am not entirely persuaded that it is sensible for all the commission's functions to be dispersed, although I realise that some might be held by the Department of Health rather than the strategic health authorities. The authority should not necessarily work with families individually in the longer term; trusts should take on that responsibility.

If the shadow authority will be functioning later this year, with a view to becoming a legal body in 2005, there will be an intervening period during which codes of practice and the like will be established. As we have already discovered, and will discuss further, the codes of practice are instrumental to the authority's functioning. It is obviously in the interests of the medical and research communities that the codes of practice are available as early as possible, and in a form that is unlikely to change repeatedly subject to consultation, otherwise that would create confusion.

I want to ensure that substantive appointments are made to the authority which are likely to subsist, so that those making decisions are likely to have to live with them and follow them up once the body is formally established. That means getting on with the job fairly quickly.

The Minister directed us to look at the structure of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I have seen several links between this Bill and the legislation governing that authority which suggest that they operate in similar ways. On matters such as transparency, which we will discuss, the HFEA is a good example for the Human Tissue Authority to follow.

On membership and numbers, it is interesting that last year we discussed the structure of the independent regulator for foundation hospitals. I was in an adjacent Committee Room, in which the Department

Column Number: 153

of Health sternly insisted that the regulator could not be more than one person, although it finally bent to the idea of two or three. It said that the only way to deliver executive authority properly was through one person. That number has now increased to 20, which is going from the ridiculous to the sublime, depending on which part of the Department of Health one is dealing with. [Interruption.] Perhaps it depends on which Minister one is dealing with.

Twenty people seems to be a large authority, but if—as the Minister says—several members of the Human Tissue Authority will have relevant expertise, many people in the areas that I mentioned should be satisfied. If the authority were reduced to a smaller number of people, with only a few having relevant expertise, it would have difficulties in representing the areas of interest to which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and I referred. We want to ensure that those areas of expertise will be represented.

As long as we have the Minister's assurance that that is the intention and that it will be delivered in due course, there is no value in pressing the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Dr. Harris: I have one question for the Minister about holding meetings in public. The HFEA, to which she previously referred, is pleased to be holding in public those parts of its meetings that can be held in public. I welcome that development, but that authority has been in existence for many years. There is no reason why the Human Tissue Authority should take several years to ensure that it has a default policy of holding in public all of its meetings that do not involve confidential business. Information should be available on its website so that members of the public and interested parties may attend to see the workings of the authority.

Ms Winterton: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. If no confidential business needed to be discussed in private, I would hope that meetings would, as far as possible, be held in public.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 11

Remit

Dr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in

clause 11, page 9, line 28, after 'for', insert 'the'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 83, in

clause 13, page 10, line 35, after 'from', insert 'paragraphs (d) to (f)'.

Amendment No. 106, in

Column Number: 154

clause 29, page 19, line 19, leave out from 'activity' to end of line 21.

Amendment No. 129, in

clause 33, page 23, line 6, leave out subsection (3).

Dr. Murrison: The amendments deal with the vexed question of qualifying museums, which appear to have assumed a special status in the Bill. The explanatory notes tell us that qualifying museums are those that are open to the public and do not make a profit. Because of that, they appear to have been given several attributes and exclusions that will make their life much easier. We may all say that that is jolly good, but the Bill is about controlling the way that organs and bodies are handled, and it seems extraordinary that those museums should be excluded.

One concern that has been raised by members of the general public relates to the activities of Professor Gunther von Hagens and his ''Bodyworlds'' exhibition. At the very least, that was controversial. It is a matter of opinion as to whether it offended the public sense of good taste or decency, and although I do not think that any Opposition Members would want to see those activities banned out of hand, there is a feeling that they need to be regulated. Of all the activities that we are discussing, this one needs the light of scrutiny poured upon it. It is unusual and new, at least in terms of this century and the last, so we need to delve into it more closely. We need to ensure that the inspectorates that will be set up under the Human Tissue Authority can scrutinise what is going in exhibitions such as ''Bodyworlds'', and in other activities that could spring up.

We understand that the activities of Professor von Hagens were legally controversial at the time. It therefore seems strange that the Bill has not grasped the opportunity of defining what is permitted and what is not. In respect of the other activities under discussion, and in the context of a qualifying museum, one could say that things are being allowed to become institutionally lax.

The group of four amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) would degrade the special consideration that qualifying museums are given in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee why those museums, which are defined by having public access and being not for profit, are given such special handling.

Amendment No. 28 is a presentational amendment. It would insert the word ''the'' in connection with purposes. We merely want to quiz the Minister on her grammar. It seems that ''the'' would improve the way that the Bill reads. I would be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with our interpretation.

The remainder of the amendments stem from what I have been saying about qualifying activities, and probably do not need to be explained in any further depth. I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 83, which would clamp down on the exemptions that can be enjoyed by qualifying museums. It

Column Number: 155

mentions specifically paragraphs (d) to (f), which refer to activities about which we would be particularly concerned.

Amendment No. 106 would delete clause 29(3)(b) by removing the exemption that qualifying museums have under clause 29. Similarly, amendment No. 129 would delete the exemption that qualifying museums have from the scrutiny of the inspectorates of anatomy and pathology. In the case of such scrutiny by inspectors, I can think of no more compelling an argument than that they should be able to enter qualifying museums, especially given the novel activities that we have seen over the past few years—I am thinking in particular of ''Bodyworlds''.

It is extraordinary that the Bill should specifically state that those museums are excluded from the inspectors' remit. We do not for one moment say that they should be subjected to the increasing bureaucracy that would come with the inspectors, but it is remarkable that they should be specifically excluded from their scrutiny. Indeed, I hope that the inspectors will be able to help qualifying museums to determine how they might proceed with their exhibits. The amendment is meant to be helpful.

9.45 am

 

---

Prepared 3 February 2004