|
Dr. Harris: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the inclusion of bone marrow would include autologous transfusion, in which bone marrow is taken from the patient and put back into the patient? Will the same apply to other human tissue for those purposes?
Dr. Ladyman: Yes, I believe that I can confirm that, but if I change my mind before I finish speaking, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): My hon. Friend will not change his mind.
Dr. Ladyman: No, I will not change my mind.
Column Number: 225
Blood and blood derivatives fall under the consent provisions, but their procurement, storage and use are excluded from regulation, because they will be dealt with by arrangements being set up under the blood directive. A designated competent authority will carry out inspections under legislation following the blood directive.
However, blood precursors—blood stem cells—are not regulated under the blood directive, so the amendment would remove storage and use of blood precursors from regulation by the appropriate inspectorate. That would mean removing bone marrow transplantation from the oversight of the inspectorate, undermining the comprehensive scope of the regulatory regime. That would be inappropriate, as I hope hon. Members will agree.
Dr. Harris: According to the Under-Secretary's answer to my previous question, he is saying that the remit of the authority and the inspectorates will include bone marrow or other tissue taken during an operation that is treated intra-operatively—within the operation—and then put back, because it had been taken out of the body, for example, to transfect for gene therapy or something else. Is that really his intention?
Dr. Ladyman: That will be within the remit, but not licensable. If I can clarify that further later on, I will certainly do so. With those explanations, I hope that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) will accept that he should withdraw the amendment.
Dr. Murrison: Given the explanation and the assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Inspectorates: Boards
Dr. Murrison: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
schedule 4, page 49, line 38, at end insert—
'(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) above, the Authority shall exercise its power to appoint at least one member of the Board whom it believes to be representative of the interests of the Royal College of Pathologists.'.
Various learned bodies and groups representing those engaged in medical research or, professionally, in the handling of human material have expressed concern that their experience and expertise will not be adequately reflected in the various bodies created under the Bill. We have to admit that part of that concern is altruistic; there is a genuine desire on the part of those groups to lend their experience and expertise to these bodies. There is also concern for their members and others who work in this sphere, given the potentially quite punitive nature of some of the measures. It is therefore only natural that those groups should seek to influence the bodies that will be created. The public can be assured that they would benefit from their presence and active involvement in
Column Number: 226
the inspectorates, which many of us are concerned will not be adequately informed, given the complex nature of much of the subject matter.
The amendment would specifically include representatives of the Royal College of Pathologists in the inspectorate of anatomy and pathology. It is reasonable that such people should be included, given the subject matter with which that inspectorate will be dealing. The Bill deals to a large extent with those who will be excluded from the various bodies that will be set up, but it says relatively little about those who will be included and the expertise that the bodies will have. The amendment would give the authority a steer in that respect.
Dr. Ladyman: On Tuesday, in debating amendment No. 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), we discussed issues similar to those raised by this amendment. He sought to have the Bill specify that members with relevant expertise should be appointed to the authority. My hon. Friend the Minister of State said then that it is important that a range of expertise is reflected in the authority's membership. That will apply equally to the boards of the inspectorates.
It would be inappropriate to identify one particular professional interest that had to be represented on the board of the inspectorate of anatomy and pathology. That is not to say that we do not regard the Royal College of Pathologists as an important body with a legitimate interest in the activities of the inspectorate. However, it is not only pathology that has such an interest, but the anatomy, tissue banking and pharmaceutical communities. In any event, in making appointments to the board, the authority will comply with the standards of the Nolan report, which includes the overriding principle that all appointments should be made on merit. All vacancies will be brought to the attention of those with an interest in the area of the inspectorate's work so that they can apply. The vast majority of public bodies do not have persons who represent particular bodies on their boards, and there is no special case for treating the inspectorate differently.
With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
9.30 am
Dr. Murrison: The Under-Secretary seems to be saying that he would expect the bodies to include people who are associated with the various organisations that will be dealt with by the Bill. I hope that that is true and that those bodies will act as a repository of experience and expertise. Given that my interpretation of his comments is correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Criminal justice purposes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Subsection (1) describes
''the prevention or detection of crime, or . . . the conduct of a prosecution''
as purposes of examinations and the removal of body parts. As Committee members might know, I spoke on Second Reading about a long-term concern of mine: the removal of brains of criminals and people generally. I am led to understand that the brain is removed in an extremely high percentage of cases when there is a pathologist post-mortem examination. I do not understand why.
Dr. Taylor: I should point out that for an effective post-mortem examination in which the brain has to be examined, it must be removed in toto because it must be fixed before it can be sectioned for examination. Removal of the brain is implicit in a post mortem that requires examination of the brain.
Harry Cohen: I appreciate that point, and I understand that a relatively high proportion of such post mortems would include brain removal, especially if people had had brain-related deaths. However, my understanding is that the brain is removed in about 45 per cent. of all post mortems. That seems excessively high.
I want to concentrate on the criminal justice aspect. At the time of Ronnie Kray's death, I read a report that his brain was removed and that he was buried without it. That caused a lot of offence to his family. Fred West also had his brain removed. We do not know what has happened in the case of Harold Shipman—I cannot ask because that is all sub judice at present. Fred West and Harold Shipman both hung themselves, so I do not understand why, in those circumstances, their brains should be removed.
I received an answer to my question from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who said:
''Under the Coroners Act 1988 and Coroners Rules 1984, a coroner undertaking a coroner's post mortem examination may remove and retain any organs or tissue that he/she deems relevant to the cause of death on his/her own authority alone. However, any organ or tissue removed in such cases may not be used for any other purpose unless separate authorisation is obtained.''—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 485W.]
That answer was welcome. However, I wonder whether coroners are qualified to make that decision. It seems that, particularly in the prison system, the process is driven by the pathologists, who want to undertake brain removal. The pathologists seem to be setting the trends.
Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a great service by raising an important point. I suspect that the answer is that the pathologist conducting the coroner's post mortem has a series of tick boxes and that the process is very didactic. I suspect that the removal, weighing, fixing and
Column Number: 228
examination of the brain are part of that list. A more reasoned approach to the examination of those organs might be appropriate.
Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head—I think that the removal of brains is done automatically, as a matter of routine. That should not be the case. Whether for criminals or members of the public, brains should be removed only if there is proof or suspicion that a brain illness or defect has caused death.
I received an interesting e-mail from Caroline Wheeler of the Sunday Mercury, a Birmingham newspaper. She says:
''I am a journalist from the Sunday Mercury . . . I recently read an article in the Sunday Mirror, where the report claimed that bids were coming in from scientists across both sides of the Atlantic to buy Robert Maudsley's brain after he died.''
Robert Maudsley has not died—he was very ill, but did not die. He was an axe killer who—ironically—threatened to eat someone's brain. Ms Wheeler told me that bids of about £25,000 were submitted for his brain. There is therefore a bit of a market building up in criminal brains.
In an earlier debate, I referred to the notion—it is still very prevalent—of a criminal gene. I understand that that notion has been discredited because there is no evidence for it, but it is still prevalent among some people in criminology and anatomy. We do not want that sort of market to build up.
In Britain, we used to hang, draw and quarter criminals. The criminals whom I have named—as well as many others—were vicious, horrible people, but we do not want to go back to those days. We do not want their brains to be taken out automatically either—perhaps as a sort of punishment. We should have respect for bodies, even those of criminals.
I share the suspicion of the hon. Member for Westbury that the post-mortem process is carried out according to a tick-box system. I ask the Under-Secretary to examine that to see whether we can improve the system so that brains will not be removed automatically if there is no reason to do so. I seek those improvements not just for criminals—their treatment was my main reason for raising the matter—but for members of the public.
| 
