| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published its departmental report yesterday and, yet again, hon. Members had a problem obtaining copies in the House. At 5 pm, the Vote Office was prevented from handing over a copy as the Department had insisted that the document had not yet been laid before Parliament. I understand that although the Foreign Office was preventing Members from obtaining the report through the Vote Office, it was made available on the internet, together with a press release, about two hours earlier. Would not it have been more appropriate for Members to have been the first recipients of that allegedly important document?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Probably for the first time, the hon. Lady has a point. Due to an administrative error, the report was not laid before the House in time. However, it was laid before the House at 5 pm. We regret that this has happened and are taking steps to make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Local Government Bill, which is the principal business of the House later today? When we passed the Human Rights Act 1998, we gave ourselves a discipline that each Bill would carry a certification from a Secretary of State that it was either compliant with human rights legislation or that he was unable to provide such certification. I understand that this is the first Bill of which a Secretary of State has said:
- I am unable to make a statement that in my view the provisions of the Local Government Bill are compatible with the Convention rights . . .
Madam Speaker: That is why this is certainly not a matter for the Chair; it is for Ministers to explain.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished; I am still speaking.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) says, the explanatory notes do not make explicit why the Bill is not fully compatible with the European convention on human rights. I suspect that he is referring to clause 91 and section 28, which relates to it.
I repeat that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is a matter for argument and debate. It is for the Minister to explain the Government's position, and also to explain what appears in the Bill.
Mr. Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to have interrupted you.
I was wondering whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had said that he would make a statement to the House, given this morning's news that Alchemy Partners is withdrawing from the Longbridge taskforce set up by him, because of a conflict of interests involving the selection of the chairman of the taskforce by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time in a week, a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to apologise for the unavailability of documents in the Vote Office. Would you wholly deprecate any instance of documents' not being available in the Vote Office, and ensure that Ministers pay more attention to their Departments so that this does not happen so regularly?
Madam Speaker: I have already done that quite recently. I gave the House an assurance that I would take steps to help to improve the situation; I have done so, and will continue to do so.
Organ Transplants (Presumed Consent)
4.6 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national register of people who have not given their consent to transplant of their organs after death; to lay down procedures to be followed before an organ transplant takes place; and for connected purposes.
The position is quite straightforward. At present, about 200 people die every year owing to the lack of organs suitable for transplant. Only 11 per cent. of the population have registered with the national organ donation scheme, but more than 70 per cent. have said in response to repeated surveys that they would have no objection to the transplant of their organs. In a great many cases, because people did not carry donor cards their organs go with them into the grave or, more frequently, are cremated. As a result, people who could have lived die. A number of cases have been reported in the media recently. I believe that that should concern us all, and that we should consider seriously whether it is in our power to improve the situation.
My Bill proposes that we establish a national register for those who object to the use of their organs for transplant. The existence of the register should be made known as widely as possible. One suggestion is that there should be a box on the electoral registration form. We should ensure that people know that they have such an option, which it is easy for them to take if they do object. About 3 per cent. of the population have signed up to a comparable scheme in Belgium.
The Bill would require a surgeon considering a transplant to take two steps. We would require him or her first to consult the national register of people who object to transplants, and secondly to consult the next of kin, if they are available, to find out whether they object either on behalf of the deceased--perhaps they know that the deceased did object, but had not got around to registering--or because they say that it would greatly distress them. If either condition obtained, the transplant would not take place; but if neither the deceased nor the relatives objected, it would be assumed that consent had been given, and the transplant could take place. The effect would be to cover the middle ground of people who are sympathetic to organ transplants, or have no particular view one way or the other--many people have not given it a thought--but have not obtained a donor card.
Some exemptions are necessary. First, I propose to exempt children on the ground that we cannot reasonably expect a five-year-old to take a decision of the magnitude of whether to go on to a national register. Secondly, for similar reasons, the Bill would exempt people with a long-term mental disability that makes it impossible for them to make a rational assessment of the situation. Thirdly, it would exempt non-residents. We cannot reasonably expect, say, a tourist to be aware of the register.
Beyond that, I am aware of one or two objections. In the Royal College of Nursing debate, where the proposal for informed consent was rejected by three to one, the significant factor seems to have been taking the decision out of the hands of relatives, or the effect on children. Neither would happen under the Bill.
A number of people feel that the Bill does not go far enough and that, if you or I, Madam Speaker, carry a donor card, our relatives should not be able to override our wishes. I believe that, in the interests of achieving a broad consensus, we should accept that relatives have the last word. The British Medical Association warmly supports the Bill in the belief that the number of relatives who will veto a transplant is very small, unless they are aware that the potential donor was opposed.
I have consulted a number of religious groups. The general tenor is that there is no religious objection on the ground that the soul is deemed to leave the body at the time of death. To quote the Board of Deputies of British Jews, it is an honour if the last act of the individual on earth is to save the life of someone else--it is not only an honour but a duty.
I ask the House to support the Bill. I am aware that it is not uncontroversial, but the purpose of ten-minute Bills is to give an opportunity to air issues that may not be entirely ripe for Government legislation. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to Second Reading, so that we can pursue the debate and prepare the ground for possible Government legislation in the next Session.
I see no reason to detain the House any longer.
4.13 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) moved the Bill in a modest and moderate way. I shall try to reply very briefly in the same spirit. He has cleverly anticipated some of the main objections that might be raised to a shift from having to opt into a transplant scheme to having to opt out of one, principally those concerning children. We are all aware of the scandal involving the removal of children's organs for research purposes at places such as Alder Hey children's hospital in Liverpool, the subject of early-day motion 139 which is open for signatures and was tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). That case has perhaps brought to people's attention exactly what is involved when organs are taken from dead bodies.
I personally have no objection to the use of organs for transplanting. Indeed, I have held a donor card since I was old enough to do so. However, I am very concerned about the shift in emphasis from opting into a donor scheme to opting out of one.
The hon. Gentleman's argument might be stronger if we were still talking in the terms--primarily in relation to the physical carrying of a donor card--in which he almost exclusively presented his Bill. The fact is that very many people who would almost certainly have no objection to their organs being used will never get around to filling in a card or, if they do, will end up leaving it at home--as I myself have done on many occasions.
I should have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view if it were the only way of securing a plentiful supply of organs for transplant, but it is not. We live in the age of the internet and of electronic communication. If it is as easy as he suggests for people to be advised of their right to opt out by ticking boxes on ballot papers, for example, why do we not first at least try to use those methods to ensure that more people opt in? There are numerous opportunities for people to be asked to opt into a scheme and to have their decision registered electronically, so that, over time, if someone really wishes
his or her organs to be used in that way, it could easily be arranged. They would have only to say yes once, and their consent would be placed on an internet site, electronically and permanently maintained up to date.As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge--hence the concessions that he made in framing his Bill--this is not an open and shut case in which there are no arguments on one side, with all the arguments on the other. All that can be done to try to make it easy for people to register their willingness to have their organs used should be done before we fall back on the position of very last resort--that of moving to a scheme whereby consent is presumed.
Before I and many other people who have very great sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve could give him our support, we would have to be convinced that ordinary people who wish their organs to be used have been contacted in a manner that makes it much easier than it is for them to register that fact. If in five years the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that we have all been contacted and given numerous opportunities to register in a single simple action on an electronic database our willingness to have our organs used in that way, and if he can demonstrate that there has been very little uptake of that, I will listen to his proposals with more sympathy. However, to date, those modern methods have not been tried nearly hard enough. Until they are, I should feel bound to oppose his Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):--
The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 23.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |