§ 7.22 p.m.
§ Lord ReaMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rea.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
§ Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Lawful examinations]:
§ Lord Winstanley moved the amendment:
§
Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("that") to ("relative") and insert ("the next of kin").
§ The noble Lord said: I regret to disturb the relative tranquillity of our proceedings during this dinner hour by tabling this solitary amendment to this Bill, but I assure your Lordships' Committee that the amendment is not particularly controversial, and, in the main, it seeks to obtain further information. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to discuss it previously with the noble Lord, Lord Rea.
§ Perhaps I may briefly explain the amendment. Certain restrictions are contained in the Bill under which the person in charge of a body may allow that body to be used for anatomical study and for dissection in universities and medical schools, as provided for under the Bill. Very properly, the Bill lays down an absolute bar that if the deceased person had at any time indicated a wish contrary to that, then of course the body could not be so used, and it would be entirely wrong that it should be so used.
§
However, Clause 4(3) says that the person,
having made such reasonable inquiry as may be practicable, he has no reason to believe …
(b) that the surviving spouse or any surviving relative of the deceased objects to the body being so used".
The words,
or any surviving relative of the deceased objects
seem to me to be extremely wide. We all have many relatives, many of whom no doubt survive, but there is no definition whatever here of the nature of the relationship, or how close it should be. It would appear from the precise wording of the Bill as it now stands that any remote cousin in Australia, or miles away, could merely lodge an objection, saying, "I am not having this done", and then it cannot be done. I wonder whether those words were included for some special reason.
§
My amendment merely takes out the words,
the surviving spouse or any surviving relative
and substitutes the phrase, "the next of kin". Clearly, if the next of kin objects, that would be an absolute bar. I am rather puzzled as to why the Bill should have included this very wide provision that any relative, anywhere—it lays down no specification as to the degree of relationship—could lodge an objection and that that objection would be an absolute bar to the deceased's body being used for these very desirable purposes. I beg to move.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonOn behalf of the Government, I am sorry but I must oppose the amendment because I think that it is unnecessary. During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked why this Bill had not been combined with the Human Tissue Act, and I said at the time that the Government were not aware that that Act needed to be changed. This subsection uses the same words as are in the Human Tissue Act, and we feel that it is right for the same conditions to apply whether a body is being donated for anatomical examination, or a part or parts of a body are being donated for therapeutic purposes.
I am sure your Lordships' Committee would agree that the feelings of spouses and relatives in both kinds of circumstances ought to be considered. In many situations the difficulties which the noble Lord envisages will be avoided if, during their lifetime, people make clear their intentions under the provisions of the Bill; for example, by making their wishes known in a witnessed document.
§ Lord ReaI strongly sympathise with amendments which attempt to simplify legislation. On the face of it, here is a three-word definition which is more succinct than the present eight words. But, in fact, the amendment would restrict the right of relatives, other than the one person who could be considered the immediate next of kin, to object to the donation. It could be that a spouse—for instance, the next of kin—might want to donate her husband's body, or his wife's body, and a brother or sister of the deceased might object. Under the present wording those objections are respected. In fact, if any relative objects, the donation is refused.
There is no shortage of bodies being donated at the moment. Only about one in three of those offered are actually accepted. If there were a shortage, I should be more inclined to accept the amendment. As it is, the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, as well as those which I have advanced, incline me to oppose the amendment for the reasons which I hope are now clear to the Committee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord WinstanleyI have not the remotest intention of impeding the further progress of this very desirable little Bill and, therefore, I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that I accept what they have said. However, the overwhelming argument is the one which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has just advanced—that here we are dealing with bodies which are being donated for anatomical dissection and for study purposes, and that in that particular area at the moment there is no shortage. Indeed, the supply somewhat greatly exceeds the demand.
The other matter to which the noble Baroness referred was that of the donation of human organs for transplantation. This is a very different situation indeed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said, in this particular matter supply exceeds demand and, therefore, I do not think that much is lost if this wholly unnecessary little provision is allowed to remain. It would have been tidier had it been taken out, but I am content with the explanation that has 208 been given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ [The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 until 8 p.m.]