Mrs. Irene Adams
Human Tissue Bill
9:10 am
Mr Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. Your reputation for fairness precedes you, and I expect that, as long as we behave ourselves and
maintain order, you will be a benevolent dictator. We on the Conservative Benches will endeavour to keep to that stricture.
I entirely agree with the Minister that proceedings will be cosy; this is not one of the cavernous Committee Rooms with which we are usually provided. If the Minister finds that it becomes too cosy on the Labour Benches, she may make use of space on the Opposition Benches. Indeed, we might reach that stage for other reasons.
The Minister rightly said that this is an important Bill that secured support in principle from all parties, but there are reservations about many of the details. The 46 or so groups of amendments that have been tabled reflect the difficulties that have ensued. I am sure that we will complete our consideration on time, as we are instructed to by the House, but I hope that we use the time productively to amend the Bill to meet many of the concerns raised by various outside interests. I will not bore the Minister or the Committee by repeating this point, but it needs to be made once: the range of amendments and the number of representations made to hon. Members indicate the uncertainty and lack of clarity felt about the Bill, particularly in the medical research community. That concern should have been removed by pre-legislative scrutiny. I called for that in a debate on 29 April 2003, and the then Minister undertook to facilitate it by publishing a draft Bill by the summer recess. Such a Bill was not published, however.
The Bill before us was published in December, and the Committee is debating its provisions in January. We shall also consider the many comments of the medical research community, the pharmaceutical industry, clinicians and pathologists, who are concerned about the practical implications of the legislation. Those groups are by no means comfortable with certain aspects. Indeed, although the intentions and purposes are supported, as far as I can see, their implementation is not attracting the same support across the medical and research community, so we have a job to do.
I am sure that the Programming Sub-Committee was not wrong in setting out a simple programme whereby we go from the start of the Bill and get to the end. Fortunately, this is not one of those Bills for which we must start in the middle, but we should not let the moment pass without being aware that there might have been a better way to consider the detail.