Clause 5 - Prohibition of activities without consent etc.
Human Tissue Bill
Public Bill Committees, 29 January 2004, 4:00 pm

Dr Andrew Murrison (Westbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in
clause 5, page 5, line 18, after 'does', insert
'or causes to be done'.
The purpose behind the amendment is fairly clear to anybody who has read the various briefing notes with which medical research organisations—particularly pathologists—have regaled us. They are concerned about the apparently unfair onus that will be placed upon them—given that they are most unlikely to be actively involved in obtaining consent—rather than on clinicians, who would be actively involved. Therefore, there is some fear among the organisations that represent pathologists and medical researchers that they will be unduly affected by the Bill. The focus is very much on them, and not on clinicians, who are really in the front line of the gaining of consent.
Much of the concern has to do with the slightly ambiguous language in the Bill. The Under-Secretary has explained that much of it will be fleshed out in codes of practice, but as we have discussed before, that will not give a great deal of comfort to those organisations that represent pathologists and medical researchers. Indeed, in clause 5(1) we have the words ''reasonably believes''. The word reasonably is something that we could argue about, and no doubt lawyers will argue about it at great length and cost in the law courts. It is that sort of ambiguity that worries many of the organisations to which I have referred, and those concerns are well founded.
It is important for organisations such as the BioIndustry Association and others that have corresponded with us that the focus is shifted slightly away from them, and on to those who are involved with the garnering of informed consent—in practice, that tends to mean clinicians. All that the insertion of ''causes to be done'' will do is shift that burden slightly closer to the clinician who is involved with the patient. I think that that is a reasonable small addition to the
Bill, and will address some of the concerns of the likes of the BioIndustry Association and those organisations representing workers in medical research and in pathology. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider accepting that amendment and keeping those organisations happy.
