WHY?

On the 29th of April, 2003, Hazel Blears MP, the then Parliaentary Under-Secretary of State for Health stated:

"I am pleased to confirm that we intend to introduce the Bill [for a change in the law] as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that we hope to publish the draft Bill for parliamentary scrutiny before the summer recess. We are anxious to get on with the process, which started with the chief medial officer's report three years ago."

Unfortunately, Parliament has broken up for the summer recess and the draft Bill has not been produced for parliamentary scrutiny. We can only hope, therefore, that the Bill will be included in the Queen's speach when Parliament resumes later this year. A section of the debate [from Hansard] has been reproduced below. For the full deabate click here

29 Apr 2003 : Column 276

Our work to progress the Government's commitment to the review of the law moved into a major new phase in July last year when we published the consultation document "Human Bodies, Human Choices". It reviewed the law in England and Wales and considered the full range of circumstances. There was a series of facilitated workshops and a major national conference in November last year. It represents a real attempt not just to come up with a proposed Bill out of the ether, but to work genuinely from people's experience. That process has made a significant contribution to our preparations for a Bill and has strengthened the way in which it will work.

The Bill's objective will be to provide a more systematic and comprehensive framework. We need to have clear, unambiguous and transparent provisions so that people know exactly where they stand and what they can expect from the legal framework. We want to ensure that there will be statutory requirements about consent to underpin the legislation. There will then be a proper legal framework in which consent should be obtained for tissue or organ removal, storage and use that sets out clearly the duties and a proper regulatory framework to oversee and support compliance. Provision will be made for penalties to be introduced for certain breaches, and the hon. Gentleman made important points about the distinction between organisational and individual accountability. Codes of practice will be established for the import and export of human body parts and other issues. Such a framework will provide better protection, support the patient involvement agenda across the NHS and give clarity for professionals so that they know that they are acting properly within that legal framework. Unfortunately, as he said, sanctions and penalties will be necessary in some circumstances.

I am pleased to confirm that we intend to introduce the Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that we hope to publish the draft Bill for parliamentary scrutiny before the summer recess. We are anxious to get on with the process, which started with the chief medial officer's report three years ago.

29 Apr 2003 : Column 277

Some people expressed concern because we did not immediately introduce the relatively simple legislative recommendations on sanctions and legal duty. We found that the law was complex and deep ethical considerations had to be taken into account. It is right to consider the law as whole and to get a proper new regulatory framework rather than to rush into making simpler amendments that would need to be undone and incorporated into a better regulatory framework at a later stage. I am happy that we are proceeding appropriately, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we need to get on with the process so that we give people the security that they require.

29 Apr 2003 : Column 278

The hon. Gentleman's points about consent, the definition of next of kin, reports to families and the essence of donation are important. They can all be raised at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and we look forward to further discussions on them.

I reiterate our commitment to the families of children and adults who have found themselves in such circumstances and we are determined to make a difference.

PITY II (Parents who have Interred Their Young Twice) is the parents' support group set up in the wake of the organ retention scandal
at Alder Hey Hospital (Liverpool, UK). It aims to provide self help support and advice to affected families.

Keywords: PITY II, pity II, pity ii, PITY 2, PITY2, pity 2, pity2, Never Again, never again,
Liverpool, liverpool, organ, retention, alder hey, heart, inquiry, Redfern, redfern, scandal, support, university