---

Health and Social Care Bill

Yes. I just find it extraordinary. There is a serious point here. It is a rather clumsy and all-embracing word—or maybe we want it to be all-embracing, but it is so unspecific. It makes the Bill look a bit silly; there is going to be a lot of fun with ““things”” in a lot of town halls and offices up and down the country. Maybe that is a good reason, too, because it will make sure that they use the Bill and carry out its provisions. The Local Government Association briefings and documents always relate to articles, premises or persons. They actually specify. When I was a medical student—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, learnt this word, too—infected articles and premises were called ““fomites””. It was a joke word when I was a medical student. We used to go around talking about fomites in a dark way, because it was a strange word that we had not come across. However, in Wikipedia, which is a modern form of dictionary, a fomite is, "““any inanimate object or substance capable of carrying infectious organisms (such as germs or parasites)””—" it could also be contaminated by radiation and so on— "““and hence transferring them from one individual to another. A fomite can be anything such as a cloth or mop heads””." Walls, floors, tables—all those things as well as articles of clothing are fomites. It is a well recognised word. It comes from the Latin for touchwood or tinder, which is quite appropriate: if you touch it, you are set on fire and get the infection. ““Fomite”” is a useful word to look at and, even if we do not use it in the Bill, we should think carefully about the word ““thing””. On page 79 of the Bill, we are told that ““thing”” includes, "““human tissue … a dead body … animals, and … plant material””." I appreciate that fomites are not included in that, but if you do not like fomite you could use ““article”” and ““premises””. But I do not really want my dead body, even if I die of SARS, to be referred to as a thing. I want it to be referred to as a dead body, or a corpse. I am not going to be a thing. There is an element of insult, as well. We need to look at this new section and the word ““thing”” and, perhaps, elaborate a little. It is a simplistic solution just to call it a thing; why not say what we mean? Why not say fomites and infected and contaminated human, animal, plant tissue or bodies? Why not spell out to people what we actually mean? I suspect that the Minister is going to give me a real pasting on this and tell me why ““thing”” must still be used, but this is a serious attempt to find a better way in which to describe something that is a very serious issue indeed. I do not want it to be ridiculed. I beg to move.