---

Health and Social Care Bill

I, too, felt extremely uncomfortable reading the first draft of the Bill and, indeed, the present version when looking at the word ““thing””. It struck me as an extraordinary inclusion in legislation. I referred to this in some detail in my Second Reading speech and subsequently received a lengthy letter from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in which he justified the use of this term and explained that all the alternatives that I had suggested would not do. I am still uncomfortable. I thought that the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, of using ““fomite”” was clever and useful. New Section 45T(5) states that ““thing”” includes human tissue and other items, but that is not an exclusive definition. I considered carefully the possibility that human excreta, such as faeces or urine, could be very infective, but I believe that, under the Human Tissue Act, they would be considered to be human tissue, although that definition is somewhat dubious. Nevertheless, I would like clarification from the Minister about whether that is the case. What is not included in the list of, "““human tissue … a dead body, or human remains … animals, and … plant material””," are human belongings and clothing, which can be capable of carrying serious infective agents. The question is whether the term ““thing”” would be taken to include human belongings—clothing and other items—that could pass on an infection. Having thought about it carefully, I would prefer ““item”” to ““thing””, although I expect that the Minister will come up with some serious objections to that as well and will say that it would not cover all eventualities. I still feel that the Bill lacks clarity in the use of that rather unfortunate term. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister’s views.