Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jonathan Ashworth

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 23rd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I was very pleased that yesterday afternoon she put out an official statement of support from the Government. They will be supporting the Bill, not just on Second Reading but through all its stages. That is very welcome and I appreciate that very much.

I am also very pleased with the support—I had no doubts at any stage—of the shadow Minister who will be speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. I must also mention that early on the Prime Minister indicated to me she had a personal interest and lent the Bill her personal support. I would like to say a sincere thank you to the Prime Minister for that. Rounding off this stage of my thanks, I have to mention the Leader of the Opposition. His leadership and support, and that of his office, has been invaluable. I have seldom seen such unanimous support across the House, with the 11 Members who have sponsored the Bill representing seven political parties in this House. Carrying that unanimity and commitment to the country and reaching a consensus there would mean that the Bill can become a very effective Act.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for using this opportunity to bring the Bill to the House. I hope that the House gives its endorsement to the Bill today. I note that the Government have welcomed the Bill. I assure him that if the Government work with him to ensure its speedy passage, they will have the Opposition’s full support.

[Mr Robinson]

I am grateful for that and thank my hon. Friend very much indeed. His support throughout has been consistent, welcome and a great help. I am pleased to tell the House we also have the support of three previous Prime Ministers. Only Sir John Major felt that he could not support us. He said he did not know enough about it, which was sometimes his problem as Prime Minister.

As I was saying, we should try to carry the unity of the House on this issue to the country and raise public awareness about the need for the opt-out solution we are proposing. That would be a major achievement. The Government have launched a consultation on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who was with me in the early meetings, urged that course upon the Government. They responded quickly and to great effect: the response has been unprecedented. I am informed, unofficially, that the number of individual responses—separate, individually written letters—is now over 11,000, which is a record for any public consultation of this kind. The consultation does not finish until 6 March. I hope that the campaign will create sufficient awareness for people to find the opportunity to participate in it online via the Government’s website.

The predominantly positive response that we have been led to understand the public consultation is producing is hardly surprising—it is very welcome, but hardly surprising. According to recent reliable polling from the British Heart Foundation, up to 90% of the public said they were in favour of donation in principle, but that only 36% get around to signing the register. I think that many people are guilty, as I was for a number of years, of finding themselves in that position. That in itself suggests how effective an opt-out register could be.

Why are we actively looking towards implementing an opt-out solution at this stage? In England, for example, the situation is disappointing. We have some of the lowest rates of consent for organ donation in western Europe. Low family rates of consent have been one of the major barriers to the donor rate increasing. In effect, that prevents one third of available organs from being used. They go straight to the grave or to the crematorium. None of us likes to think about the worst happening, and it is challenging to have conversations with family and loved ones about one’s wishes after death. However, one of the Bill’s principal aims must be to encourage open discussions among families, so that an individual’s real wishes are known to their nearest and dearest. I think it reasonable to say that in the majority of cases, given the outcome of the consultation and what we know from the polls, people would wish to donate their organs after their death.

However, there will be those who take a different view. Perhaps even one or two in the Chamber feel that way and will make their feelings known in the debate. In no way do I wish them to feel that they have been railroaded into decisions that they do not wish to take. Therefore, I emphasise to those who feel that they cannot lend their support or have doubts about the Bill at this stage that soft opt-out provisions will be built into it. Naturally, I imagine that there will be a fair amount of discussion about those in Committee. I assure hon. Members that, as the Bill’s promoter, I give them my fullest personal commitment to approach discussions about the opt-outs in the spirit of sympathetic open-mindedness.

Passport Office (Delays)

Debate between Geoffrey Robinson and Jonathan Ashworth

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robinson]

We understand that the Home Secretary has other things on her mind, but people want to go on holiday. They have pre-booked and when they have to cancel there is no offer of compensation. Mr Pugh said that the economy is picking up and lots of people are booking holidays. He forgets to mention the catch—they cannot get a passport.

The problem has not arisen just this year: it has been building up over four years of successive cuts—amounting to 20%, as I said, and 700 key staff—and the effects are now apparent in the delays that people face. We are told that all is well and under control at the Passport Office, but staff are working seven days a week, from 7 am to midnight—a 17-hour day. Staff on administrative grades 6 and 7 are being paid up to £60 and £70 an hour overtime for the high-level job of sticking on labels with names and addresses. If that is not evidence of a crisis of mismanagement, I do not know what is. If the Minister remains deaf to the many complaints from my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening, he is not fit to hold office.

The Government make much of the £70 million profit that the Passport Office has made in the last year, but what is the purpose of that? The purpose of that public service should be to ensure, in a timely manner and at reasonable cost, that every citizen of this country enjoys their inalienable right to a passport. We hold our passports dear, but unfortunately people have been caught up in this mess, which is not of their making. The Government appear to be ignorant of or plain indifferent to the problems.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has secured a very timely Adjournment debate and he has hit the nail on the head. The Minister will doubtless claim that the problems are the result of unusual demand, but they are not. They are the result of the changes the Government have made to the Passport Service and the cuts and structural changes made in the last three years. The Minister needs to explain how they will now get a grip.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to hear what the Minister proposes to do. The problem has been building up since the Government made the cuts. They failed to do any retraining or to provide for what was coming with a moderate level of overtime. Any service should be able to meet peak demands—that is what management is about.