Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill
In January 2008, David introduced a Private Member's Bill to promote the donation of cord blood from women after giving blood. The Bill received its second reading on 15th October.
Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill
(Click on image to download)
David is Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Umbilical Cord Blood and Adult Stem Cells.
He also tabled an Early Day Motion on the subject which was supported by 135 MPs.
On this page...
| Article - 5th March 2009 New hope for umbilical cord blood
| Speech - 8th January 2008 David presents the Bill
| Press Release 15th October 2008
| Speech - 17th October 2008 Second reading
| Early Day Motion No. 969 (2007-08 session)
| Written Questions
| Adjournment Debate - 7th January 2010
ARTICLE: New hope for umbilical cord blood - 5th March 2009
Last year saw the passing of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act with debate in and outside Parliament focussed upon the relative value of embryonic stem cell research and its extension into the ethical minefield of animal-human embryo research. However this year holds out the prospect of a renewed focus on stem cell research which is producing therapeutic results in the area of umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells. David Burrowes MP (Enfield Southgate) has launched an ‘Umbilical Cord Blood and Adult Stem Cells All Party Parliamentary Group’ to sustain the campaign to promote the use of umbilical cord blood and value of adult stem cell research.
Last year David introduced a Private Members Umbilical Cord blood (Donations) Bill which received cross party support as well as from the Anthony Nolan Trust, the UK Thalassaemia Society, the Leukaemia Society (UK), and many individuals who recognise the value now of cord blood treating 85 different diseases and the potential new treatments in the future. The Government is due to report this month to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) with the conclusions of their National Cord Blood Review.
David Burrowes said “In this country umbilical cord blood is routinely thrown away after birth and its life saving value is wasted. Only 4 hospitals collect cord blood, less than 1,000 cord blood samples are stored at the NHS bank each year, and less than 200 cord blood transplants have taken place in the UK. Many sufferers of leukaemia or blood related disorders are forced to search overseas for an appropriate cord blood match. Now that the Government has pushed through the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Act in order to be a world leader in regenerative medicine, we are calling on the Government to support stem cell therapy which has a proven record when it comes to treatments. My Bill and the APPG support an ethical and convenient alternative to embryonic sources of stem cells. We are seeking a greater understanding of cord blood and opportunities for donation to help parents who are waiting desperately for treatment for their children with diseases such as leukaemia.”
SPEECH: Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill - Private Member's Bill - 8th January 2008
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I beg to move,
Given that I have six children, I should be declaring an interest in the subject of the Bill. My constituency is adjacent to Barnet general hospital, one of only four NHS hospitals that collect umbilical cord blood. That would seem to be a good reason for developing an interest, but we have not donated umbilical cord blood despite six opportunities to do so at a nearby hospital. Like most parents throughout the United Kingdom, we were not informed of the value of cord blood or the possibility of collection. Until recently I did not consider the umbilical cord, once clamped after birth, as anything more than a waste product. The first purpose of the Bill, and of my speech, is to encourage parents and the wider public to be more informed about the value and benefits of umbilical cord blood.
Hon. Members may be ignorant, as I was, of the nature of cord blood. The baby’s blood in the cord contains different types of cell, including stem cells. Cord blood has been used for the last 20 years for blood transplantation. It has treated patients with leukaemia, sickle-cell diseases, immune deficiencies and other diseases: there have been 85 treatments to date.
There are possible treatments in the pipeline beyond blood therapy. Trials for the use of cord blood in brain injury in children are under way and cord blood is being developed for many other therapies, including diabetes and liver therapy. Treatment for leukaemia highlights the particular value of cord blood transplants, which can be used as an alternative to bone marrow transplants. Such cord blood transplants are less complicated, with fewer delays, and more readily available, as they can be stored and frozen for many years. Significantly, it is easier to find a match from stem cells than from bone marrow.
Umbilical cord blood collection leads to increased access to transplantation, particularly for patients from ethnic minorities. The reality is that umbilical cord blood, which is thrown away routinely after birth, has a life-saving value. Becki Josiah contacted me after her daughter Billie died from leukaemia in April 2006. She was ill for two years and awaiting a bone marrow transplant. A major difficulty for the Josiah family was their daughter’s mixed-race background. As Mrs. Josiah said to me,
The Bill attempts to increase the chances of a cure for families such as the Josiah’s.
Mrs. Josiah has also highlighted the limitations on donation. She recently had another baby and wanted to donate her newborn baby’s cord blood to help cure a child with leukaemia, like her daughter. However, her family does not live near one of the four NHS hospitals with facilities to accept her donation. As she said, it was not possible for her blood to
Successful treatment is possible for one’s own blood, a sibling’s or that of an unrelated patient. We must find a way of enabling more patients to access this source of treatment, and my Bill takes some steps in that direction.
My interest in umbilical cord blood arose when as a member of the Joint Committee I scrutinised the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill. Our remit was focused on the Government’s approach, which is to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of scientific development in embryonic stem cell research. A majority of public money supports embryonic research compared with other stem cell sources. The House will no doubt have the opportunity soon, with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, to debate whether it is wise to move into the realms of interspecies research to deal with the limited number of embryonic stem cell lines.
As well as the political hurdles, there are ethical and biological hurdles in the way of the Government marching us up to the top of the hill of embryonic research. It is therefore timely to consider an alternative hill of stem cell research. The terrain is the same: wanting the UK to be at the forefront of bringing stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine to the clinic in order to relieve suffering and reduce health care costs. With the help of this Bill, the focus would be on core blood stem cell therapy, which already results in treatment of diseases. Research in the field holds out an exciting future; notably Professor Colin McGuckin has led a team in Newcastle to be the first in the world to characterise human embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood.
The question that the Bill raises is why only 150 cord blood transplants out of 8,000 worldwide have been carried out in the UK. Why are we routinely disregarding the proven life-saving value of umbilical cord blood but legislating and investing predominantly in the unproven and ethically challenging route of embryonic research? Given that we will in the foreseeable future depend on non-embryonic stem cell therapies, why are we putting literally most of our eggs in one basket?
There are supporters of the Bill who are not necessarily opposed to embryo research but recognise the value of umbilical cord blood and its availability. The Bill would make it a universal requirement for doctors to inform pregnant women of the benefits of collection and storage of cord blood. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists advises that if there is a known genetic condition in a family—already a child with leukaemia or a blood-related disorder—a clinician may recommend that parents bank their babies’ cord blood. My Bill would presume that collection takes place in such circumstances unless parents opt out or medical reasons prevent it. If nothing is done in this area, some private banks will simply exploit families’ fears.
The practical problem facing any future extension of donation of cord blood is the limited number of NHS maternity units equipped for collection and storage in a safe environment. The NHS cord blood bank at Edgware restricts its collections to Barnet general, Northwick Park, Luton and Dunstable and Watford hospitals, which are the only dedicated units in England. The collection sites do not form a planned approach to collection of cord blood and we are currently missing—or, more to the point, wasting—the opportunity presented by umbilical cord blood.
The Bill seeks to promote the collection of cord blood from specific shortage groups, particularly ethnic minority groups and mixed-race families. The UK Thalassaemia Society, which has its base in Southgate in my constituency, recognises that point in its support of my Bill, as does the Leukaemia Society in the United Kingdom. They have emphasised to me the difficulties for leukaemia patients of Cypriot origin in finding appropriate bone marrow matches and support the proposed extension of cord blood donation.
The purposes of the Bill are not wholly dependent on legislation. The Anthony Nolan Trust, which also supports the Bill’s aim to promote the benefits of cord blood collection, is setting up the first charitable cord blood bank in the UK and plans to promote opportunities for more cord donation. The hope is that six maternity units will facilitate collection. The aim is to harvest 12,500 cords within five years for clinical and research use.
The Bill seeks to raise our sights higher, given the value now of cord blood’s treating 85 different diseases. It also seeks to rebalance the debate on stem cell therapy, which can often be more led by media proxy and hype than the ability realistically to treat patients. The Bill supports an ethical and convenient alternative to embryonic sources of stem cells. It also supports parents who are waiting desperately for treatment for their children with diseases such as leukaemia.
I leave the last words to Becki Josiah. She says:
and asks whether anything can be done to help her.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Burrowes, Geraldine Smith, Simon Hughes, Robert Key, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Stephen Crabb, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Bob Spink, Michael Fabricant, Jim Dobbin, Andrew Selous and Mrs. Nadine Dorries.
Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation)
Mr. David Burrowes accordingly presented a Bill to promote the donation of cord blood from women after giving birth; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 50].
PRESS RELEASE: MP seeks new law to promote 'life saving' umbilical cord blood - 15th October 2008
The issue of stem cell therapy and research will again be debated next week when Parliament considers the remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill on Wednesday 22nd October.
However this week David Burrowes MP (Enfield Southgate) will draw Parliament’s attention not to embryonic stem cells but to umbilical cord blood stem cells. His Private Members Bill – Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill- is due for Second Reading on Friday October 17th. He is also today launching an All Party Parliamentary Group to sustain the campaign to promote the use of umbilical cord blood.
The Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill seeks to promote the donation of umbilical cord blood by giving the Secretary of State a duty to:
encourage pregnant women to donate their umbilical cord blood after birth increase awareness of the value of umbilical cord blood for the treatment of diseases and for research of new treatment methods
promote the collection of cord blood samples from designated groups, including minority groups and mixed race families in which there is a history of diseases that are, or may be, treatable by use of cord blood.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to doctors and midwives to inform pregnant women about umbilical cord blood and where it can be collected. The Health Secretary would also be required to inform Parliament each year of the number of cord samples donated the number of cord blood transplants and their therapeutic use.
The Bill has cross party support as well as support from the Anthony Nolan Trust, the UK Thalassaemia Society, the Leukaemia Society (UK), and many individuals who recognise the value now of cord blood treating 85 different diseases and the potential new treatments in the future.
David Burrowes said “In this country umbilical cord blood is routinely thrown away after birth and its life saving value is wasted. Only 4 hospitals collect cord blood, less than 1,000 cord blood samples are stored at the NHS bank each year, and less than 200 cord blood transplants have taken place in the UK. Many sufferers of leukaemia or blood related disorders are forced to search overseas for an appropriate cord blood match. At a time when the Government is pushing through the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill for the UK to be a world leader in regenerative medicine it is a timely opportunity to support stem cell therapy which has a proven record when it comes to treatments. The Bill supports an ethical and convenient alternative to embryonic sources of stem cells. It also supports a greater understanding of cord blood and opportunities for donation to help parents who are waiting desperately for treatment for their children with diseases such as leukaemia.”
SPEECH: Umbilical Cord Blood (Donation) Bill - Second reading - 17 October 2008
David Burrowes opens the debate on the second reading of his Private Members Bill to increase the supply of cord blood in the UK. The Bill aims to promote the donation of cord blood from women after giving birth as currently there are only four NHS hospitals with collection points.
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to open this debate. Hon. Members always say that their Bills or debates are timely, and I am no different. My Bill is particularly timely, not least because next week attention will focus on stem cell research and regenerative medicine because of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. At that stage, the focus will predominantly be on embryonic research, but my Bill gives us an opportunity to focus on the increasingly significant issue of umbilical cord blood.
There is a concern that Britain is lagging behind other countries. When we debate the remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next week, we will no doubt hear the Minister saying that the aim is for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of stem cell research. The concern is that this country is lagging behind when it comes to umbilical cord blood—in respect of availability, transplantation and, significantly, research.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are lagging behind in those respects. Does he agree that that is a tragic irony, as in this field we have some of the best minds in the world? He will know that I am very involved with the Motor Neurone Disease Association. Does he agree that the innovations that he proposes make sense, because we can make a world-class contribution to curing motor neurone disease and other diseases if we have the courage to make the investment?
Mr. Burrowes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a passionate advocate for those who suffer from motor neurone disease; we all commend him on that.
We are world leaders, to an extent. The issue is timely because at Newcastle university Professor Colin McGuckin and his assistant Dr. Nico Forraz have been leading the way in making the point that umbilical cord blood is not only an alternative to bone marrow stem cells. Professor McGuckin has demonstrated the existence of pluripotent cells in cord blood and that cord blood-derived cells have the capacity to form differentiated tissue types. Like embryonic stem cells, they can be differentiated into other types such as liver, renal, pancreatic, vascular and corneal cells.
It is important that we recognise the potential in the neurone area as well. It is such a shame that Professor McGuckin and Dr. Forraz have resigned from the research unit at Newcastle. They are going to Lyons in France, where they will have the benefit of being able to carry out research into regenerative medicine. They want to set up a regenerative medicine institute dedicated to umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells. Their departure is a significant loss. We should recognise the need to be world leaders on this issue because it has such potential to save lives.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am one of the sponsors of the Bill and support it. What he is doing is important. I recall that when I visited the blood service in my constituency a little while ago, people there particularly emphasised the importance of collecting umbilical cord blood from the minority communities, among whom collection is lower than among the population as a whole. Does he agree about the importance of that? I see that the Bill refers to the issue. Does he agree that we need to do much more to encourage mothers from minority communities to donate their cord blood, to help deal with the diseases that particularly affect, and are prevalent among, those communities?
Mr. Burrowes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his support for the Bill. A significant service is provided by the cord blood bank at Edgware and, not far from his constituency, at the Royal Free hospital, with the work that the Anthony Nolan Trust does on cord blood at its headquarters there. A key aim of the Bill must be to ensure the promotion of the collection of cord blood for minority groups and mixed-race families, who are often at the bottom of the scale in terms of finding bone marrow matches. Cord blood offers great hope for people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. Families in the Cypriot community often experience great difficulties when children who are suffering from leukaemia are unable, because of their particular blood type, to obtain a bone marrow match. They too recognise the importance of umbilical cord blood.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I appreciate my hon. Friend’s remarks. A constituent of mine, Mrs. Jeanette Crizzle, who has now very sadly passed away, was of mixed parentage and died of leukaemia because she could not find a suitable bone marrow match. That led to the creation of the Jeanette Crizzle Trust, which is designed to help the Government to promote the “Give and Let Live” donor programme in secondary schools. That has been taken up by 3 per cent. of schools. The cord blood bank that my hon. Friend would like to set up would give a lot of hope to people of mixed parentage who face these life-threatening diseases with, sadly, little hope of finding a suitable donor.
Mr. Burrowes: My hon. Friend is vigorous in the campaign on behalf of that organisation and has already raised the matter in the House this week. I commend him on that.
The collection of umbilical cord blood by NHS hospitals has arisen in an ad hoc way, not in a way that has taken account of particular ethnic groups that are lacking in this regard because they find it difficult to obtain matches. The service is available in four areas—Luton and Dunstable, Northwick Park, Watford and Barnet. The midlands, for example, has no NHS hospital collecting cord blood. It is important that we look at how that can be improved, and I know that the Minister will want to indicate that progress is being made. Organisations such as the Anthony Nolan Trust are keen for availability to spread further. I commend its national cord blood bank, which was opened on 11 September in Nottingham. It has the great aim of increasing the collection of cord blood, which currently stands at about 10,000 cord units, to 50,000 units in five years. It wants to ensure that there are collection points that properly reflect the importance of providing people, particularly those from mixed-race families, with the matches that they need.
When I was on my journey of discovery in becoming informed about cord blood, Becki Josiah came to see me, and that brought home to me the importance of this Bill and of the Government responding positively to it. Her daughter, Billie, sadly died of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. She was ill for nearly two years and was due to have a bone marrow transplant but could not get back into remission. Mrs. Josiah tried high and low to find matches for Billie, but sadly, particularly because her daughter was of mixed-race background, it was not possible to find one. She contacted me to say:
“Is there anything you can do to help me highlight this frustrating state of affairs, or maybe there is something I can do to help you?”
How we respond to that is the challenge of the Bill and my question to the Minister.
The Bill is timely in the sense that the Government have an ongoing umbilical cord blood review. I hope that the Minister has sufficient time to provide an update on the conclusions of that review and on whether the aims of the Bill can properly be met by its recommendations.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): What my hon. Friend is putting forward seems to be absolute common sense. Have the Government indicated to him in advance that they support the Bill?
Mr. Burrowes: Sadly, I have not had that indication. As I am sure the Minister will confirm, there is a general indication that there is support for the Bill. Indeed, a recent parliamentary answer said that there is support for umbilical cord research as well as other types of stem cell research, but the Bill wants to put those warm words into reality. We want the Minister today to say, ideally, that there is support for the Bill, despite it not having time to go through all its stages, and to give an assurance that, even through non-legislative means, we can achieve the purposes of the Bill.
The Bill is also timely because this week an all-party parliamentary group was launched on umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells. That has been supported by a number of hon. Members and those in the other place. What is significant about the members of that group and about those who attended the meeting is that they come from all sides of the argument, although they will no doubt draw their battle lines during the human fertilisation and embryology debate. They included many who would traditionally be seen as pro-life, those who would traditionally be termed pro-choice, those who support embryonic research and those who look to what they would consider more ethically sound stem cell research routes. All were there together supporting umbilical cord blood donation and the aims of the Bill. That support shows that we have an important opportunity not just to go down the route of embryonic research but to put cord blood centre stage—it seems to be sidelined at the moment—and to ensure that it has support, so that it is available at collection points and there is proper transplantation and research.
Why is there a need for the Bill? As I have said, just four NHS hospitals have collection points, but there is also a lack of information. I was fortunate to live near Barnet hospital. Throughout the births of our six children, never were we informed that there was the opportunity and option for us to allow the cord blood from our
children to be donated. That seems madness and a complete waste. It is a waste that over 90 per cent. of cords are simply thrown away and treated as a waste product when they could be a life-saving opportunity for many. To collect 1,000 or so cords a year is not enough. It is far behind other European countries such as Spain, which sees it as the norm and part of the process of giving blood to collect the cord. Fewer than 200 transplants out of a worldwide total of 8,000 is also not enough. About 65,000 litres of cord blood are thrown away. That is not acceptable. Of those cords that are collected, 50 per cent. effectively end up being thrown away. The Anthony Nolan Trust and others say that we could make so much more use of that. We could make some great research use of that.
The way that cord blood is traditionally used is to help in leukaemia and other blood-related disorders. Such disorders have traditionally led people to seek matches through bone marrow, but of the 24,000 cases of leukaemia in the UK, less than 50 per cent. of patients will find a bone marrow match. That has led to the individuals who have already been mentioned today and to others contacting me about their concern that more should be done. The mother of Eva Winston-Hart, Amy, said, when she sought to find a cure for a particularly vicious form of leukaemia:
“It was just terrible. Eva was getting worse and there was nothing we could do to save her.”
In desperation she got out a message to the media to find help. A number of donors came forward. More than 500 people queued in Market Harborough, but no one was suitable. Amy said:
“It was agonising. We were doing everything we could, but as time went by we really thought nothing would be found to save her life.”
However, a few months later, Eva found a match. Was that match through bone marrow? It was not. The blood stem cells were from the umbilical cord of a baby born thousands of miles away in a small town in New Jersey, America. Now she is doing well and is optimistic about her future. We need to ensure that there is a life for those like Eva, for those like Billie, whose life, sadly, was taken away—and for those like Caitlin Behan, whom I met only last month.
At the age of seven, Caitlin also suffered from a particularly rare blood-related disorder. Again, she could not find a bone marrow match. By chance, her doctor attended a conference with a consultant from Spain, who happened to mention the option of cord blood. Only through that chance conversation did the information get back to Bernadette Behan that there was an option of finding cord blood as a match for her daughter. The search continued and they went to Barcelona, where the cord blood that was given to Caitlin was found. Now, at the age of 11, she is making progress.
We need to support the work of the Anthony Nolan Trust and other organisations that do such a fine job. Their aim, which should be commended, is to collect 50,000 cord blood units and to locate 10 collection centres in ethnically diverse areas throughout the country. That is a fine aim and those organisations work well with King’s College to ensure that samples are available for transplantation and research. We should also support the national cord blood programme, which is based in Nottingham. However, we need to go further by providing information to pregnant mothers. The Bill would do that and require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to medical practitioners so that people are informed about the value and benefits of cord blood.
We should also recognise the research value of umbilical cord blood. It is not only an alternative to bone marrow, but has great potential for the future. We need to ensure the availability of cord blood samples for research. We support the fine work of Newcastle university and Colin McGuckin on ensuring that we do not necessarily have to rely on embryonic research, but can pursue umbilical cord blood as a convenient, ethically sound alternative, which many people would support.
We did not get there first—New York got there before us. Last year, Assemblyman Joseph Lentol introduced the Umbilical Cord Blood Bill, which was passed. He said:
“I believe this bill may be one of the most important we pass for expectant families this year. Many young couples and growing families do not yet know how important it is to consider storing umbilical cord blood after the birth of a child even though storing umbilical cord blood could be a lifesaver”.
I echo those words and his comments at the end of his speech:
“I am very proud of this legislation. Families need solid, reliable information in order to determine what to do with their newborn’s stem cells. This bill will help ensure that happens”.
The Bill that we are considering would ensure that that happened here. In Question Time on 15 October, the Under-Secretary recognised the potential of cord blood. We need to go further to realise it. We must ensure that we provide sufficient information to parents and hold the Government to account for their actions.
I commend the Bill to hon. Members, but recognise that it has limited parliamentary time and therefore call on the Government to issue guidance or other non-legislative means to realise the measure’s aims.
2.13 pm
...
LATER IN THE SAME DEBATE, DAVID'S INTERVENTION DURING THE MINISTER'S REPLY
Mr. Burrowes: I invite the Minister, once the conclusions are reached at the end of the year, to make a presentation to the new all-party group, which will be very pleased to hear what she has to say. Perhaps she will let me know whether she will accept that invitation. Also, will the review properly encompass the issues of an alternative to bone marrow and of research value? An answer to a parliamentary question of 15 October stated:
“Cells of the connective tissue, blood, muscle and neurons have been generated from umbilical cord stem cells.”—[ Official Report, 15 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 1364W.]
Will the review look into the great potential, particularly in the area of neurons, for this to be an alternative to embryonic research?
Ann Keen: The hon. Gentleman again raises an interesting point, and I feel really confident that the Minister who has responsibility for this matter will want to share the findings of the review. If he writes to me on those points, I will personally see that they are given priority in the Department so that they can be included. We will do our best to do that, because his interest in this matter is obviously heartfelt.
EARLY DAY MOTION No. 969 (2007-08 Session)
THE ANTHONY NOLAN TRUST AND THE NATIONAL CORD BLOOD PROGRAMME
Burrowes, David
"That this House salutes the pioneering work of the Anthony Nolan Trust in establishing and maintaining a national database of bone marrow donors for which they recruit and tissue-type more than 20,000 new entrants each year, giving around 6,000 children and adults a chance of new life since 1974; notes with interest that the Trust, with the support of the East Midlands Development Agency, has begun the establishment of a new Cord Blood Bank which could become a National Cord Blood Programme of a scale to provide a truly national resource for access to umbilical blood stem cells for future treatment and research; believes that this development offers great hope for the future treatment of a wide range of serious medical conditions; and invites the Secretary of State for Health to take a lead in welcoming the Trust's five year aim to collect 50,000 cord blood units with 30,000 able to be used for research purposes."
WRITTEN QUESTIONS
21 October 2008
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the conclusions of the Umbilical Cord Blood Review will be published. [228480]
Dawn Primarolo: As part of a review of cord blood collection and use, the Department commissioned an international comparison with cord blood collection in Canada, China, France, Japan, Spain and the United States of America. The report will be made available later this year and its findings will be taken into account when considering policy in this area.
22 July 2008
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received on extending the (a) collection and (b) use of umbilical cord blood in the UK for clinical and research purposes. [221496]
Dawn Primarolo: I have met one organisation to hear a proposal on extending the collection and use of umbilical cord blood in the United Kingdom for clinical and research purposes. The same proposal has generated 13 pieces of correspondence. In total, two parliamentary questions have been laid on extending the current services.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of cord blood have been imported for use in the NHS since 2005; what proportion of these units were sourced and identified by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [221497]
Dawn Primarolo: 26 cord blood units have been imported for use in the national health service since 2005. All were sourced by the NHS.
24 June 2008
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS maternity units he estimates will apply for the new cord blood collection licence announced by the Human Tissue Authority on 30th April 2008. [210828]
Dawn Primarolo: It is not possible to determine at this stage what proportion of those applying for a licence will be national health service maternity units. The Human Tissue Authority estimates that there are between 50 and 200 procurement organisations. Up to half of these are thought to be related to umbilical cord blood. Some are already licensed and others will be able to work under valid third party agreements which mean that they will not themselves require a licence.
17 June 2008
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the likely effect on the level of cord blood collection of the new licensing procedure announced by the Human Tissue Authority on 30 April. [210815]
Dawn Primarolo: While it is not possible to predict with accuracy the effect on levels of cord blood collection, the Human Tissue Authority has had discussions with organisations affected by the new procedures with a view to creating a regulatory framework that is flexible and proportionate and meets the requirements of the Regulations. The Department is currently carrying out a cord blood policy review which is due to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn.
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether new licensing procedures for cord blood collection will require the presence of a qualified phlebotomist at the collection of the blood as a condition of the issue of a licence. [210826]
Dawn Primarolo: No. The Human Tissue Authority’s standards require that staff involved in procurement are trained and competent at the tasks they perform, and have procedures in place to protect the safety of donors.
8 May 2008
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are of the umbilical cord blood review being undertaken by his Department; and which organisations and individuals have accepted invitations to the review meeting on 28 May 2008. [202390]
Dawn Primarolo: The proposed review will assess the following:
The review, to be carried out by Technopolis Ltd, will prepare an initial report on the current use of stem cells collected at birth. This will be presented to an expert workshop on 28 May 2008.
Those invited to the workshop include representatives from Government Departments, regulatory agencies, research councils, public and private blood banks and the Royal Colleges. Two international cord blood research experts, Professor Colin McGuckin from Newcastle university and Albert Bekassy from Lund university Sweden, have also agreed to attend.
Replies are still being received but, so far, 19 representatives from the organisations have agreed to attend.