THE Government always appears baffled at the bile motorists direct at speed cameras. "Of course they're not cash cows," Transport Secretary Alistair Darling spluttered indignantly last month. "They save 100 lives a year."

This, he reasoned, was perfect justification for placing 5,000 spy cameras on roads the length and breadth of Britain. Fair enough, you may think. But events this week proved the Government is not always so intent on preventing fatalities.

Last Monday brought the bizarre sight of Labour MPs being whipped through the Commons lobby to condemn 400 people a year to their deaths. The Government ordered its troops to vote down an amendment to the Human Tissue Bill designed to boost the number of organ donors by introducing an "opt-out" system.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs received a free vote on the issue, which their party leaders considered a matter of individual conscience.

Prime Minister Tony Blair thought differently. His MPs were told to vote 'No' or face the wrath of the party whips and a stain on some voting records. Sure enough, the amendment was scuppered by 307 votes to 60. None of North Yorkshire's MPs cast their vote.

The arguments for and against presumed consent remain compelling.

According to the Government, money is one problem. The Department of Health says it hasn't got the spare cash to fund a system that would lead to far more kidneys, hearts and livers being donated. Yet, look again. The department that boasts it's awash with more banknotes than ever thinks the lives of people desperately awaiting a transplant are too pricey to save.

But during the Commons debate, another more salient argument against the "opt-out" system emerged.

Health Secretary John Reid said presumed consent was no consent at all. He said: "This decision over one's own body is for the conscience - the conscience of individual citizens in this country. It is not for this Parliament... to impose upon them a requisition of their bodies after death for the state." Other MPs went further: presumed consent was effectively "nationalising bodies", they said.

And yet, and yet... UK Transplant, the Government agency charged with boosting donation, says 400 people die every year because they cannot get the new organs they need.

Often, refusing relatives are unsure what patients' views were, are themselves divided, or do not want their loved ones to undergo more surgery.

The Alder Hey scandal, and the activities of hospitals nationwide who illegally stored organs after death, created a backlash against donation.

Previous studies in the 1980s and 1990s indicated that only 30 per cent of relatives would not allow organs to be used for transplants. The solution, according to some MPs, was to follow the lead of other countries and introduce an "opt out" system, where organs can be taken unless the donor has explicitly stated otherwise before their death.

One ultra-loyal Labour backbencher, Stephen Pound, described Blair's orders as "ridiculous" and rebelled.

Memorably, he said: "It is like saying we have got a gold mine, but we are not going to do anything because we can't afford a shovel."

But even though the amendment failed, it may have sharpened the minds of those in power. It is likely a halfway house will be reached - with money pumped into a high-profile advertising campaign to increase the number of people carrying Donor Cards.

Actively educating people about the pros and cons of donor cards - and not relying on patients in GPs surgeries to pick one up - would prevent the arguments and soul-searching and hand-wringing.

Most importantly it would give more desperately ill people the chance of life.

Updated: 09:39 Friday, July 02, 2004