What assessment she has made of the effects on golf clubs of the Licensing Act 2003. [180460]

The Licensing Act 2003 will not, in practical terms, require golf clubs to change significantly the way they operate under the current legislation, except with regard to the sale and supply of alcohol to young people under the age of 18. That has been accepted by the English Golf Union, which had some concerns. I believe those have been answered by my officials.

The Act is causing great consternation the length and breadth of the country, not least in the Vale of York, which is packed with excellent golf clubs—some of the best in the country. What impact will the Act have on green fees and in particular, when does a guest cease to be a guest and become a visitor?

Some 300 MPs have written to me and I have signed off a letter in reply. The hon. Lady wrote to me on 7 June and I replied to her on 20 June to allay the fears of the English Golf Union. There is no need for any increase in green fees. Indeed, I am hopeful that under the Act, golf and other clubs will have access to entertainment and liquor licences. We are bringing five regulatory authorities into one and removing a series of impediments to development. I hope that such streamlining will assist golf clubs, as well as other clubs and the wider entertainment industry.

I recently wrote to my right hon. Friend on behalf of Chester-le-Street golf club. I thank him for his reply and clarification, which I have sent round the other three excellent golf clubs in North Durham. Does he agree that some of the confusion rightly expressed by golf clubs and others is due to the fact that guidance on certain aspects of the Act has not yet been published? When can we hope to have full clarification? Would it be an idea to produce some type of guide, so that voluntary organisations such as golf clubs would understand the Act?

My hon. Friend should know that we published guidance about a month ago—

The guidance has already been scrutinised by the House.

Indeed. Hopefully, we will soon be able to announce the first allotted day and the guidance will be implemented by autumn 2005. Through the guidance, we should be able to clear up all the queries that golf clubs and others have. To comply with the Act, local authorities must issue a statement of their policy on implementing it.

Will the Minister kindly explain to the House the difference between a non-invited non-qualifying club member signing into a local Conservative or Labour club and being refused a drink at the bar, and the same person turning up unannounced and uninvited and signing in for his green fee to play a round of golf while on holiday, yet being allowed to buy himself a drink at the bar afterwards?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the Act carefully, particularly the provisions dealing with associate members and sees how we have been able to incorporate the definition of "guests" in that, it would allay his fears and those of every golfer. We are not affecting activity on the 19th hole. On the contrary, when the Act is implemented, I believe it will bring distinct advantages to golf clubs and other sports clubs. The fears that the hon. Gentleman expresses at the Dispatch Box have been addressed. If he reads the 2003 Act, he will see what it says about associate members, how guests are now incorporated in that, and the definition of a golf club, which is not primarily a club that is licensed for drinking—the bar is an associate part of a golf club. If he interprets the Act with a degree of common sense, he will be able to answer his own question.

What plans she has to support and promote an alcohol harm reduction strategy with the relevant groups and industries. [180461]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are meeting the alcohol industry this afternoon to discuss its role in the delivery of the alcohol harm reduction strategy. My officials are also working closely with other Government Departments, the police, local authorities and the industry on the implementation of the strategy.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's response. Representing a brewing constituency, I know the keen willingness of the industry to co-operate with Government. Last Christmas Coors Brewers based in my constituency worked with the Scottish Executive to produce alcohol responsibility advertisements, which not only were noticed, but had credibility with young people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will work with the alcohol industry to produce similar advertisements throughout the UK to make sure that we tackle the binge drinking that is so prevalent in our communities?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Coors initiative is exactly the sort of positive contribution that we are looking to the industry to make. I hope that other brewers will follow the Coors example. As a result of its investment in her constituency, the alcohol and addiction centre has benefited to the tune of several hundred thousand pounds. This is a very constructive and socially responsible initiative by Coors, and I hope that other brewers will follow.

While the whole House will welcome the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, does the Secretary of State accept that it is not helped when a public service broadcaster such as Channel 4 shows scenes of abuse-filled fights on "Big Brother", in total contradiction of the strategy that she is trying to adopt? What will she do to ensure that such things do not happen again?

Let me make a general point. I think that public service broadcasters have a very constructive potential role to play in getting these messages across to young people and not glorifying binge drinking. That is a contribution that they can make. The incident from "Big Brother" to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for the regulator in looking at the content of the programme against the licensed conditions of the broadcaster.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the real price of alcoholic drinks has fallen substantially as a proportion of disposable income since the 1970s. Will she discuss with her ministerial colleagues the price of alcohol; how the minimum price might at least be sustained, if not increased; and how she would prevent floods of cheap alcohol from coming in from the continent of Europe?

Yes; those are exactly the kind of issues about which we in government are very concerned. In particular, we are concerned about the free promotions that say "Spend £5 and drink as much as you can" and the kind of incentives that get too many young people drunk and create precisely the sort of problems in our inner cities and city centres, particularly at the weekends, that make those places a no-go area for some people. We are determined to tackle that issue.

Can the right hon. Lady explain the point of engaging with relevant organisations when her Government do not take their advice? Will she confirm that the following sentence appeared in the draft alcohol harm reduction strategy that was circulated to the Cabinet in August 2003:

"Relaxing availability… increases general harm whether through more outlets (Finland), denser outlets (California) or longer hours (Western Australia)"?

Will she confirm that that sentence featured in the original strategy, and can she explain why it was taken out?

I shall write to the hon. Lady about that point, because I want to be clear and accurate in the answer that I give. Let me give her the endorsements that we have received of the case for flexible opening and its benefits as a way of tackling the increasing culture of binge drinking, especially among young people. The Association of Chief Police Officers has been consistent in its support of the removal of rigid permitted hours and the introduction of more flexible opening hours, because of the strong link to crime and disorder. That was followed up four years later, when its president reinforced that point on the "Today" programme. Rick Naylor of the Police Superintendents Association made a very similar point. There are many reasons for moving to flexible opening hours, one of which is the advice of the police that that is one of the ways in which we can deal with disorder in our city centres. It is also one of the ways in which we can tackle binge drinking.

I am not sure whether Home Office Ministers agree with the right hon. Lady on this matter. She kindly offered to write to me, but she will be aware that the Home Office has already written to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) pointing out that the strategy unit took medical advice, but that it was never published when it came to the wider parts of the alcohol harm reduction strategy. Given what she has said today, rather than writing to me, will she undertake to place in the Library both the medical advice that was taken by the strategy unit on behalf of the alcohol harm reduction strategy and the original draft document that was given to the Cabinet in August 2003? Then we can all make up our minds on this matter.

The strategy unit reported to the Prime Minister, and I do not want to discuss the process by which information is or is not published, but the Cabinet Office and the strategy unit will be aware of the hon. Lady's questions. Let us focus on the key issue: the Home Secretary and I are at one on tackling alcohol-related crime, and flexible opening hours, which we introduced in the Licensing Act 2003, are one way to do that.

The 2003 Act gives local people and local authorities unprecedented powers to intervene where licensees fail to act in accordance with their obligations. If a licensee's failure to oversee the proper conduct of their premises leads to crime and disorder, that licensee will lose their licence and their livelihood. Government action will be judged against the licensing objectives in the 2003 Act, and the overriding objective is the prevention of crime and disorder. The hon. Lady can ask for any information that she wants, but it will not deflect the Government from making sure that fewer alcohol-related crimes take place, and that our city centres become places of pleasurable relaxation, rather than no-go areas, which is how many people currently regard them.

When he last met the National Playing Fields Association; and what was discussed. [180462]

On 27 May 2004, I met representatives from the NPFA, along with representatives from each of the other organisations that make up the national playing fields monitoring group. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the future role of the monitoring group.

Why do so few on the monitoring group agree with the Government's assessment that the development of playing fields is under control? Has the Minister heard the comments by Don Earley, the deputy director of the NPFA:

"The government set up a Playing Fields Monitoring Group four years ago to publish monthly statistics on the loss of playing fields. What the government has done is mix up facts relating to playing fields' losses with playing fields' improvements… As presented, the picture on threats and losses is about as clear as the slimy mud on which our children are all too often expected to play sport"?

Those who are involved with playing fields know that both development applications and approvals for planning applications are increasing. More than half of the planning applications approved in the past year led to a reduction in playing fields or sports facilities.

First, Don Earley attended the meeting that I referred to, and he did not give that impression. He is aware of the draft terms of reference that we have suggested to take the debate forward, which we want to do, rather than always reflecting on the past. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) knows that, in 1990. the Conservative Administration gave planning permission, lasting for 15 years, to build an office block on a cricket pitch in his constituency.

We are engaged in a constructive discussion with the NPFA and Don Earley. I do not know where the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Blaby came from, because Don Earley did not make such points to us, and he and other partners want to work constructively to find solutions to some of the problems. We want to advance the debate, rather than always looking at headlines in the Daily Mail and other papers, which will not acknowledge the £250 million investment in 2002–03.

I cannot be the only hon. Member who sometimes feels a sense of foreboding and doom when I hear that a particular activity is "at the heart of Government policy". Recent statistics on playing fields and open space sales show that about one third of such sales occur in closed or closing schools, which is understandable, and that another third of such sales lead to improved facilities, which is fine. Is the Minister happy that the policy is sufficiently stringent to prevent other sales and disposals creeping under the wire, because one quarter of approved applications do not fall into either of those two categories?

Very much so. The rules and regulations on the closure of playing fields are robust, and I am convinced that they will address the growth in sales. Planning applications for improvement and development are increasing—many such applications involve a change of use for playing fields—whereas in the past many planning applications involved closure. Conservative Members should realise that our young people want to play using state-of-the-art equipment such as Astroturf pitches, indoor facilities and floodlit areas. When Mick Hill, a fantastic javelin thrower, opened the English Institute for Sport in my city of Sheffield, he said, "If only we'd had these facilities 10 or 15 years ago so that our Olympians were able to practice indoors, we could have produced better results than we are doing now. It is great to pick up a javelin that is warm and not to have to pick the ice off it on a winter's evening somewhere up in Leeds."

The Minister should recognise that in his Department's categorisation of the number of sites that have been allowed to be built on, the largest sub-category is:

"where the site was too small or the wrong shape to accommodate a playing pitch."

Many of those involved in sport are mainly interested in children being allowed to kick a ball or play cricket wherever there is a playing field. They do not want that to be used as an excuse for allowing development, as we suspect that the Government have. If one travels to other countries that have produced many more successful Olympians than we have, one does not see their playing fields being built on. The Government are trying to find excuses for building on playing pitches instead of doing what they promised to do—stop the building.

I have heard some claptrap in my life, but that is the best yet. When the Conservative Administration were in power, they closed 40 playing fields a month, whereas we have put in place the most robust criteria on playing fields that there has ever been. The revised version of PPG17 reduces the area of playing fields being built on—admittedly, not by as much as the National Playing Fields Association wanted, but that is part of the ongoing debate. The situation is a darn site better now than it was when the Conservatives were in power.

If she will make a statement on Government support for the arts in the north-west. [180464]

During the current spending period, Arts Council England, North West will spend almost £80 million in support of the arts across the region. Annual investment is increasing from £20.8 million last year to £28.4 million in 2005–06—an overall increase of 37 per cent.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) is not here to hear it. However, does she accept that a lot of that money goes into the big regional centres and that smaller towns such as Warrington find it much more difficult to access it? What support can she can give to initiatives such as the Pyramid arts centre in Warrington and the Warrington art gallery, which is one of the oldest municipal art galleries in the country, to ensure that the people of all the towns in the region have easy access to the arts?

I believe that the Pyramid centre is one of the organisations in Warrington that has received Arts Council funding. Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in what my hon. Friend says. There is a tendency for regional arts organisations to invest in centres of population because more people can gain access to visit and transport links tend to be better. I agree that that by itself is not sufficient; over time, I want investment to stretch far beyond the urban centres.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the "Renaissance in the Regions" initiative whereby money is invested in museums that link with smaller museums serving much smaller population centres. I hope that that is a sign of things to come. Although Warrington museum is not part of the renaissance in the north-west of England, it is a hugely successful project, and I hope that given the necessary resources we will be able to expand it.

Sadly, the borough of Fylde, unlike Warrington, does not have an art gallery. As a result, its substantial art collection, which includes many of the major works by the Victorian artist Richard Ansdell, remains unseen by members of the public throughout the north-west. Will the Minister use her Department's resources and expertise to provide advice and a strategic way forward to ensure that the people of Fylde and the north-west can at long last see these art treasures?

I am not sure whether the Department can do anything to build a museum or to deal with that specific problem, but I understand and am concerned about the number of beautiful objects and artefacts that the public never see. Almost two thirds of the objects that museums hold are never seen or are in storage. There is a need for some radical and innovative thinking to ensure that they are seen. If Fylde does not have a museum, perhaps some of those artefacts could go on loan to neighbouring places, which have museums. I understand that that might be second best as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, but I shall draw the existence of the collection to the attention of the north-west regional Museum, Libraries and Archives Council and hope that it can be seen. It is no good to anybody if it is not seen.

How can the Minister reconcile the positive tone of the Secretary of State's recent speech, which was warmly welcomed in the arts world because it appeared to be moving away from intrusive political objectives for arts funding, with the Government's continuing and increasing addiction to quotas and targets? They affect museums, not least in the north-west. Does not she agree that the single greatest act of creativity and human ingenuity that the Government have encouraged in the arts is the invention of bogus statistics, which are designed purely to satisfy their meddlesomeness and Stalinist obsession with quotas?

The hon. Gentleman falls into the trap of thinking that, as a country, we have to choose between art, museums and galleries as excellent and worthy in their own right and the contribution that they can make to other parts of civic and national life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was a case not of "either/or" but of "both". Like her, I am happy to defend art for art's sake—I believe that we should always do that—but that does not detract from the contribution that art can make to wider social agendas. It is important that art can contribute to well-being, community cohesion, regeneration, higher educational standards and better mental health. We should not ignore that.

On targets, the Government are investing in the arts—including in museums and galleries in the north-west as well as in other regions. The taxpayer has a right to ask us what return there has been for that investment. We therefore ensure that the investment is targeted and brings about positive outcomes, such as more visitors from a wider range of backgrounds. I am pleased that we have those statistics because they allow us to show the success of the Government's. policies.

If she will make a statement on the duration of the next BBC charter. [180465]

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is no fixed time for BBC charters, although they tend to run for 10 years. We will consider all aspects of the charter, including its length in the current review. We have drawn no conclusions about that yet. The only certain outcome is a BBC that is strong and independent of Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the traditional 10-year charter—as backed by ITV—is agreed, it will be a strong sign of Parliament's confidence in the need for a strong, independent BBC with a renewed commitment to public service broadcasting under its new leadership, whereas the five-year charter, which some would advocate, would create great uncertainty and inhibit the BBC's ability to plan for its role in broadcasting, post-digital switchover?

I am well aware of the arguments that my hon. Friend has expressed in favour of continuing the customary practice of a 10-year charter for the BBC but, as I said, that and all other aspects of the BBC's governance and financing are currently subject to the review of its charter.

Will not decisions on the next BBC charter be helped by early publication of the Philip Graf report into BBC online services? Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has received the report and when she will publish it and provide a response?

I have received the report, which will be published shortly. I think that Philip Graf's excellent assessment of BBC online has some important implications for the charter review.

As far as the charter review is concerned, will my right hon. Friend be especially on her guard against those, whatever their party, whose agenda is to undermine and privatise as much of the BBC as possible? I know that she is on the side of the angels on that issue.

The short answer is yes. We are looking at every aspect of the BBC. It holds a very important place in our nation's life, and public service broadcasting is a critical part of the offer that is made to the wider public. The BBC is our principal public service broadcaster, and yes, I am confident that we will see a strong future for the BBC, but it must be a strong BBC that is independent of the Government.

Will the right hon. Lady avoid listening to the siren voices that are saying that the BBC should have only a short charter, because of the length of time that it takes to change the structure of the BBC, given that there is now so much more competition? It would be just as difficult for the BBC as it is for any other organisation to plan ahead and provide good programming if the charter were reduced to just five years. If the BBC is to fulfil its public service remit, a 10-year charter will be necessary.

This is precisely the public debate that we are now having, and what I welcome most about the charter review is that this is the first time ever that the public—the licence fee payers—have been engaged in the debate about the BBC's future. The public have responded with enthusiasm and engagement in that debate—

Have they?

They certainly have. There have been 5,000 written responses and 26,000 unique visitors to the website. It has been a very successful consultation, and we take the views that we have received very seriously indeed when dealing with precisely the kind of debate that has been reflected in the points raised this afternoon.

What steps she is taking to encourage organised sporting activities, with the support of the police and local authorities, to combat antisocial behaviour of youths. [180467]

My Department is working very constructively with the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board to use sport to combat antisocial behaviour, most notably through the positive activities for young people programme and the positive futures programme. Sport England is putting an extra £500,000 funding into the positive futures programme this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In my constituency, as well as in many other parts of Scotland, we have seen the introduction of a midnight football league, supported by the police, the local authorities, the Bank of Scotland and, of course, the Scottish Football Association. Such initiatives are taking young people off street corners where they would otherwise be hanging about aimlessly or perhaps indulging in under-age drinking. Will the Minister promote such initiatives on a far wider scale and—dare I ask?—even support them with some financial input at the same time?

I do not know the exact details of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do know about midnight basketball, which is a similar initiative. A few months ago, I went to St. Pancras to visit a scheme that the National Playing Fields Association were involved in and had raised money for. It was absolutely fantastic. The youngsters had to have a quarter of an hour's lecture on the misuse of drugs before they went on to play basketball. The organisers brought in some of the basketball players from the area as well, and it was absolutely superb. It really showed the power of sport to communicate in a way that sometimes little else can. Football has obviously taken that message to heart in Scotland. This is an area in which we might be able to look at the two schemes to which I have referred—the positive activities for young people programme and the positive futures programme—and perhaps tailor them to fit into the funding programmes that we already have. To date, 18,000 young people have made progress through the positive futures programme, which focuses on some of the most disadvantaged parts of the UK.

I entirely agree with the concept of organised sport contributing to the reduction of antisocial behaviour, but the Minister must not lose sight of the value of informal sporting opportunities, such as simply having a kick-about or somewhere to skateboard. Such opportunities are often not available in towns because there are signs saying "No ball games", and they are not available in the country because young people cannot get to the places where such activities are provided. Do we not need a much more focused approach by district councils, and Government support through the provision of cash to make such spaces available?

That is exactly what I was referring to earlier, and we have brought together playing fields and activities and facilities in looking at how we can do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) talked about football in Scotland. On the south coast I saw one of the most innovative schemes, which involves BMX-ing, blading and skateboarding in an old converted garage. What the scheme is able to do is absolutely superb, especially in taking young people who did not want to get involved in organised sport. That is the window—the gateway—through which we can get them into organised sport.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I was down in Croydon with Duke McKenzie, the former triple world boxing champion, to see what he is doing with 24 young people brought to him by the probation service. It was absolutely fantastic. Talking to those young people showed how they now respect themselves and the company they are in, which is first class. We can use sport in many and varied ways to address antisocial behaviour.

Will my right hon. Friend look, however, at how some of those organisations spend their money, particularly those such as the Football Foundation, which seem to find it simple to accept applications from those who are directly connected with commercial football, but find all sorts of barriers to put in the way of inner-city schemes that would give ordinary children exactly the support that they desperately need? Things are the wrong way round, and it is about time that we had some proper priorities.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks of the Football Foundation in that way, because it has motivated and developed a lot of grass-roots schemes through football. There are 40,000 football clubs in this country, which gives football the greatest participation by far, and I know that other sports are using those ideas to bring on young people and get them into sport.

I will look at the specific question, but I am bound to say that, under the leadership of Dave Richards, the Football Foundation has done a tremendous amount in the recent past in trying to couple the New Opportunities Fund with a series of Government initiatives and to make some sense out of that in terms of focusing on the inner-city areas. Football sometimes gets where other sports cannot get, and in using that avenue—that conduit—I believe that we can get more young people up and down the country playing more sport, particularly in inner-city areas.

What steps she is taking to improve the (a) protection and (b) accessibility of new finds on world heritage sites. [180468]

The Department is keen to ensure accessibility to our cultural heritage, but that needs to be balanced with the needs of conservation and protection. That applies to all finds, irrespective of whether they are in world heritage sites. The Department is reviewing legislation on the protection of the historic environment.

I know that no one understands the linkage between heritage and regeneration more than my right hon. Friend. May I ask for her help in ensuring that a new length of Hadrian's Wall, which has been discovered on a building site in my constituency in an area next to some council flats, is made accessible? It has some unusual forward defensive features, indicating that Tyneside kept the Romans pretty busy right to the end. I am told that if property values in the area reflected London values it would be made accessible, but that because it is next to some council flats it cannot be. Will she consider this inequality and see whether something can be done?

I am aware of the find of part of Hadrian's Wall on what I understand is the site of a redevelopment in my hon. Friend's constituency. I say two things. First, I know that, advised by English Heritage, the planning authority in his area is considering what should happen as far as further building of the hotel is concerned. I hesitate to intervene in that, because it is not the role of central Government to do so. However, may I reassure him that planning policy guidance note 16 will, I hope, offer that part of Hadrian's Wall the protection it deserves? This is a balancing act between ensuring that it is preserved and giving access if that is possible. I shall stall a little while the planning authority makes its mind up. As I say, I am reluctant to get involved at that local level.

Secondly, my hon. Friend will probably be aware that the world heritage site committee is considering the whole of Hadrian's Wall to see whether some amendments need to be made regarding the areas that are part of that world heritage site. In due course, the part of Hadrian's Wall that has just been discovered might be added to it. We shall see. If it happens, I know my hon. Friend will welcome it.

Can the Minister confirm that of the 750 or so world heritage sites, 25 are in the United Kingdom? Can she further confirm that according to the new rules—if that is the right term—that are being created, a nation can make only one world heritage site nomination a year? Is not that rather a stupid way to go into that very important matter? Should not this be based on qualitative judgments rather than rationing each country to only one nomination a year?

I confirm that there are indeed 25 sites in the UK, a great many of which have been determined as such in the last decade. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is the Government's responsibility to put forward one site for consideration. I cannot confirm that there has been a change of rule, but I promise to look it up. If he will accept that, I shall write to him to clarify the situation.

What action the Department is taking as a result of the recent seminar at the British Museum chaired by Mr. Jon Snow on Iraqi artefacts. [180469]

My Department will continue its close association with the British Museum in helping the Iraqi Ministry for Culture to protect Iraq's culture and heritage.

What provision is being made for culture by the new British embassy in Baghdad?

It is incredibly important that provision is made. There are lots of priorities as the new provisional Government take over today. We wish them well, as we do the elected Government in due course. I share the concern behind my hon. Friend's question that care needs to be taken in relation to cultural artefacts and heritage in the same way as it does in relation to transport, security, education and health. I promise that my Department will remain in close contact with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development to ensure that any contribution that we can make, and any pressure that we can put on through our representation there, is made. Meanwhile, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office tells me that in due course the director for Iraq of the British Council will be the cultural attaché based at the British embassy in Baghdad. That is where responsibility will lie in the immediate future. I want to give a firm undertaking that we will want to keep that under close scrutiny and make sure that it is the level and kind of support that the new Government will need to protect their incredibly valuable heritage.

Is the Minister satisfied that the lessons have been learned from the dreadful looting that took place in Baghdad? Does she agree that warnings from bodies about professional looting were ignored, that the border of Iraq was not policed, that the law for importing artefacts in this country was imperfect—I know that it has now been corrected—and that Departments did not work together as quickly as they should have done? What can she say to satisfy us that the lessons really have been learned and that those things will not happen again?

I very much hope that the lessons have been learned. To some extent, I hope that circumstances will not arise again in which we must take action based on lessons learned. Without wishing to make excuses, the situation was unusual, and things were not done that could have been done. There is no doubt about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) highlighted the fact that much needs to be done to make sure that the heritage is preserved. We have been in contact with both the new provisional Government and the former alliances about lessons learned. As far as I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our Department are concerned, it is our job to make sure that the lessons are learned. Moreover, the key point is that the lessons are acted on. To some extent, people knew what should have been done, which was not always given the priority that it should have been given, at a time of other equally high priorities. More important than lessons learned are lessons acted on in future. That is the direction in which we ought to go.

The Minister will know that the vast majority of people in the world who ever have an opportunity to see any of the great works of art from Iraq will see them in the British Museum, because it has probably the best collection in the world of Iraqi, Abyssinian, Assyrian and Mesopotamian works. Does she believe that the British Museum could do more to try to explain the connection of those ancient artefacts with modern society, and particularly with Islam, as a means of overcoming much Islamophobia around the world?

Indeed. That is one of the major purposes of the British Museum, and it does that task incredibly well. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the British Museum who have been to Iraq in the past and who have worked with people from the museum sector there to help to update their skills? That will be incredibly valuable in the years ahead. However, I refer my hon. Friend to the original question, which was about a recent seminar at the British Museum, chaired by Jon Snow, on Iraqi artefacts. I heard from from people who were there, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked the question, exactly what the British Museum did. I think that one of the most valuable aspects of museums is that they provide a safe place in which different interpretations of events and a sense of our history and heritage can be conveyed. They help to explain some of today's conflicts, which I believe is one of museums' major contributions to our society. I am delighted that this country has museums of the calibre of the British Museum that continue to provide that service.

How the Government will help increase public support for the 2012 London Olympic bid. [180470]

Public visibility and conviction about community gain and relevance are, I think, the two ways in which we will build public awareness and support for the bid. To that end, the Government are working very closely with London 2012 in order to maximise our chances of winning the bid. The decision will take place in July next year. I would also point to the degree and strength of cross-party support for our bid, which is another important asset in our favour.

The Secretary of State will be aware that supporters of the bid on both sides of the House were desperately disappointed that we came only third in the first round. It seemed to us that the two areas in which we were marked down were public support and Government support. What more are the Government going to do—starting at the top with the Prime Minister—to take a lead so that we really win in 2012?

If people looked at the figures for Paris and Madrid, the two countries that were ahead of us, they would find that one reason we were marked down was the uncertainty of the impending mayoral elections—[Interruption] It is a matter of fact that there was a small differential in our assessment on Government support because of the uncertainty created by the forthcoming mayoral elections.

indicated dissent.

It is a matter of fact. The second point is that the level of public support is consistent and, although it is high, we have to build on it. No one who was in the Mall on Saturday night, where 80,000 people welcomed the torch borne by Steve Redgrave to the centre of London, could have been in any doubt whatever about the level of public and Government support for the bid. I would be grateful if the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) would talk that up, rather than constantly cast doubt on it.

What assessment the Electoral Commission is making of the advice it gave electoral returning officers for recent all-postal ballots. [180450]

The Commission keeps under constant review the advice and guidance that it offers electoral administrators. More specifically, it will review its guidance on post-election integrity checks for postal ballots as part of its evaluation of the all-postal pilot schemes.

Returning officers followed very closely one piece of advice about all-postal ballots that was offered to them, but I wonder whether some confusion. might have been created by that advice. For example, the details of who was allowed to sign as a witness to the postal ballot confused various people, who did not really believe what was being said. What testing did the Electoral Commission conduct to assess whether people would understand the different forms of wording that could be used? The role of the Electoral Commission in this matter is as significant as any other factor in respect of the conduct of EU all-postal ballots.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He may have noticed that when the Government laid the orders for the regional referendums last Thursday, the requirement for a witness statement was not included. The orders are subject to affirmative resolution. but it would be open to Members to make their contributions during the debate on the affirmative resolution, if that should come before the House.

Reference has been made to the laying of the orders for the regional government referendums. Can it really be the case that the Chairman of the Electoral Commission has written to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about public confidence and appropriate safeguards, expressing the wish that the Government wait, yet the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen once again completely to ignore the Electoral Commission's advice? In order to further the debate, will the hon. Gentleman put it to the Electoral Commission that it would be in everyone's interest if that exchange of correspondence were made public so that the House could determine the value of the points expressed before coming to a view on the orders that have been laid on the conduct of the referendum?

Yes. The commission believes that there would be benefit in Parliament having available to it the Electoral Commission's evaluation reports on the June pilot before taking a decision on whether to approve the orders specifying the form of the referendum. It would therefore prefer the Government to wait until the results of the statutory evaluation exercise are available in mid-September.

I have in my hands the order that has been mentioned and which was laid last Thursday. It tells us that the Government are prepared to abandon all-postal voting in the regional assembly referendums in October if the Electoral Commission produces convincing evidence that it would be unsafe to proceed. Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with any member of the Government about what might constitute convincing evidence?

As the House knows, it is not within the remit of the Speaker's Committee to have such discussions. I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission is in discussion with Government representatives.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) told the House during a debate last week that postal vote applications in the Washwood Heath ward in the Birmingham, Hodge Hill constituency went up from 693 to a staggering 5,583. He believed that electoral fraud had taken place. In the circumstances, with two sensitive by-elections taking place on 15 July in Birmingham, Hodge Hill and Leicester, South, will my hon. Friend ask the chairman of the Electoral Commission to send observers to those constituencies to ensure that wide-scale fraud does not take place?

My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on 22 June. He quoted The Birmingham Post as saying:

"Fights in the streets, postmen offered bribes for sacks of ballot forms, a post box torched, car chases, threats, bullying and intimidation and the unforgettable image of a… councillor 'sorting out' ballot papers in the shadows of a back street car park at midnight."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1233.]

Those events did not take place in one of the four areas delegated for all-postal balloting, but the Electoral Commission will, of course, take full account of them in its general review of voting practices, which is expected later this year—although not by 13 September.

What evaluation the Commission has made of the effects of holding council elections in June rather than May. [180454]

The commission has no statutory duty to report on local authority elections and has therefore made no such evaluation. However, the commission will consider the impact of combining the local elections with the European parliamentary elections in its statutory report on the latter, which it plans to publish by the end of the year.

I hope that when the commission does so it will note that the turnout in the local council elections was significantly up, partly by virtue of their being held on the same day as the European elections and also—I suspect—by virtue of their being held in June. After all, canvassing in April, with its regular showers, is much more difficult and it is easier for people to get out to vote during the lighter days. Will the hon. Gentleman urge people to move towards a single date in June for all our elections, so that everybody can be clear where they stand?

The commission has not, to date, considered the timing of local elections and has no current plans to review the matter. However, the commission has previously expressed concern about dates of fixed elections being moved and the potential impact on voter comprehension of combining elections. The commission has also expressed concern about the principle of combining referendums with party-based elections.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is true that turnout increased where there were all-postal ballots, that may have more to do with the fact that the local authority and European elections were combined than with the fact that there was an all-postal ballot?

Indeed. Concern has been expressed about postal ballots; we have come quite a long way from the 1870 Elections Bill, which sought to introduce secret voting in parliamentary elections and was intended to rid British politics of some of the abuses that had disfigured its elections. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point, but it is also true that turnout increased significantly as a result of the introduction of postal ballots; for instance, in the east midlands, it increased from 22.6 per cent. to 44.6 per cent.

In the hon. Gentleman's discussions with the Electoral Commission will he also pass on the observation that in Wales, where unitary authority elections in every council area and European elections were held on the same day, turnout in the European elections rose by about 12 per cent. As a result, turnout for the European elections was higher in Wales than in some of the compulsory postal voting areas, so will he recommend to the commission that elections should be held on the same day in June?

I shall indeed pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Electoral Commission. That is exactly the kind of thing it will consider in its report on 13 September.

What steps are being taken to recruit parish priests, particularly in rural areas, to replace those who are due to retire in the coming years. [180455]

The Church of England actively promotes vocations to the priesthood, irrespective of geographical area, through diocesan initiatives and by keeping the first Sunday in May as vocations day.

I am not sure of the implications of that answer for my question. In last month's Question Time, the hon. Gentleman gave me a very helpful response about the large number of stalwart parish priests, although he alarmed me by saying that a significant number of them were coming up to retirement. What specific measures does the Church have in mind to recruit and train their replacements? How long will it take, and will the stream of recruits be sufficient to replace those priests who are expected to retire?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Some predominantly rural dioceses have responded to shortages of stipendiary clergy by developing local ministry teams that include clergy and lay ministers and cover a number of parishes, although that development is not exclusive to rural areas. The hon. Lady has a strong interest in rural issues, so she will know that the Church continues to be concerned about the lack of priests in rural areas and is doing all that it can to rectify that.

If the commission will conduct an assessment of the merits of allowing electors a choice of polling stations at which to cast their vote. [180456]

The commission has no plans at present to conduct a specific assessment of the merits of allowing electors a choice of polling station at which to cast their vote. However, the commission is committed to pursuing the goal of greater choice for voters, provided that can be achieved while maintaining the security and integrity of the electoral system.

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good idea for the committee and the commission to look at the proposal in a bit more detail? Does he agree that it is somewhat archaic that the only place where people can cast a vote is at the polling station for the area in which they live? Surely, with new technology it would be quite feasible for people to be allowed to vote nearer their place of work, at a railway station on their way home or even at shopping centres. Would not such a measure be simple to introduce and, in its own way, help to increase voter turnout?

I am sure that many people would agree with the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but the scope for offering voters a choice between several locations will of course depend ultimately on the implementation of plans for a national electronic register of voters, which the commission supports; it also supports the concept of individual registration of voters.

If the commission is truly committed to giving voters choice, does not it accept that compulsory postal ballots are incompatible with that wish?

Certainly, all-postal voting seems to have improved turnout, but my hon. Friend's point is exactly the kind of thing that the commission will be considering.

How many retired clergy were receiving assistance with accommodation on 1 April (a) 1984, (b) 1994 and (c) 2004; and if he will make a statement. [180457]

The numbers of retired clergy or clergy widows occupying houses whose purchase was partly or wholly funded by the Church's retirement housing scheme as at 1 January—not April—1984, 1994 and 2004 were 1,840, 3,190 and 2,906 respectively. In relation to a statement, the Church is also giving serious thought to a scheme that will enable clergy to enter the housing market earlier in their ministry.

Clergy in office are provided with a house and paid a stipend. but clergy in retirement must meet their own housing costs. Sometimes, support is given by the commissioners or the pensions board. Is my hon. Friend convinced that the supply of housing remains adequate and that it will not be a disincentive to would-be priests entering the ministry? What consideration has been given to the report from two years ago, "Generosity and Sacrifice", with which he will be very familiar?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that report and for following its progress. I shall do the same, and I give him a commitment that I will come back to him on that. It is a fact that those clergy with insufficient capital of their own can get assistance in the shape of retirement housing schemes, administered by the Church of England pensions board and largely funded by loans to the pension board from the Church Commissioners. The availability of housing is a nationwide problem; but, of course, we would not wish it to discourage anyone who wishes to become a clergyman.

What discussions the commissioners have had with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey about the builder's yard between the abbey and St Margaret's church. [180459]

The programme to achieve planning permission for the redevelopment of Mason's yard proceeds. The abbey has been in close contact with parliamentary estates and Westminster Abbey fabric commission, and has been supported by English Heritage. Funds are secure, and the work will start as soon as planning permission is granted.

The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's reply with some horror. How can it be that, in the centre of the world heritage site that consists of the abbey, St. Margaret's and the Palace, we will cement a builders' yard that is hideous beyond belief? Surely, we can find some place to put that builders' rubbish, other than slap bang in the middle of a world heritage site?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I should tell him that "The Rocky Horror Show" does not begin with the Church Commissioners. He will have noticed great improvements on the north side of the path adjacent to St. Margaret's church. I should like to pay significant homage to the Dean of Westminster, who carries on his duties when not always in the best of health. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that the abbey is part of our national heritage and, no doubt, that fact will be taken into account when any planning permission is given for the redevelopment of Mason's yard.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 48 to 64.

In Committee, hon. Members raised a technical point about the scope for misunderstanding in the current definition of anatomical examination given in clause 55, which states:

"'anatomical examination' means examination by dissection for anatomical purposes",

which are for the

"purposes of teaching or studying, or researching into, morphology."

Use and storage of the body of a deceased person or material from it for that purpose requires the advance written consent of the individual concerned, witnessed by another, and is a licensable activity. The scheduled purpose of health-related research, on the other hand, may be consented to after death by relatives and is not licensable under the Bill.

Researchers in particular are concerned that there could be confusion about when research on tissue involving examination by dissection requires advanced consent and licensing and when it does not. Basically, there was concern that the stricter requirements would apply to all bits of tissue used for morphological research.

We therefore propose to clarify the references to anatomical examination by amending clauses 2, 3, 7, 13, 23, 43 and 55. The effect of the amendments to clause 55 is to clarify the definition of anatomical examination so that it is now defined as macroscopic examination by dissection for the purposes of teaching, studying or researching into the gross structure of the human body. That excludes from the definition much of the research about which concerns have been expressed to us.

The effect of the amendments to clauses 2 and 3 is that the prior written and witnessed consent of the individual is required only in relation to anatomical examinations carried out on whole bodies or material that has come from a whole body in the course of use of the body for the purpose of anatomical examination. The amendments to clauses in part 2 impose a licensing requirement only in relation to whole bodies that are used or stored for anatomical examination or material from such bodies that is stored or used for that purpose.

I hope that that is clear. As I said, these are technical amendments dealing with matters that were raised in Committee. I hope that the situation is now clarified.

I congratulate the Minister on her eloquent exposition. It is a pity that the description that she gave could not have been given previously. I underscore the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about pre-legislative scrutiny. Although the change is technical, it is also fundamental. The Minister's description is a return to common sense, because she elegantly described the situation, as we understand it, in a dissecting suite in a medical school, which is the measure's intention. Correctly, she has in mind a gross, large-scale examination of parts derived from a dead person that excludes histology—examining specimens under a microscope. I congratulate her on the change, although it is a pity that it was not made earlier.

Question put and agreed to.Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 40, after 'alive', insert

'and subsection (2A) does not apply'.

No. 8, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—

'(2A) This subsection applies where the person concerned is alive, but lacks the capacity to give consent.

(2B) Where subsection (2A) applies, "appropriate consent" means the consent of a person who stands in a qualifying relationship to him.'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 31, at end insert—

'(8) For the purposes of this section a person lacks capacity to give consent if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain.'.

Government amendments Nos. 99 to 107.

The Bill was not intended to impact on the common law test of best interests, regarding the activities that can take place in relation to tissue from mentally incapacitated adults. As we have said, such issues—in particular, research—will be dealt with under the forthcoming Mental Capacity Bill. However, we now recognise that, as drafted, the Human Tissue Bill would prevent activities that are currently lawful, where the removal of tissue for a particular purpose—for example, transplantation—is deemed to be in the best interests of the incapacitated individual. The person's best interests would be frustrated, because they cannot give the necessary consent to the subsequent use of the tissue.

The Mental Capacity Bill is unlikely to be enacted before 2007, and the Human Tissue Bill is likely to be enacted in 2005. That gap makes it necessary to amend the Human Tissue Bill, so that it does not have a detrimental effect in the interim on the use of tissue lawfully removed from incapacitated patients. We therefore propose to amend the Bill by taking a power to make regulations setting out what is required before tissue from those who lack capacity can be used for purposes regulated by the Bill. Those purposes will include obtaining information that may be relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of another person, such as a genetic relative, and transplantation. The intention is to use the regulations to provide that, in the case of incapacitated adults, tissue may be used for scheduled purposes, where that would be in the adult's best interests.

The regulations would also allow research using the tissue of incapacitated persons, where participation in the research by the person who lacks capacity is authorised in accordance with the clinical trials regulations, which came into force in May. Such use would be subject to the safeguards set out in those regulations, which include that an ethics committee must approve the research. The regulations will also take account of the outcome of debates on the Mental Capacity Bill later in this Session, and research relating to mentally incapacitated adults will be debated in that context. Indeed, rather than setting down the circumstances in the Bill, regulations are proposed because we do not want to pre-empt the debates that will take place later in the Session.

In due course, the Mental Capacity Bill may replace the regulation-making power by amendment. Similar amendments will be made to the provisions dealing with DNA, so the regulations can say when it is lawful to hold material from an adult who lacks capacity with the intention of analysing the DNA. Those apply also to Scotland, where it will be necessary for the regulations to take account of authority under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, whether for research or for any other of the purposes that I outlined.

What is the relationship with the Scottish Department of Health, and which other Departments have been involved in discussions? I am not in any way critical; I should just like to know.

Particularly with regard to the 2000 Act, the main discussions have taken place with the Department of Health and Community Care in Scotland. I am not entirely sure about the nature of discussions with other Departments.

Because we recognise that allowing the use of tissue from incapacitated persons is a sensitive issue, we have provided that the regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution to allow Parliament to discuss the details. Prior to that, it will be necessary to undertake further discussions with appropriate Departments in Scotland. That will give Parliament the opportunity to discuss details that may not have been debated elsewhere.

I commend the new clause to the House.

I am glad that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, because this area is a minefield. It is a pity that we do not yet have the Mental Capacity Bill; if we did, we would not need to discuss the matter in quite this way. I am deeply worried about Secretaries of State making regulations that affect people in such situations, although I suspect that, mercifully, they would be needed very infrequently. I assume that in drafting the provision, the Minister had specific instances in mind that drove it forward, because she, like me, will have been very cautious about treading in this extremely problematic area.

The Minister referred to the measure's potential interaction with the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. I am not entirely clear about how that will work, and I would be grateful if she expanded on it a little further.

With regard to the authority that is required before a person who lacks capacity can participate in a clinical trial, the legal representative of that person must give consent to their participation. A legal representative is a person who has a sufficiently close relationship with the person lacking capacity, or, if no such person is available, a doctor or other person nominated by the person's health care provider. The clinical trials regulations set out the detailed information that must be provided and other requirements that must be fulfilled before participation can be authorised. We will look very closely at the requirements under the clinical trials directive to ensure that the regulations fit in with them.

Question put and agreed to.Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 10—Power of Human Tissue Authority to assist other public authorities.

The new clauses relate to the duties and powers of the Human Tissue Authority. I shall deal first with new clause 9. It is a shame that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is not here because in Committee, he asked about including a provision that would require the Human Tissue Authority to adhere to best regulatory practice, minimising burdens and costs. He pointed out that other recently established public bodies had such duties written into their legislation. We have agreed to include such an amendment to make it clear that the authority is expected to be lean, effective, accountable and focused.

I was impressed by the word "economically" in the new clause. The guidance notes that my hon. Friend issued refer to a total cost to the new authority of approximately £1.5 million per annum. They also mention additional fees and licences. Is £1.5 million a net figure or will it decrease as income from fees and licences increases?

My recollection of the discussion in Committee is that the fees and licences would cover the administrative costs of inspection and issuing the licences. Some costs would accrue to the authority over and above those, such as the costs of issuing the codes of practice, administrative support and so on. If I remember correctly the two sums are separate, but the intention is that the fees and licences will cover the inspection element.

My hon. Friend talks about a mean, lean organisation. The same was said of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which our Select Committee examined. The funding for it was doubled. Could not bodies cross-fertilise under an umbrella organisation? After all, they are considering the same matters, which include interacting with the public. Quangos and similar bodies appear to spring up every six months. Is there not a case for getting them together to consider the ethical and moral issues?

Let me correct my hon. Friend: I did not say that the authority would be a mean body; I simply said that it would be lean. However, he is right to point out that several arm's-length bodies exist. I am sure that he knows that a review of those bodies is currently being conducted to ascertain whether there is room to achieve the 50 per cent. cut in their number that the Secretary of State wanted.

New clause 10 gives the Human Tissue Authority power to assist public bodies. Clause 37 currently allows the authority to make arrangements with other public authorities so that they can carry out any of the Human Tissue Authority's functions. Again, that is relevant to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) correctly made. We want to avoid duplication of inspections and reduce bureaucracy. However, under the Bill as it is currently drafted, the authority cannot assist other bodies. It would therefore be sensible to enable it to do that. In particular, we have it in mind that the authority could assist Scottish Ministers in regulating live transplants in Scotland, if asked to do that. In this way, the regulation of live transplants would remain consistent across the UK, and we would avoid the need to set up a separate new body in Scotland, which would be inefficient given the small number of cases involved. The HTA will therefore be able to help to minimise the bureaucratic impact on those regulated, and the power would also give the authority sensible flexibility and allow it to assist any UK body.

I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will be pleased that we have taken up his suggestion, and that the whole House will support the new clauses.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire will be extremely pleased. Indeed, looking through the new clauses, I am very pleased to see how much of what we suggested in Committee has been taken up and how many suggestions from third parties have also been adopted. Best regulatory practice is a welcome addition to the Bill, for example. I am also pleased that the agency will consult and liaise with other bodies. This has prompted me to look again at the Health Protection Agency Bill, which reaches its Committee stage tomorrow. It, too, places an onus on other bodies to co-operate with the agency that it establishes, and I wonder why no reciprocal arrangement is proposed between that agency and the Human Tissue Authority. Perhaps it might be worth considering introducing such an arrangement, to ensure that other such bodies associated and liaised with the HTA. It would be good if the Minister could give me an assurance that they will do so.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister wishes, as far as she can, to achieve a consensual approach to the drafting of the Bill. However, if most of my constituents read new clause 9, they would be surprised that Parliament wanted to place on the face of a Bill an exhortation—indeed, a legislative requirement—for an authority to

"carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically",

and to follow

"the principles of best regulatory practice".

The implication of the inclusion of those requirements seems to be that some other Government bodies and quangos do not operate effectively, efficiently and economically, and do not follow the principles of best regulatory practice. If that is the case, perhaps the House should turn its attention to those other bodies.

It is surprising to read the proposals in new clause 9, having heard Ministers constantly saying in Committee and on Report—which is somewhat akin to Committee—to Members who have tabled amendments that they are unnecessary because the provision is already implied or exists elsewhere in the Bill. I should have thought that the wording in new clause 9 was, by necessary implication, an exhortation on every Government Department, quango and similar body.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) raised the question of vets in relation to this matter. Did I mishear him?

I did not raise the question of vets.

Then we shall leave that matter. I should like to ask the Minister about the arrangements with Scotland, as I believe that she has some information about that. I thoroughly approve of these measures being introduced on a UK basis, but it would be nice to have on record the arrangements for transplants in Scotland.

I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that best regulatory practice is included in some legislation. Given that questions had been raised about the duties of the authority and whether there would be duplication, we felt that it was important to make matters clear by placing the best regulatory framework in the Bill.

With regard to Scotland, giving the HTA the power in new clause 10 to assist other bodies, if it is asked to do so, will help Scottish Ministers in terms of regulating live transplants in Scotland. This question involves some continuing discussions, which we have been having with the Scottish Executive, who have been not only working with us, but consulting the public on the issue of the Bill. We will continue to work with them in that way to ensure that we do not duplicate areas in which we could assist.

Question put and agreed to.Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of presumed consent and I am grateful to those hon. Members who have put their name to the amendment for their indication of support. I hope to set out in my opening remarks the current situation with regard to organ transplant, explain the proposed change, briefly explain what each new clause and amendment would do and then set out the reasons for the change. Finally, I shall deal—in advance, if I may, for a further occasion—with some arguments that Ministers, among others, have used against the proposals.

I hope also that the Minister responds to my "prebuttal" of her points, if she feels I have them right, rather than simply repeating them without reference to some facts that we seek to express.

Optimistic.

The right hon. Gentleman claims that that is optimistic, but I know that we want a good debate rather than simply a repeat of what was said on Second Reading, which, like consideration in Committee, provided an opportunity for differences to be aired. I respect the strong views of those on the other side of the discussion, and I know that those who share my view also respect their strong views. We need to have an exchange of views. If there is an area where the Government feel that the proponents of this measure have it wrong, I am keen that we accept that and revise our position.

The current arrangements, which are best described as relatives' consent with opt-in, stem from the Human Tissue Act 1961. Although it has been described, in shorthand, as an opt-in system, it is best described as seeking relatives' consent, often on a guess, as to what the person would have wanted, with an opt-in to guide them. If someone is in such a position that their organs could be used after their death for transplantation purposes—that is, they have died and their death has been confirmed by brain stem testing on a ventilator in the intensive care unit with no medical contraindications to organ donation—doctors may approach relatives to seek permission so to use the organs.

At the moment, relatives, often at the height of their grief—such deaths are often of young people following a road traffic accident or other trauma—are asked to decide whether the organs can be used. In a small minority of cases, the potential donor would have made clear to relatives his or her opposition to donation. That is generally and rightly respected by those relatives, although it need not be if relatives choose not to do so.

In a larger minority of cases, but still a minority, the potential donor will have indicated a wish to donate by telling relatives, carrying a donor card and/or registering on the organ donor register. Relatives still have to give consent, and in a significant minority of those cases relatives withhold their consent: in the potential donor audit, relatives refused in 11 out of 226 cases in which the organ donor register was consulted. That is not a virtual nothing, in terms of that frequency, but a problem with which both systems must deal. We should not think that it is not also present in the current system.

In the majority of cases, as recognised by the potential donor audit carried out by UK Transplant, the wishes of the potential donor are unknown. In those cases, relatives are forced to second-guess the wishes of their loved one. In about half those cases, permission is withheld—again, those data come from UK Transplant's potential donor audit for the first few months of 2003. If we make a comparison with previous research, that proportion has increased in the last 10 years from 30 per cent. to nearly 50 per cent.

On a point of clarity, I think that the hon. Gentleman said, as I think that the record will say, that relatives have to give consent. I am not sure whether he meant that. Perhaps he might like to think again about precisely what he meant. In fact, they do give their consent, and it is always sought, and rightly so. We need to be absolutely clear about the letter of the law.

I will repeat what I was seeking to get across: in a larger minority of cases, the potential donor will have indicated a wish to donate, as in the examples that I used, and relatives still have to give consent, or they still have to be consulted for that consent. I will clarify that. As I explained, in a significant minority of cases—each one is significant for the person or people who will die because that organ is not available, so even one case is significant—relatives withhold their consent.

Under the proposed change, the system would be one in which consent by the potential donor was presumed unless he or she had registered or made known an opt-out. The plan would be that after a widespread media and education campaign, which would be prompted by the change in the law but would take place before it came into effect, every adult would be given multiple and continued opportunities to register their objection to their organs being used after their death for transplantation, and to discuss that view with their relatives. As I described previously, were it the case that someone's organs could be used after their death for transplantation purposes, doctors would have a legal duty to check the opt-out register, to see whether the person had registered an objection. If so, no approach other than the explanation that might be required would be made to relatives, and the wishes of the deceased would be respected. If no opt-out had been registered, relatives would be approached and asked whether they knew of any objection of the deceased that had not been registered. If so, organs would not be taken for transplantation, as previously. If no objection had been registered, and if no objection was known by relatives, medical staff would express an intention to use the relevant organs for life-saving or life-transforming transplantation, in line with the presumed or, where relevant, expressed wishes of the potential donor.

At that point—this is the soft opt-out proposed by me, and supported by the British Medical Association and others—if relatives demonstrate that they would suffer significant distress as a result of the use of organs in that way, the organs would not be taken. This veto opportunity for volunteered distress by relatives is called the soft system of presumed consent, as used in Belgium, which is to be contrasted with the harder system, with no such veto, as used in Austria, for example.

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify who, in those circumstances, would assess whether the distress was significant?

The same people would make that judgment who make the judgment now when there is indecision or a disagreement among the relatives—the doctors who were caring for the deceased person. It would not be, as in other jurisdictions, doctors with a vested interest for the recipient, but doctors and nurses who have invested their time in looking after the deceased and caring, post-bereavement, for the relatives.

rose—

rose—

I give way first to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who has a particular interest in this matter.

Following the previous intervention, do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly? Is he telling us that somebody somewhere, even if they were not involved in the particular case, would have the power to overrule relatives who were distressed? How on earth can anybody measure the amount of distress coming from the bereavement as distinct from the amount of distress coming from the request to object to a transplant?

These are difficult areas. It is done successfully in Belgium, in respect of both providing more organs and meeting public acceptability. Surveys of relatives show that they are pleased to be relieved of the responsibility of taking a difficult decision at the height of their grief. That is how it would be done here. Clearly, the relatives are distressed as it is, and the current system expects them to take a decision, to second-guess the wishes of the deceased at the peak of their grief when brain stem death will just have been declared after what is normally a short illness following a traumatic injury. In those circumstances, the distress of relatives is already present.

This system proposes that relatives are approached to ascertain whether there were any unregistered objections and it gives them the opportunity to volunteer the view that they do not wish the transplant to go ahead. The difference is that they will not be asked for their view, because the view of the deceased will predominate, whether it be expressed or presumed. Nevertheless, if the relatives have a view, after they know that the organs will otherwise be used, they can state that they would suffer distress and the judgment would be made in the same sensitive way as at present.

I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne will accept that these are difficult decisions, but that they have to be made. He must remember that there is another set of distressed relatives—those of patients who are literally dying without the transplants. We have to ensure that we weigh up those two interests as sensitively as we can. Other countries have managed it successfully—by the Belgian method, for example, which has been carefully appraised and incorporates taking into account the views of relatives afterwards.

I am grateful for that response and if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may comment on the views of other people and third parties. However, would the hon. Gentleman accept that one definition of hell would be to be already deeply upset and passionately opposed to what is about to happen to one's deceased relative and then to be told by someone, "I am sorry, but you are simply not upset enough"? That, for me, is a definition of hell.

As I say, the problem that the hon. Gentleman seeks to identify is a problem that occurs now in respect of organ donation where the deceased has a donor card, but relatives may well oppose it. Doctors have a very difficult problem when someone has said in life that they wish to donate, but another group of people are dying and their relatives are deeply concerned about it, and a third party—the bereaved relative whose interests must also be respected—expresses another view. These are difficult decisions to take now—they certainly had to be taken by my colleagues when I worked in acute medicine—and those difficulties will always be with us. We have to set out a framework to ensure that due respect is given to the strongly held views of bereaved relatives. The veto outlined in the provision does precisely that and it does so reasonably.

rose—

rose—

I am keen to make progress, but I will take these interventions.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to give relatives some input or a veto. However, what happens when relatives are not present and the decision to transplant organs has to be taken, but relatives subsequently come forward to dissent? Would that not put doctors in the terrible position of having done something to which relatives subsequently take strong exception?

The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that that problem is far more likely to arise under the current arrangements because the Human Tissue Act 1961, which deals with circumstances when a donor card or the organ donor register has been used, does not require doctors to delay transplantation, because people can be kept ventilated after brain stem death only for so long while relatives are found. That is the first problem, and that already happens now when there is an indication of the deceased's wish but relatives are not present. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. In many such cases, if not in the vast majority, the deaths take place in intensive care following an illness where there is a process of diagnosis of death by brain stem injury, and relatives are invariably there, where they exist. It is not a rapid decision. There are some circumstances, however, in which rapid decisions need to be taken, and clause 44 presumes consent for cold perfusion in those cases. I not believe that the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman would be any greater than in the current circumstances that I described.

Is there not another definition of hell, which is the agony of the relatives of those desperately in need of a transplant and who see matching tissue going up in crematorium incinerators, when it is likely that the relatives of the deceased would have been only too happy to help someone else?

I share that view and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a chance to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that he has a long history of campaigning on the issue and would be able to develop those points further.

The differences in the current system and the opt-out system reside mainly in the way relatives are approached. It is not that relatives are approached under one system and not approached under the other. In the current system, relatives are asked to make a decision, usually based on guessing their loved one's wishes or on their own feelings Under a system of presumed consent with opt-out, the absence of an objection is taken as the basis of a presumption of consent by a potential donor who is ordinarily resident, has capacity and is an adult. Relatives are approached only to seek evidence of unregistered objection or opt-out by the deceased, not to make a decision themselves.

Why do the proposers of the new clause want to change the present system? As I have said, if the present system were working well, improving, doing well enough or offered advantages compared to the one proposed, I would not propose a change. However, it is clear that the present system is not working well enough for prospective recipients, prospective donors or the relatives of the deceased. All those who support change support the current system while we have it, and I hope that it is acknowledged that I and others who support change have worked hard to promote the organ donor register and donor cards. However, we have to recognise that the present system is not working effectively for any of the people involved.

In terms of the effect on potential recipients, the number of cadaveric organ donors is falling year on year despite efforts made under the present system. The Minister may claim that last year there was an increase, but there was not an increase in the number of cadaveric organ donors in 2003 compared with 2002, nor in 2002 compared with 2001. That is what we are measuring. At the same time, the number in need of a transplant rises every year. That means, tragically, that more and more people are dying while on a waiting list for a transplant or before even making it to the formal waiting list. Many people do not make it to a waiting list because the criteria are tight—because the prospects for transplantation are so limited.

Potential donors—the deceased whose organs would be used—do not do well out of the present system either. Surveys have shown that 80 to 90 per cent. of people would in principle wish their organs to be used for transplantation after their death, if possible. However, under the present system, only 50 per cent. have their organs used, because of high rates of refusal by relatives. That means that many organs whose owners would have wanted them to be used to save lives are being buried or cremated with the deceased in direct contravention of their wishes—although I accept that those wishes are often unexpressed.

Nor are relatives of the deceased well served by the present system. They are put under pressure to make a decision, often at the height of their grief. There is now research to suggest that half of them make a decision that they later regret. Every time they see the story of a successful transplant in the media, they feel that their decision—at a time of heightened grief—was not the one that they would have made if they had known then what they know now.

Nor is the present system fair on medical staff. Doctors and nurses are asked to approach relatives to make a decision at a very difficult time. Nor does the NHS do well out of the present system. That is not a major consideration, but it has been mentioned by the media. Maintaining thousands of kidney patients on dialysis, instead of treating them with the far more cost-effective option of transplantation, uses up millions of pounds of NHS cash that could be spent on saving or prolonging the lives of others. That is not a key point and it is more ethical than financial, but even the financial arguments are in favour.

The second point is that presumed consent with opt-out works; it saves lives. Many other countries in Europe and the rest of the world use that system successfully. The average donation rate, in donors per million of population, is 25 per cent. higher in countries with opt-out than in countries that have an opt-in system. Scientific evidence and research backs that up. Several analyses published in scientific journals have looked at the effect of changing to presumed consent with opt-out on rates of organ donation and at other outcomes, such as public satisfaction and relatives' views. They all showed that such a change was successful.

Some analyses examined the factors that could be judged to account for a higher rate of organ donation in one country than another. All those studies cited presumed consent with opt-out as one such factor and often the only one that could realistically be changed; for example, the rate of road traffic accidents is a factor but it would be hard to change that—one would certainly not want to. Another factor is the proportion of people with a particular religious view; in Europe, Roman Catholicism is associated with a higher rate of donation. Those factors are hard to change, but the one thing that countries can change—the one thing Parliament can change—is the law.

In those successful countries, have their Parliaments and local organisations attempted to highlight and publicise the need to donate organs? Is there a correlation between that and their success? Does the hon. Gentleman have figures on that?

A change in the law might lead to a temporary increase in donations due to heightened awareness. There was an interesting experiment in Belgium. When the law was changed, and everyone was subject to the same education and publicity, one centre kept to the previous system of seeking formal consent from relatives while another centre switched to the new system. At the second centre, there was a significant and sustained increase in organ donation, which continues to be maintained, but at the first centre, with the original system, the rate, which was lower, stayed the same. Those results were published in peer-reviewed medical literature.

It is thus not acceptable for the Government to say, as they did in their press release of 14 January, that there is no evidence that presumed consent with an opt-out works. It is clear that there is such evidence in the scientific literature. Indeed, all the papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicate that the system works. The Government may not be convinced by the evidence and I respect that view, but to say that there is no evidence or that the evidence is on their side is wrong; it is a misrepresentation and I hope that Members on the Treasury Bench will not continue with it.

The hon. Gentleman made reference to the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church, which, of course, varies from time to time, according to whom one is talking to. Before I introduced the first of the ten-minute Bills, my colleagues told me to go and see Cardinal Heenan, so I did and there was certainly no objection at that time from the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England.

None of the major religions opposes either organ donation or switching to a system of presumed consent. There is certainly no evidence of differential take-up for one system or another. We know that ethnic minority populations are less likely to donate organs, yet are more likely to need them—for example, owing to the incidence in the Asian community of diabetes leading to end-organ failure—so we need to increase the supply across the board.

That point has been raised by several people. Does the hon. Gentleman see anything in the Government's proposals that would actually increase the amount of donation, especially among the south Asian community? I am thinking of the work of Dr. Kartan Lalvani, who, for several years, has been trying to increase donation because of the high rate of take-up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, almost irrespective of anything else we discuss today, we must concentrate on that aspect? We must increase the amount of those donations.

Absolutely. Regardless of what happens today, we need to support the measures and projects being undertaken by UK Transplant. I welcome much of what the Government have done in respect of the existing system and we also recognise the work being done in those communities by UK Transplant and by the National Kidney Research Fund.

The third point about the scientific basis to believe that opting out would work is that it would tackle the real cause of low donation rates. A comprehensive audit of potential donor experiences in UK intensive care units has been carried out by UK Transplant—a Government-funded body, charged with running the organ donor system. It considered every death on ICU during a published period in 2003, and which of them had the appropriate medical indications where transplantation might be considered, where brain-stem testing was done and where transplantation was considered and relatives were approached. That showed that the reason why organ donation rates are low and falling is specifically the high rate of refusal by relatives—approaching 50 per cent.—not other factors, such as doctors failing to approach relatives. It is often said, "Oh, we should just improve the number of times that doctors approach relatives. They are being lax. They are not tackling the issue because it is so difficult for them to raise." That audit clearly showed that relatives are being approached and that the specific cause of our low donation rates is relatives' refusal. The low rate is not caused by the fact that, for example, organs are not used although permission has been given, which is a factor in other countries that have high wastage rates.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that there might be a correlation with an anti-science, anti-medical culture that has developed since events such as those at Alder Hey? That might be the underlying reason why people do not entrust organs to the hands of the medical brotherhood and sisterhood.

There appears to be no temporal association with a drop in organ donation and the events at Alder Hey or Bristol—thank goodness—but there has just been a steady and slow drop, and the only data points that we have for relative refusal is 30 per cent. in 1993, from the Gore study, and approaching 50 per cent. from the potential donor audit, being conducted nationally now. We know from opinion polls that people distinguish between the use of organs for research and the use of organs for transplantation. Those people who are badly affected by what happened Alder Hey and Bristol do not oppose presumed consent or organ donation generally for transplantation. I have had discussions with. for example, NACOR, which confirms that that is the case. The focus is on, first, children, and secondly, informed consent for the use of organs.

Do not surveys frequently show that between 70 and 90 per cent. of people have no objection to organ donation? The hon. Gentleman quotes the figure that 50 per cent. of grieving relatives fail to give permission, but that must only be because they are taking a precautionary approach, never having discussed the issue with their loved ones. Is that not a reasonable stance for them to take?

Yes, given that relatives are forced to make a decision, but it is very difficult for them to know what to do. Indeed, the potential donor audit asked relatives why they said no. In the main, they did not say no because the deceased did not want to donate. In 26 cases, the reason given in the audit was:

"Next of kin not sure whether patient would have agreed to donation."

That would be solved by presumed consent, as the relatives would be given a presumption because of the failure to opt out where that occurs. [Interruption.] That is better than guessing. I understand that hon. Members are concerned about that, but relatives must guess at the moment. They are unable to do so; they play safe, so several other people suffer because those organs are not available. However, we know, as the hon. Gentleman said, that 90 per cent. of people support organ donation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I would want to support new clause 1 and I strongly support its spirit, but his argument is, in fact, seriously flawed. Relatives who had no idea whether their loved ones would have wanted to agree to organ donation will not have then fears assuaged by the fact that a default system is somehow at work. The two things are totally separate, are they not?

No. In fact, that is the key point, as shown by the successful operation of presumed consent in Belgium. First, the opt-out provides the opportunity to discuss such things with the family, so those discussions take place more than when there is an opt-in system with a donor card. We would all wish that those discussions took place more often. Secondly, the fact that someone has applied for a passport or been to the post office and applied for a driving licence and all those other things without registering an opt-out relatively straightforwardly should reassure relatives, as it does in those countries that use such a system, that their loved one did not object, even if, like many people, they did not think about it. That will allow relatives safely to consider such things and to find reassurance in the fact that other people will benefit from their lives being saved by that gift of life.

I am keen to make progress—I know that other people wish to speak—so I shall now deal with some of the ethical issues. I believe, and the British Medical Association believes, that presumed consent with opt-out is ethical; indeed, it is highly ethical, and many ethicists would argue that it is more ethical than the current system, for a number of reasons.

5 pm

First, it creates a default position that life should be saved rather than a default position that life could be lost. Secondly, as the evidence shows, it saves lives that are currently needlessly being lost; and thirdly, it encourages informed decision making by potential donors during life as opposed to what is inevitably subjective second-guessing by grieving relatives after death. Fourthly, it is more likely as we have heard, to respect the autonomy and wishes of the deceased, the vast majority of whom would want to donate, while still allowing conscientious objectors to do so while having protection in law for their objections. Finally, it treats relatives more fairly by not imposing life-and-death decision making upon them at a very difficult time.

Presumed consent with opt-out meets the wishes of the deceased for the reasons that I have given, in that the vast majority of people wish to donate. As I have said, presumed consent is fairer to relatives, because we know that many relatives regret making decisions to say no when they realise that they could have saved a life. It is fairer to them because, under the soft system, there are the following benefits. They are not asked to make a de novo presumption or guess about the wishes of their loved one, and they are asked for any knowledge of an unregistered expressed objection by their loved one. That is considered a valid opt-out, so that protection exists. After they are informed of the intention to use organs for transplantation on the basis of expressed or presumed consent, they are given the opportunity to volunteer their own objections. Finally, presumed consent applies only to adults over the age of 16. In the case of children, under our proposals, parental consent would be required as now. That, must be made clear.

I am doing my level best to follow the hon. Gentleman's ethical arguments, and I can see why he says that there is an element of guesswork as to what the deceased would have thought. However, to argue that presumed consent eliminates any guesswork is not correct. It may well be that the odds of getting it right are greater, but presumed consent will not be right 100 per cent. of the time.

Because presumed consent removes the decision that is often based on a guess from the relatives, it removes the guess. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right that it would meet the wishes of the deceased—I am glad that he accepts this—on the vast majority of occasions. That is not the case at the moment. It also benefits the other group of interested parties: the people who are desperate for the transplantation.

rose—

I know of the hon. Gentleman's particular interest in the subject, so I shall, of course, give way again.