With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on the train derailment that occurred at the Ufton level crossing in Berkshire on Saturday evening.

As the House will be aware, at approximately 18.11 hours, the 17.35 First Great Western service from Paddington to Plymouth hit a car, which had stopped on the railway line at the level crossing at Ufton lane. There were approximately 180 passengers and four train crew travelling on the train. The train driver, the car driver and five passengers died and 37 people were admitted to hospital. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives and to those who were injured.

I would like especially to praise the work of the Thames Valley emergency services and the agencies who worked closely together to respond to the accident with well-prepared contingency plans. I am told that the first of the emergency services arrived at the scene of the accident within four minutes. We must also thank the staff at the Royal Berkshire hospital and North Hampshire hospital for their care and dedication.

The British Transport police immediately began an investigation into why the car stopped on the level crossing and the actions of the driver. Alongside the police investigation, Her Majesty's railways inspectorate carried out its investigation to determine whether the rail safety equipment at the crossing functioned correctly, and as a result of that, the Health and Safety Executive has produced an interim report, published this morning, setting out its findings. Copies of that report have been placed in the Library and are publicly available.

It may be helpful to the House if I quote from the summary of the HSE report, which sets out what it has found. It says:

"HSE investigators have not found any evidence at this stage to suggest that there were any errors by railway staff or faults with the level crossing, the signalling system or the train involved in the incident.

Early indications are that a car driver stopped his vehicle on the crossing before the barrier sequence commenced and made no attempt to leave the vehicle once the crossing traffic signals began to flash and the barriers descended.

The train struck the car. Damage to the crossing surface and sleepers between the crossing and 979 points"—

that is the points at the entry to a goods line, about 100 yd from the crossing—

"indicates that the leading wheelset of the train derailed at the crossing and the train travelled in that condition until reaching the points. The derailment was then exacerbated as the train passed over the points".

The report sets out the HSE's findings in some detail and concludes:

"The HSE investigation has not found any evidence in any of the level crossing or train data downloads to suggest any fault in the signalling, level crossing or on train equipment, or with the actions of those personnel on duty."

The HSE has now completed its on-site investigation and withdrawn from the site, but it will if required support the British Transport police investigation as it continues.

The next stage is for the Rail Safety and Standards Board, which has started a formal rail industry inquiry into the incident. A panel of independent experts will consider all aspects of the derailment. They will report within the next six to 12 months, but if any matters of importance on safety arise from their investigations, they will make them known immediately so that the appropriate action can be taken. It is for the coroner to determine the precise cause and circumstances of the deaths of those involved and I understand that the coroner's inquest will open today.

I should like to consider what is being done in the meantime to help those who were in the accident and to resume services on the line. In the past, there has been concern about a lack of clarity on what is done in the aftermath of such an accident to help those who were involved.

Network Rail and the train operating company, First Great Western, are working closely together to help those who were in the accident and their families. First Great Western has already taken the lead on handling claims from passengers. It is trying to contact all those who were on the train. There is a number to call for those passengers who have not already been contacted by the company.

Network Rail has estimated that, because of the damage to the track, it will take at least a week to replace the track and signalling equipment. In the meantime, First Great Western has provided replacement bus services. Network Rail is doing all that it can to restore the service as quickly as possible.

It is clear that this was a tragic accident. We owe it to those who were involved to find out the circumstances surrounding it. The inquiries that have been put in place will try to achieve that. It is ultimately a matter for the coroner to determine the cause of the tragic deaths.

It is clear from the HSE interim report that there was no failure of equipment. However, if there are wider safety lessons to be learned, that is for the RSSB inquiry to establish and for the industry and the Government as necessary to pursue.

I thank the Secretary of State for sending me a copy of his statement an hour or so ago. Our first thoughts are for the families of those who lost their lives in the serious and tragic accident. I extend our deepest sympathy to the family of driver Stanley Martin, who died doing his job, the families of the others who died and the passengers who travelled last Saturday, expecting their journey to be safely completed. We also sympathise with all those who were injured and suffered the horrifying and inevitably frightening experience of being involved in a serious accident.

I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services, which responded quickly and superbly in the difficult conditions that prevailed at the scene, and the staff of the Royal Berkshire and North Hampshire hospitals. I welcome the publication of the Health and Safety Executive interim report this morning. I look forward to the results in due course of the formal inquiry that the RSSB is conducting.

The HSE report states that both the staff and the equipment that the railways used functioned properly. Knee-jerk reactions or hasty conclusions are the last thing that the railways and the travelling public need. However, several questions arise. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be able to answer them immediately but I would be grateful for his assurance that they will be considered at the right time.

First, we must determine whether there are any lessons to be learned about the design of level crossings, especially whether the half barrier design, which appears to have operated safely at many crossings for a considerable time, can be improved in any way. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the last comparable accident that involved a level crossing with barriers happened as long ago as 1986?

Secondly, given that modern technology is better and cheaper than what was available in the past, we must consider whether more use can be made of closed circuit television to provide train drivers and signalmen with more advance information about when lines may be blocked. Can the Secretary of State say whether we know yet how long the vehicle was on the tracks before the train struck it?

Thirdly, are there any lessons to be learned about the design of trains, including the protection for drivers, who are now positioned at the front of high-speed and heavy trains, and the interior of carriages—the positioning and angle of seats and other internal fittings? Is there any evidence in this country or abroad that the use of safety belts in trains would be a practical or effective way of reducing the risk of injuries? Does the Secretary of State share the widely held view that it is not practical or cost-effective to replace all level crossings on high-speed lines with tunnels or bridges, as one trade union leader suggested the morning after the accident?

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if any steps can be taken to make trains, which despite the tragedy are one of the safest ways to travel, even safer, they should be carefully considered but that any action or expenditure should always be proportionate to the risks and analysed for their cost effectiveness?

I am sure that the relatives of those who were killed or injured and the injured themselves will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I very much appreciate the measured response of the hon. Gentleman and many others in the aftermath of the accident. He asks number of questions. All these matters will be considered by the inquiry, as the House would expect, but it might be helpful if I make one or two observations.

Most level crossings on high-speed lines—that is, the east coast line, the west coast line, the midland main line and the great western line—have full barrier crossings. There are about 16 crossings on those lines which have the half-barriers, but that is where there are line speeds of 100 mph or less. The line speed on the line in question was 100 mph. I must tell the House—I think the hon. Gentleman appreciates this—that the evidence so far is that the car was already on the track before the barrier sequence started. He asks how long it was on the track. The British Transport police are still investigating that and I do not want to say anything further. It is pretty clear that the car was already on the track, so it was not the case that the barrier was there and somehow the driver got round it. That is obviously one of the aspects that will have to be examined.

There are about 8,000 level crossings across the whole network. About 1,700 are barriers and lights, the sort that we are discussing. Network Rail, which owns the track, reviews all the crossings regularly. The last time there was a safety assessment on this crossing was 8 July this year, when it was examined and assessed. People should be aware that these things are kept constantly under review.

The hon. Gentleman asks about design and seat belts. That has been and will be considered. The new trains that are coming into service now are much better constructed than, for example, the old slam door trains that are being taken out of service. Of course attention is paid to interior design and so on. The question of seat belts has been considered both in Britain and in countries throughout the world, but so far there has been a general reluctance to pursue the idea. The issue undoubtedly needs to be looked at again. It is not straightforward, not least because of the fact that people tend to move around trains. Anyone who has been on a train knows that they are not the same as an aeroplane, where people tend to stay seated.

The final point that the hon. Gentleman makes about safety and costs is an important one. When we approach these matters, we should ask ourselves what is best in relation to safety. It was a terrible accident, but we should bear it in mind that rail safety in this country has been improving year by year. It is worth noting that in the past year, when the railways carried a record number of people—the highest number since the 1940s—there had not been an accident involving railway passengers. Sadly, there are accidents around the tracks, but those are other issues that we may explore today and which we need to examine. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has my assurance that the matters that he raised will be looked at.

Our first thoughts today must be with all the victims of the tragic accident—those who lost their lives and those who were injured. May I, therefore, associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and those of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), and pass on our expression of deepest sympathy and condolence to all the relatives of the bereaved? May I add our tribute to the work of the emergency services and staff of the hospitals involved, who acted with commendable dispatch and in the finest traditions of our emergency services? I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me an advance copy of his statement.

The key paragraph in the interim report, from which the Secretary of State quoted, is paragraph 17 on page 5, which makes it clear that there was no failure of systems, management or staff that was responsible for this tragic accident. There are clearly issues to be resolved by the police investigation in respect of the car and how it came to be there and, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in respect of any wider safety issues that may have to be considered in due course, particularly with regard to level crossing design. However, today is not the day to debate these issues, and I would merely ask the Secretary of State to undertake to return to the House when the appropriate moment arises, so that we may have a debate at that time.

Finally, will the Secretary of State reiterate that, notwithstanding the tragic events that took place last Saturday, the railways remain an extremely safe mode of travel, and one in which the travelling public can have confidence?

Again, I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the way in which he said it. On his final point, it is worth reminding ourselves that, notwithstanding this accident, the railways are safe. We should all reflect on the fact that, over this last weekend, for example, 10 people were killed in road accidents. While we are doing everything that we possibly can to improve rail safety, we should also bear it in mind that a lot remains to be done in relation to road safety as well. As I said a few moments ago, we shall certainly look at these matters, and when we get the final report, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall return to it.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the crash took place at a site very close to three parliamentary constituencies that I know extremely well. While it is important to await the outcome of the full investigations by the RSSB, and not to jump to any premature conclusions, will he ensure that consideration is given to any devices that could be installed to give train drivers advance warning of any obstruction of railway lines at unstaffed level crossings? These could include CCTV, or pressure switch devices that could be triggered by a heavy blockage on the line.

This is clearly something that the RSSB will look at. However, as I have been saying over the past few days, we do not yet know how long the car had been on the line, and I would not want people to think that there were devices that could prevent all eventualities. This train was travelling at about 100 mph and, even with emergency braking, it would take between half a mile and a mile to stop. Obviously, the industry will look at the technology that is around and, importantly, at the technology that is being developed. What we want to do all the time is make things as safe as we possibly can. Our great difficulty, however, is that in an open network—as a railway system inevitably is—if somebody really wants to get on to the track, we cannot exclude every possibility of that happening, even if we do everything that we can.

The local community is very shocked by this dreadful accident, and I would like to send my deepest sympathy to the families of all those who have lost loved ones, and to the injured. I would also like to add my thanks to the emergency services and the members of the local community who responded magnificently when the crash occurred. Will the Secretary of State give me his personal assurance that the safety concerns that I sent to the HSE again this morning will be properly considered, including the question of whether more safety features can be built into the future design of railway carriages? Many of the injuries in this crash occurred under rapid deceleration as people and luggage were detached from where they should have been.

I am sure that everyone involved in the accident will appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is particularly right to draw our attention to the help that was so promptly and readily given by people living and working near to the accident site on Saturday evening. And, yes, I can assure him that the suggestions that he has made to the HSE this morning will be taken into account. As I said a few moments ago, a lot of attention is given to safety features on each new generation of trains, in regard not only to the structure of the carriages but to the internal fittings. For example, the refurbishment of the east coast main line fleet that is taking place at the moment has taken into account some of the things that have happened in previous accidents, in terms of the internal design of the carriages.

This accident happened in the most extraordinary circumstances, and I am sure that we all join together in sending our sympathy to all those who have been affected. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), the Secretary of State said that we did not know how long the vehicle had been on the tracks. We all understand that, but each occurrence such as this could bring to light loopholes in the safety systems that we need to close. Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the HSE will investigate all the available forms of technology that could be used to identify blockages at unmanned level crossings, so that we can establish as early a warning system as possible? We must bear it in mind that such a system might not have prevented this accident, but we might be able to identify a problem that can be resolved for the future.

The RSSB will examine such matters, and the Health and Safety Executive will help it. My hon. Friend is right that we must consider what technology might be available now and in the future, not just for new but existing trains. As I said, each year, further improvements come along. For example, the vast majority of trains are now fitted with the train protection warning system, which was not the case a few years ago. This train was fitted with that, but it did not help in a situation in which the signals were all at green and the car was on the railway line at some point. His general point, however, will be considered by the inquiry.

Two of those who died were my constituents, one of whom I knew personally, and a number of other constituents were on that train or helped in the aftermath of the incident. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and other Members for offering their condolences, as I am sure that my constituents will be. Does he agree that it would be sensible in future for the emergency procedures to include some method of making sure that we get hold of the names and addresses of all those involved, since it appears that that did not happen on this occasion. At least we could then offer them help afterwards, if there are opportunities to do so, or ask them any further questions.

Is the Secretary of State also aware that in coach E, when an attempt was made to break the windows, the hammers broke, not the windows? That is thought to be because they were being improperly used, or not used in accordance with safety instructions. Of course, safety instructions are often ignored by people until they are in an accident, but when it happened, the lights went out, and there was no emergency lighting to enable the safety instructions to be reviewed. Would it be possible to try to make sure that train companies introduce emergency lighting, at least where the emergency equipment is kept?

I am sure that the inquiry will consider that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in this case, because of the way in which the train eventually stopped, many of the power lines would have been fractured. He will have seen the photographs that show what happened to the train when it stopped I am sure that the inquiry will want to examine the use of hammers in particular.

I understand that the decision on names and addresses is essentially one for the coroner, and that certain formalities must be observed, such as formal identification. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the last possible thing that we want is the wrong names and addresses. If anything can be done to speed up that process, I am sure that it can be examined. I know that there was a slight delay on this occasion, and I will have to make further inquiries about the reason for that, but those are essentially matters for the coroner and police.

In a horrific incident of this kind, the shattering effect not only on the family of those involved but on those working on and around the railway lasts for a very long time. I know that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the physical means of slowing down a train, but the reality is that that would have been almost impossible for a train at that speed. The unfortunate juxtaposition of the points was among the factors that contributed to the accident. Will he assure me that the families concerned, the people involved and some members of the emergency services will continue to receive not only information but help in the coming months, when they will desperately need it?

I attach some importance to that as, having met those who were affected by some of the major rail accidents that happened before I was Secretary of State, it is clear to me that what is important, among many other things, is that people are kept in touch and that they understand what is going on. That is why I was keen to ensure that both Network Rail and First Great Western, which will take the lead in this since it was its train, should get in touch with people and deal with their immediate concerns, as well as concerns that will probably arise over the next few weeks and months.

My hon. Friend is also right that we should not forget what a traumatic experience this is, not just for the railway staff but for everybody who has any involvement. Sadly, every year, a large number of incidents take place, which obviously can be tragic for the people involved, but which can also have a traumatic effect on railway staff. People sometimes forget how much trauma that causes for such staff. It must be remembered, primarily by their employers but, by others too.

Will the Secretary of State accept that in my constituency, which has probably the highest number of level crossings in the country, there is deep concern about the safety issues, to which I referred in an Adjournment debate some time ago? In Barlaston, the level crossing failed seriously a few days ago, which is of grave concern to local residents. It should not be assumed that the funding is adequate to deal not only with the new technologies to which he has referred but with the necessity in certain cases for tunnels or bridges. That is not a knee-jerk reaction, as in certain cases it may be essential: for example, in Hixon in my constituency, where there was a fatality recently, and where, fortunately, a bridge has now been built.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not aware of the problem that arose on the level crossing to which he refers, but if he would care to identify it in a little more detail, I will find out and write to him, and the letter will be placed in the Library so that people can appreciate the position. Inevitably, level crossings present a risk—anyone being on the track presents a risk. The object must be to try to manage that risk as much as possible. It is worth bearing it in mind that only twice in the past 35 years has there been an incident at a level crossing on a main line that has resulted in the deaths of railway passengers. Undoubtedly, every year, there are cases involving pedestrians and motorists, which are sometimes accidents and, unfortunately, sometimes suicides. In each case, we must try to manage the risk as much as possible. In the past couple of years or so, Network Rail has taken nearly 200 level crossings out of service where it was appropriate and where there was a realistic alternative, which is not always the case.

Finally, I am aware of cases where we would like to spend money and do something, but where other objections must be dealt with, such as environmental objections—I can think of one crossing in particular in that regard. None of these issues is straightforward, but of course we must keep them under review. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), each crossing is reviewed regularly.

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about the emergency services and the wider railway community? As someone who previously had responsibility for many level crossings in the east of England, it is only too clear to me what may have happened in this case, although it is right to wait for the inquiry. Having said that, can he say whether any messages are coming back from the industry, particularly Network Rail, with regard to track-side and driving cab radio-controlled systems, to see whether we can improve the mechanism for getting such information to drivers?

I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about this, as before coming to the House his job was very much involved with railway engineering. Network Rail has a project that will allow mobile phone communication between the cab and signallers. Again, that is not without difficulty, and some Members, for understandable reasons, are concerned about the placing of the radio masts that must go with such projects. We must deal with that.

I ought to say—I know that my hon. Friend knows this—that from what we know about this case so far, it seems clear that although an off-duty police officer phoned the signal box, no matter what means of communication he had, it was so late that it would almost certainly not have stopped this train, simply because of the speed at which it was travelling. From the time that the barriers come down, there is about 30 seconds, and such trains, by their very nature, take some time to stop. In relation to his general point about increased communication, however, that is in hand. In this case, however, from what I can see, it would not have made much difference.

The 17:35 Paddington to Plymouth train could not have had a more experienced driver than my constituent, Mr. Stan Martin from Torquay. Will the Secretary of State do all in his power to ensure that those who work on our railways, and their families, realise that safety will remain the primary concern of the railway industry?

Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the 14-year-old Torquay schoolgirl who used her Red Cross skills to nurse and comfort Louella Main, the nine-year-old victim of the crash? The teenager and her mother, who tried to help the child as she lay in a field next to the crash scene, have asked for their names not to be used out of respect for those who did not survive the tragedy.

The hon. Gentleman draws attention to one of a number of extremely courageous and thoughtful actions on the part of not just passengers but others in attendance. Many people performed heroic deeds, but for perfectly understandable reasons that will go unremarked, in that their identities will not be known. That is a tribute to their humanitarian feelings, and the hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to it. He was also right to draw attention to the skill of the driver who died. The HSE report makes it clear that he did everything he was supposed to do in the event of an emergency. Sadly, however, he lost his life.

As I said a few moments ago, we should always bear in mind the skill of many people working on the railways who ensure that the system is safe and that rail is a safe means of travel.

It would clearly be wrong to jump to any conclusions about precisely what happened on Saturday evening, but every Member who has spoken so far has described it as an accident. It is perfectly possible that it was no accident, but a deliberate act of violence and self-violence. Unfortunately, as the Secretary of State has said, suicides on the railway are relatively common, bringing not only tragedy to the families involved but a great deal of pain and personal anguish to drivers and many other people. Will the inquiry consider what we can do, as far as is humanly possible, to try to prevent further such suicides?

My hon. Friend raises two separate issues. As he says, we should not reach conclusions before they are warranted by an examination of the facts, which will be undertaken by the Rail Safety and Standards Board. As for the precise cause of the accident, that is something that the coroner will determine.

My hon. Friend made a more general point about suicides on the railway, of which there are between 180 and 200 a year. The Department, along with the industry, is already giving attention to that, but as I said earlier, it is impossible to stop people getting on to the track if they really want to. We must see what we can do to reduce the risk and improve the situation. No one could claim that such actions will be impossible in future—that is simply not the way the world works—but I hope the work done by the Department and the industry will help.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, sadly, up to four people a year die on unmanned pedestrian level crossings, and that it is Government policy to close such crossings where it is reasonable to do so? A few hundred yards up the road from the Benfleet pedestrian crossing is a perfectly safe alternative in the form of an underpass. Closing crossings of that kind would be very much in the interests of public safety, and would solve the problem of noisy train whistles.

The hon. Gentleman has raised that issue in the House before. I believe he initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject fairly recently.

Network Rail's policy is to remove level crossings when that is practical and the right thing to do, but the process is not without difficulty. Throughout the earlier months of this year, in a different part of the world from that represented by the hon. Gentleman—the highlands of Scotland—there was a sustained campaign against Network Rail's attempt to remove a number of unmanned crossings, led by walkers who, for entirely understandable reasons, wanted to be able to cross on foot. A sensible balance is needed. Those who remove crossings should make certain that people will not take matters into their own hands and cross the track by, for instance, climbing over a fence. It is fine if there is a sensible alternative.

A remarkable number of people try to zig-zag through barriers or jump the lights. They must understand that they are putting not just their own lives but those of others at risk. In my opinion, such behaviour should never be tolerated.

My constituents who use the line regularly—as I do myself—will appreciate the Secretary of State's measured report, and the measured response of other Members. May I, however, encourage the right hon. Gentleman to emphasise that this was a maverick tragedy? Is it not important to convey to the travelling public the figures that he cited earlier, relating to road and rail safety respectively? He pointed out that last weekend—tragically—there were 10 fatalities on our roads. May I suggest that the approach he has taken today must be the approach taken by the further inquiry, and that cost-benefit must be part of the balancing act? If we lose our sense of proportion, the travelling public will gain a completely false impression.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. We need to draw our conclusions in a measured way, and decide what is right and appropriate. We should indeed remember that, sadly, every day—not just last weekend—10 people are killed on the roads. Our road safety record is much better than those of many other European countries, but 10 people are still 10 too many. We need to reduce the risk by doing whatever is appropriate. We also need to bear it in mind that the cause of many accidents is not something that the Government of the day did or did not do, but the judgment of some individual. We can all make the wrong judgment when travelling, I suppose. As I have said, however, we must do all that we can to improve the safety of all travellers—those who travel by road, rail or, for that matter, air.

The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us that rail is a safe means of travel, and it is becoming safer each year. Tragically, there are accidents from time to time; but it is still a safe way to travel. I have no doubt that when the line reopens, hopefully in the next week or so, many will continue to use it to travel to the south-west.

Many of my constituents use the service, and a friend of mine was trapped and injured on Saturday evening. Mercifully, she is now back at home. I echo the thanks that have been expressed to the emergency services, and especially thank the off-duty firefighter and the off-duty Royal Marine who helped my friend at her moment of need.

We have already heard how safe rail is in comparison with roads. May I have an assurance that any response to this tragic crash will not lead to a lessening of the frequency or speed of the service from the west country to London?

I do not want to pre-empt the inquiry, but the tenor of what has been said this afternoon suggests that whatever we do must be proportionate. We want to make the system as safe as we can, but travelling at speed inevitably involves a degree of risk. I think people recognise that. From the moment we set out from our front door we incur an element of risk, and arguably that is the case when we are in our homes.

The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention, as others have, to the heroism and humanity of a very large number of people on Saturday evening.

I thank the Secretary of State for emphasising that rail is a safe way in which to travel. May I urge him, and his ministerial colleagues, to repeat that message as often as possible? I fear that media coverage has given the impression that rail travel is not safe, but will he confirm that the number of people who die in rail-related incidents each year represents about two days of road fatalities? Will he also confirm that in the last year for which figures are available, on 280 days the number of people killed on the roads was seven or more?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that far too many people are killed and seriously injured on our roads. He is also right to say that the number of people killed on the railways has been declining over the past 30 years. Thankfully, the number is comparatively small, although it is a tragedy for everyone who is involved.

There has been a measured response from everyone today. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the media. I do not suppose that it will do me any good, but I believe that their response after the accident has, for the most part, been measured. They are saying, "You must learn the lessons of what happened. You must do things, and you should react proportionately." Most commentators, from the moment the accident happened, have taken a sensible and mature line in the face of what is, after all, an extremely tragic accident.

May I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State and of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? What is particularly poignant about the timing of the accident is the fact that we had almost had a record period in which there was no rail accident or incident. I have had the honour of spending some time with Network Rail on the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to confirm that, with the dent in morale that anyone working in the railway industry will feel at this time, the thoughts of the House are with them.

There is another alarming feature in respect of those who were trapped in the train. The doors on these sophisticated modern trains open only when the train arrives at the scheduled station—they are computer-driven. It was particularly distressing in that many of the injured could not exit through the normal door. Will the inquiry look at that?

I am sure that the RSSB will look at the latter point. I am not qualified, and nor is anyone else sitting in the Chamber, to pass judgment on that. It needs to be looked at. The hon. Lady is right. We had a long period without accidents, and everyone in the industry can be extremely proud of that. A lot of attention has been paid to safety.

The hon. Lady has been on the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme. Morale in the industry is slowly but surely improving. For various reasons, it has been through a difficult time—there have been some accidents in the past few years, but there are other reasons, too. People can be proud to work in the industry. I encourage people to do so. Above all, I encourage people to use it because it is pretty good most of the time. Of course, there are problems, which we need to sort out, but it is improving in a way that perhaps people would not have thought possible a few years ago.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was surely right in drawing attention to the fact that this may not have been an accident—it may have been deliberate. In a week when the director general of the security services has warned us against complacency, and bearing in mind the train bombings in Spain during the election campaign, does the Secretary of State think that, in considering what level of investment is proportionate, we must take into account the fact that there is at least a possibility that this event will encourage some people who wish to engage in serious terrorist acts to do this sort of thing deliberately?

Nothing will be served by such speculation. I repeat what I said earlier: it is for the coroner to determine the cause of death, not just of the car driver but of the other people who died in the accident.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders to extend their application to cases of domestic violence and alcohol-related disorder

The Bill is designed to prevent violence, especially domestic violence. Alcohol is a key contributor to domestic violence. It increases both the risk of violence and its severity. If we stop excess drinking among men—it is usually men—who, when drunk, are likely to be violent, we can reduce violence. This Bill enables the police to act against such drinkers before they resort to violence.

The relationship between alcohol and domestic violence is stark. The Home Office document, "Alcohol and intimate partner violence: key findings from the research" finds strong links between domestic violence and "problem" drinking. The British crime survey told us in 1999 that 32 per cent. of domestic violence was perpetrated under the influence of alcohol. It estimates that there were around 1.2 million incidents of alcohol-related violence in 1999. Those include all assaults, robberies and snatch thefts in which the victim thought the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. A quarter of those—300,000—were domestic assaults.

The likelihood and severity of violence is linked to the amount drunk. Alcohol is especially important in inflaming existing conflict. Repeat victimhood is common. Forty-five per cent. of victims of domestic violence have suffered before. According to the Home Office's women and equality unit, 35 per cent. of incidents of domestic violence take place within five weeks of an earlier attack. No other type of crime has such a high rate of repeat victimisation.

An article in 2001 in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence tells us:

"Studies suggest that between 25% and 80% of domestic violence perpetrators abuse alcohol and these rates of alcohol abuse and dependence are two to seven times higher than rates in the general male population."

In a study of 100 "battered women", as they used to be called, published in the British Medical Journal in January 1975, 52 per cent. of offending males were described by their victims as "frequently drunk", and a further 22 per cent. as having

"episodes of heavy drinking with drunkenness".

Let me give the House an example. Gabbi Millar, the manager of a women's refuge, was beaten by her alcoholic former husband for four years before she finally plucked up the courage to leave him. She told the BBC in June 2003:

"When he was drinking, I wasn't allowed to go to sleep; I had to stay awake with him. It was sleep deprivation, something which happens a lot to victims of domestic violence . . . I really did think he would end up killing me. The level of violence only ever gets worse."

During a period of 18 months, the police were called to the family home 36 times, either by Gabbi, or by worried neighbours who heard her cries for help. During their four years together, her husband was jailed three times for the escalating offences of assault, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. Gabbi was in hospital three times after particularly severe beatings and I regret to say that I have observed a similar relationship between alcohol and domestic violence reported in the pages of my own Isle of Wight County Press.

Recently, the law has been tightened significantly to deal with the perpetrators of domestic violence. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill makes it a criminal offence, punishable by up to five years in jail, to breach a non-molestation order. It requires courts to consider making a non-molestation order when they hear an application for an occupation order. Such orders exclude someone from the home and surrounding area, but breach of an occupation order is not a criminal offence. The Bill enables courts to impose restraining orders when sentencing for any offence—at present, they can be imposed only when sentencing for harassment—and common assault will be made an arrestable offence.

Those changes are welcome, but that Bill does not adequately deal with the role of alcohol. It appears to be hoped that its penalty provisions will deter domestic violence, but the deterrent may not work where alcohol is a factor, since deterrence requires an individual to be rational. Not only is alcohol a disinhibitor, but an individual's capacity for reason is greatly reduced when under the influence of alcohol, so any deterrent would also be reduced.

We need to prevent men who might hit their womenfolk from becoming drunk enough to do so. Antisocial behaviour orders could help us. The courts can impose one if persuaded, on a balance of probability, that a person has acted in an antisocial way and that an ASBO is necessary to prevent further antisocial behaviour. Breach of an ASBO is itself a criminal act.

At present, ASBOs cannot be applied to domestic violence because antisocial behaviour is legally defined to affect only

"persons not of the same household".

The Metropolitan police, in their December 2001 domestic violence strategy paper, "Enough is Enough", discuss one suggestion for using ASBOs against domestic violence. They say:

"It is suggested by the CPS that Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) may be used against domestic violence. ASBOs relate to behaviour that 'is likely to cause harassment alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household'. In the context of domestic violence this could relate to harassment caused to neighbours. By considering the use of ASBOs in this way it could send a message to the perpetrator that domestic violence is considered unacceptable to the local community and provide alternative options for the victim."

In my view, that is too roundabout a route. Of course domestic violence is unwelcome in the community, but it would be absurd to limit what could be an effective preventive measure to households whose neighbours are affected.

ASBOs could certainly help to prevent alcohol-related domestic violence if they could reduce the volatile circumstances in which it flourishes. The trigger of alcohol needs to be effectively removed, so my Bill offers a simpler solution than that proposed by the Metropolitan police. It would widen the definition of antisocial behaviour to include the domestic, thus enabling the courts to issue ASBOs in cases of domestic violence. It would allow an ASBO, where appropriate, to require the subject to remain under a set alcohol limit. The court could have discretion to limit an order to certain times, places and circumstances, for instance if previous problem drinking and violence had taken place only at night. Neighbours, if not the victim of violence herself, might call the police when they feared an alcohol-related ASBO was being breached—hopefully, in time to prevent violence.

This alcohol-related ASBO would not only be available in cases of domestic violence but could extend to other alcohol-reduced disorder, such as that which too often takes place after closing time in our urban areas.

The Bill would permit the police to administer a breath test, as in cases of suspected drunken driving, if they believed that the alcohol-related ASBO had been breached in circumstances where the subject was likely to commit another offence.

Too many of those who hit their wives or girlfriends do so under the influence of drink. Too many of those who commit other offences, and disfigure our towns and cities as they do so, are in drink. The forces of law and order have at their disposal many ways of dealing with the guilty, but as a society we have too few means of preventing these crimes. We have successfully reduced drunken driving by use of the breathalyser. Let us do the same with alcohol-related disorder, which probably causes as much, albeit sometimes lower-level, misery.

Prevention is better than cure. Prevention is the objective of the Bill, and it is with pleasure therefore that I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Turner, Mr. Frank Cook, Jane Griffiths, Mr. David Wilshire, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Paul Burstow, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Jim Knight and Angela Watkinson.

Alcohol-Related Anti-Social Behaviour And Domestic Violence

Mr. Andrew Turner accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to antisocial behaviour orders to extend their application to cases of domestic violence and alcohol-related disorder: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 177].

Human Tissue Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],

That the Programme Order of 15th January 2004 be supplemented as follows—

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. at this day's sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Joan Ryan.]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 10 to 17, 34, 35, 37 to 39, 50, 51 and 53.

These Government amendments were introduced to meet the concern expressed in the other place that giving magistrates the power to send researchers to prison conflicted with the Government's having stated that only the most serious offences would warrant a custodial sentence. The penalties available to magistrates relating to offences under the Bill were considered excessive, since the most serious cases would be referred to the Crown court anyway, so there was wide support for the view that fines should be a sufficient penalty for magistrates to impose in dealing with these offences.

The new offences created by the Bill are, in the jargon of the criminal justice system, triable either way; in other words, they can be dealt with by magistrates or by the Crown court. The amendments remove the scope that clauses 5 and 8 provide for magistrates to order a custodial sentence following summary conviction for offences relating to consent and to misuse of human tissue; the scope that clauses 25, 30 and 31 provide for such a sentence in respect of licensing offences; and the scope that clause 50 so provides in respect of the DNA offence.

We have not removed magistrates' power to order custodial sentences for all offences under the Bill because they can already order such sentences for most offences under the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989, which is concerned with trafficking in human organs and live transplants. They will continue to be able to do so for all offences transferred to the Bill from that Act.

The consequential amendments to clause 63 relate to the position pending the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the consequential amendments to clauses 56 and 64 relate to the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I have made it clear in this House, as did my noble Friend in the other place, that the penalties are there to act as a deterrent to future offences relating to consent and misuse of human tissue. We do not expect cases to come to court. The effect of the amendments will be, for example, that where a person stores or uses tissue taken from a deceased person for quality assurance without consent, if they are prosecuted and magistrates hear the case, the maximum penalty will be a fine. If the offence is so serious that the magistrates refer it to the Crown court, or if the defendant chooses to have a trial by jury, he or she can be sent to prison.

In introducing these amendments, we have responded to some of the concerns raised in the other place on behalf of researchers and pathologists. I therefore urge the House to accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the amendments tabled in the other place, though she will be aware that concerns were raised in Committee on 29 January. I made it clear then that we were surprised at the severity of the penalties and I argued that the provision for 12 months' imprisonment on summary conviction or three years on indictment seemed excessive. Happily, the Minister's colleague undertook to take the issue away for further consideration. It was not subsequently resolved in this House, but I am glad that it has been resolved in the other place.

Given our experience of the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 and the availability of penalties to act as a deterrent there, the Lords amendment poses some questions. I was not aware of any concerns arising from consultation on the Bill about the lack of available penalties under earlier legislation or any abuse resulting from it. It seems that increasing the severity of penalties is not really needed in the Bill. None the less, I entirely take the point that the purpose of the penalties is to act as a deterrent. They will clearly do so because they are relatively severe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) reminded me that, for those who are medically qualified, even the penalties relating to summary conviction and a fine before a magistrate are likely to have professional consequences, so it is important to recognise that the penalties will act as a deterrent to contravening the legislation. As the Minister argued in Committee, we all hope that it will never be necessary to bring any cases to trial.

My noble Friend Earl Howe raised some concerns and made it clear that we were unhappy about the prospect of prosecutions being brought before a magistrate and leading, on summary conviction, to imprisonment. Even though cases are triable either way and the defendant may elect for trial by jury, it seems inappropriate to implement such a procedure. I am happy that the Minister in the other place accepted that argument and that the Government tabled amendments to meet our concerns. We are content—indeed, pleased—that, in this respect at least, our concerns about penalties have been met.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 44.

Lords Amendment No. 3 supplies a word in the Secretary of State's title in clause 6. I hesitate to say it, but it was spotted by eagle-eyed Opposition peers, though I am sure, of course, that it was also spotted by Opposition members of the Committee.

Lords amendment No. 44 corrects a drafting omission, which should have been included in the Bill when amendments were made by the House on Report, allowing the use of material or DNA analysis in certain circumstances in court orders. Clause 57 deals with the secondary legislation to be made under the Bill, including parliamentary procedure and consultation processes that apply to it. Subsections (1) and (2) refer to

"Any power to make orders . . . under this Act".

That is clearly intended to refer only to secondary legislation but, as drafted, it could also apply to the powers of the court to make orders under clause 7 and schedule 5. It would clearly be inappropriate for a clause dealing with secondary legislation to apply to court orders, so the amendment ensures that that would not be the case.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 — Powers of court to dispense with need for consent

Lords amendment: No. 4

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may consider the following: Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5, Lords amendment No. 6 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, 52, 54 and 62 to 69.

The Government introduced this group of amendments to clause 7 and schedule 5 in response to points raised in the other place about two issues. First, the amendments provide scope for orders to be granted to waive consent where people do not respond to requests for consent to use their tissue to inform the health care of someone else. Secondly, they take the power to make these types of order away from the High Court and give it to the Human Tissue Authority.

The amendments were made in response to debate on a related amendment in Grand Committee in the other place. The Opposition tabled an amendment to introduce a court order to allow a refusal of consent to use tissue for the benefit of a relative to be overridden in prescribed circumstances—for example, in DNA analysis. The Government did not and could not accept that, since overriding someone's refusal of consent would cut directly across the basic principle of the Bill, which is that people should be able to decide what happens to their bodily material.

The Government believe that overriding a refusal of consent in that way would be a step too far. We must establish systems, particularly in the sensitive area of genetics so that individuals are asked, when their tissue is taken, whether they are content for it to be used for purposes such as research or informing their families' care. We know that 99 per cent. of people will agree and we provided, when the Bill came to this House on Report, for a waiver of the need for consent in the case of "missing relatives", where the person whose tissue might be used simply cannot be found. However, the Government listened hard to the debate in the other place and discussed the matter further with key stakeholders in genetics, who are most interested in this issue. They suggested that, in reality, the need to override refusal was a very infrequent occurrence and, indeed, some agreed that such an order would not be justifiable.

Geneticists say, however, that sometimes individuals just do not respond to requests for consent, so that they neither give nor refuse consent to the use of their tissue for the benefit of a relative. This situation arises in connection with requests to test tissue for genetic markers for various forms of familial cancer, such as breast and bowel cancer. I shall give a practical illustration of that.

Let us say that a person's uncle has bowel cancer. If the nephew wishes to know whether he is at risk of getting the same disease, it may be possible to test an existing stored sample of the uncle's tissue to find out whether both people share a known specific genetic mutation. If the uncle agrees, then it is clear that tests can proceed. That will be what happens in almost all circumstances, as we know that people are generally happy to assist in that way, especially with diseases that may affect family members. However, the question arises about what we can or should do if such agreement is not given, either because the uncle cannot be traced—and we dealt with that on Report—or because he simply fails to respond to requests.

At present, the common law on these issues is unclear, but in practice there is no clear legal obstacle to using material in this way without the uncle's consent. Clinicians usually try to get consent from relatives but, where that is not successful, they may seek to obtain tissue samples through the medical network without consent. We do not believe that that is satisfactory from any point of view, and part of the purpose of this Bill is to give certainty to these situations. However, the Bill means that the use of tissue for the purpose that I have described will clearly require consent, Geneticists say that, if individuals do not respond to requests to use their tissue for genetic comparison, their relatives may be refused prospective tests for genetic diseases by the NHS. Obviously, that could well cause distress and get in the way of treatment or prevention measures in individual cases. Without the right information, patients may not know whether to embark on a regime of regular tests, some of which—colonoscopies, for example—may be invasive.

The Government decided to address this situation by extending the "missing relative" provision, in clause 7(1) and schedule 5(9), to these cases of "non-responding" relatives. These amendments therefore provide that, in such cases, as long as certain conditions set out in the amendments are met, the Human Tissue Authority can deem consent to be in place for the purpose of obtaining information to benefit a relative.

In the example that I gave, the amendments would be able to deal with the situation where the uncle failed to respond to requests to use his stored tissue. If the uncle said no, that would be the end of the matter, but if he simply did not respond, the nephew could make an application under clause 7.

The conditions for waiving the need for consent include the requirement that reasonable efforts are made to get the person to consent, and that the person involved is given notice of the application. The aim is to make it clear that the waivers will be exceptional, so that the power does not become a mechanism for avoiding the need to ask for consent.

The second effect of this group of amendments is to provide that, instead of orders to dispense with the need for consent in the case of "missing persons" and "non-responders" being made by the High Court, directions will be issued instead by the HTA. The intention is that, in due course, the functions of the HTA, including this one, will be taken over by the regulatory authority for fertility and tissue, which will be responsible for both fertility and tissue matters.

I want to ask the Minister about something in the first part of her remarks. Is she confident that Lords amendment No. 6 is narrow enough in scope to refer only to a person's specific treatment needs? Some people will argue that it is wide enough, especially given its reference to "scientific or medical information", to include purposes that might be considered research. Although that might benefit someone later, there does not have to be a specific individual whose needs must be considered immediately. Is the amendment narrow, or could it be applied more widely?

The aim of the amendments and the clauses that have been referred to is simple. We want to be able to determine whether something is likely to affect the person involved directly—whether, as I said, a person might be liable to contract a disease. The provision may therefore be called a mixture of research and treatment: research in the sense that it is about what might happen in the future, and treatment in the sense that it deals with what a person might receive in the meantime to prevent a possible illness in the future.

Asking whether the provision covers research or something that would lead to treatment is therefore rather like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I shall be happy to help further if the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter.

I will have another stab at this, and I may try and raise it later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Lords amendment No.6 talks about

"another person (including a future person)",

but says nothing about the need to identify that person at the time. As a result, some people may try to use the provision to get the HTA, as opposed to the High Court, to waive the requirement for consent in the case of a non-responder. I make no judgment about that one way or the other, but the requirement would not be waived when there was a person—or a future embryo, or a family— in a clinic who needed the treatment. The Government have rejected previous amendments that would have given the HTA power to use the information for research purposes.

That is dealt with separately. This amendment concerns a specific individual making an application because it would directly benefit him or her. If a person is worried that a particular condition may develop, that person must be able to get information about a relative. That is different from a researcher trying to do research, which is dealt with elsewhere.

The Government recognise that extending the "missing persons" order under clause 7(1) and schedule 5(9) to "non-responders" may result in an increase in the number of applications to waive consent to use tissue in these situations. It is clear, however, that the numbers will still be small. There are 18 genetics centres in England, for example, and we might anticipate that each might have a couple of cases a year. We consider that it should remain an exceptional circumstance, but to save any potential burden on, and cost to, the NHS and to make it easier for both professionals and patients, we consider it appropriate for such applications to be made to the Human Tissue Authority rather than to the High Court.

The amendments relate to clause 7, which was introduced late in our consideration of the Bill and in response to representations made by researchers, principally geneticists. The group is titled,

"Powers to dispense with the need for consent".

In a sense, that strikes at the heart of the Bill, because it is all about consent. Therefore, we need to tread a little warily. That said, the Opposition believe that the change is a pragmatic move that will strike the difficult balance between putting consent at the heart of everything we do medically and ensuring that researchers, especially in genetics, are not disadvantaged in the work that they do on behalf of us all.

I am sure that the Human Tissue Authority will be careful in drawing up codes of practice and guidance on the need to be assiduous in obtaining consent. We agree that the default position introduced by clause 7—that the authority may dispense with the need for consent if no response is received—implies that some effort has been made to ensure that the person concerned does not object to the use of their tissue. I suspect that some cases will emerge every year, given the sensitive nature of the issues surrounding genetics and DNA, in which people do object for a variety of reasons, some that we can imagine but others that we cannot. After all, genetics is a rapidly evolving science and will no doubt in future provide information about people that we are not presently aware of. For example, some religious groups may take exception to the use of tissue for this purpose and wish to object. In the case of objection, it would be inappropriate for the authority to have any powers to override. We must be sure that we give people every opportunity to object to the use of tissue and it is clear that we need, as a matter of some urgency, codes of practice from the authority that will clarify those points.

I have expressed the only concern that we have about the amendments. Broadly speaking, we welcome them, although it is a shame that they have been introduced at this late stage. We are concerned that some of the wording may be confusing, especially with regard to what is relevant directly to a person's condition and what might be relevant later. However, with that in mind, we will give the amendments a fair wind.

I tabled amendment (a) as a probing amendment. Like the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), I was concerned particularly about two phrases in Lords amendment No. 6. The first is

"obtaining scientific or medical information about the person".

That phrase exactly fits definition of research in the "Oxford English Dictionary" as well as the wider definition of research. The Minister has already clarified that, in this amendment, "research" is meant in the narrow sense of looking specifically at features of the donor that could affect people in the future.

My other query was about the definition of "another person". Could it mean other persons? Unless that is clarified, the wording could open the door to research on a wider circle of people. I would be grateful for absolute clarification of those two slight ambiguities.

While I have the chance, may I say how delighted I am that almost all the changes that we struggled to obtain in Committee have now reached the Bill at this stage?

I wish to raise three points with the Minister on this group of amendments and, in particular, Lords amendment No. 6. I have already made the first point in an intervention on the Minister. I asked whether the amendment might be used to obtain permission for research without consent from the authority and not from the High Court, as provided for in clause 7(3). As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) said, it might be argued that to obtain scientific or medical information to help another person or future person is, by definition, a particular type of research project. The Minister kindly confirmed that we should be reassured—or, in the case of those who might have wished to use the provision to make such applications for permission, disappointed—because it is necessary for a person who would benefit from the information to make the application for permission to obtain it. Where in the amendments is the requirement for an application, or does some other provision in the Bill make it impossible for the application to be initiated unless by a person with specific diagnostic or treatment needs?

Will the authority have to decide applications for the purpose of research? Does the Minister think that it is appropriate that applications for research purposes should be decided by the High Court, as provided for in clause 7(3), rather than the authority? Will that make it difficult for any applications to be made, whatever their merits, because of the cost? If the Minister believes—as indicated by the amendments accepted in the other place—that the authority is expert enough to make decisions about dispensing with consent in some cases, why should it be the High Court that makes the decision about dispensing with explicit consent for other applications, such as those for research? I hope that I have made my concerns on that point clear. If not, I would be happy to accept an intervention to clarify them further.

Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the steps she expects will be taken to ensure that the donor from whom the authority is being asked to gain consent for the use of their tissue or genes has not died. The amendment refers to there being "no reason to believe" that the donor has died, which mirrors an amendment we discussed on Report—I think that that is worth returning to—but it talks elsewhere about "reasonable efforts" having been made to get the donor to decide whether to consent. If the donor had died, my understanding is that it would not be possible for that to be done, so one might argue that reasonable efforts ought to be made to establish whether a non-responding donor has died.

I presume that the clause is constructed around the knowledge that the person is not dead, but if it is the case that they are alive and not responding, it is curious that one would even need to mention the condition that there be no reason to believe that the donor had died. I am a little unsure of the circumstances in which that provision might apply and of the steps the Minister believes should be taken. Clearly, those who have died will not respond. I would be interested to know how she envisages certainty being obtained as to which applies.

The third issue relates to lack of capacity, and the Minister will be aware that I have raised that before. I understand that both Houses will debate the matter in the context of the Mental Capacity Bill. However, subsection (d) of amendment No. 6 states that

"there is no reason to believe. . .that the donor lacks capacity to consent to the use of material for that purpose".

It is thus clearly the Government's understanding that the Mental Capacity Bill will be used in that case to decide whether consent can be obtained. It is important that we debate that now, because this is the best place to get an idea from the Government now that Bill has been published—it was not when we previously debated this matter—on whether the best interests test is the best way forward.

It is hard to argue on an understanding of best interests that it is ever, narrowly, in someone's best interests to allow their material to be used for someone else's benefit. The Minister can say that best interests include what they would have wanted to do for a member of their family, but it seems to me that it would be better—I make this case again—to avoid the term "best interests" and use the expression "not against the best interests of the person concerned". That is a good example, and shows how using such terminology will not change the actual outcome, but it is a more honest way of saying how we are going to deal with issues of lack of capacity. Otherwise, people might feel that such cases are stretching the term "best interests" further than it need go.

I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on whether she envisages that it would almost always be the case—even though it is not always the case for a donor with capacity—that the advocate or their substituted decision maker would allow such a decision to be made. I hope that that is clear. Like the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), I welcome the fact that we are debating a series of amendments that have improved the Bill and I am pleased that the Government accepted—albeit in another place—some of the amendments that were pressed, which had their echo during debates that took place in this House.

I want to bring to the attention of the House a number of points that have surfaced recently from the cancer research world, on which I seek clarification from the Minister. The concerns relate to material that has been stored previously, such as material stored several years ago. As someone whose material was stored several years ago, I can speak with some authority on the matter. I understand that ethics committees are already refusing permission because of the lack of consent in cases such as that of my own stored material. A number of people in my position would be horrified to think that material that had been lying in a tissue bank for some years could not be used now because of misunderstandings about the intentions of the Bill.

First, I shall deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor). I hope that during the course of my opening remarks, I can clarify some points for him. I am sure that he is aware that the effect of his amendment would be to extend the waiving of consent applications for research purposes, which is why we could not accept it. We have said quite clearly that it is not about getting consent for research purposes, but about a link with an individual. To clarify his point, we have used the term "person" because it refers to an individual who wishes to find out information about the effect on themselves, or possibly their children. If someone was making a decision about whether to have a baby, for example, and felt that they might pass on a condition that a relative suffered from, it would be possible for consent to be waived in those circumstances. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment, but I hope that what I have said clarifies the points raised by his probing amendment.

I shall move on to points made by the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). It is absolutely vital that proper efforts are made to locate a person and ensure that although they have received information, they have not in fact responded to it. The question of ascertaining whether someone had died would be covered by the attempt to find out whether they would respond to the information. The provision obviously concerns tissue from the living. If we were talking about someone who had died, the process would revert to getting consent from a relative.

Under the clause, the applicant should show that there is no reason to believe that the person has died. If it was necessary to prove that there was reason to believe that the person had died, those involved would have to revert to obtaining permission from a relative to use the stored material, so reasonable efforts would have to be made. The clause is nothing to do with trying to carry out research without gaining consent, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.

The reason why those issues can be dealt with by the Human Tissue Authority, rather than by the High Court, is that it will be possible to show that efforts have been made to contact the person or there will be clear evidence that the person is missing, so taking such cases to the High Court would be excessive.

The Minister may have missed this, but my specific question was how she could be certain in her view, which she gave in answer to my earlier intervention, that an application under Lords amendment No. 6 must come from a person in a clinic who seeks a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention and could not be initiated by a clinician who seeks to use the tissue of someone who cannot be traced or who does not respond for the generic purpose of helping people in the future, even in circumstances that can be defined but are not specified. The Minister said that the application must originate from a person in the clinic. I should be grateful to her if she would say where that is made clear in the Bill.

Such things must relate to the interests of another person—an individual—and the application to the Human Tissue Authority must state that that person has asked that an attempt be made to obtain the material from their relative because they believe that they may have a certain condition. It must state that the proof that they have that condition is X and the reason why they want to find that out is Y, because the person may need treatment in between, perhaps to stop the condition developing.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) asked about existing holdings. Existing holdings are exempt from consent provisions, but we will say in the code of practice—we expect research ethics committees to consider this at the moment, as we have said previously—that those involved should try to obtain consent from an individual if it is clear from using existing material that they were likely to identify, because they knew from whom the material had come, something that might affect the individual in the future or that might link to another condition.

If research ethics committees anonymise the material, it can be used anyway. Anonymising the material does not necessarily mean that they would not have access to a person's medical records, so they could look at the treatment that the person had received, but they would not know who the person was. However, it is for individual research ethics committees to consider the proposed research and decide whether it would be necessary, if at all possible, to get the person's consent because the research may have a direct effect on them. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's questions.

Finally, the most appropriate method of getting permission from people who lack capacity is to obtain a relative's consent. The Mental Capacity Bill makes clear the steps that must be undertaken to obtain consent where, for example, research is to be carried out. However, if research is not involved, those involved must ensure that the necessary consultation takes place, while also considering the person's best interests. It could be in a person's best interest to have their tissue used to benefit a relative. As hon. Members may know, there have been some recent examples where a person who is looking after someone without mental capacity has wished to obtain treatment because they can then find out what is affecting them. So there may be a wider best interests test.

With those reassurances, I hope that the House will accept these Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 33 — Restriction on transplants involving a live donor

Lords amendment: No. 18

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40, 43 and 47.

Lords amendments Nos. 18, 40, 43 and 47, which were moved by the Government, implement a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 25th report, published on 16 July. The Government are grateful, as always, to the Committee for its detailed consideration of the Bill. These Lords amendments put right an anomaly in the Bill that was noted by the Committee.

Clause 33 deals with transplants from living patients. It is brought forward from, and updates, the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989. In effect, it states that live transplants carried out using transplantable material are unlawful unless carried out in circumstances, and in accordance with procedures, set out in regulations. Through that approach, we can specify the type of material to which the offence applies, as well as the circumstances in which live transplants may be allowed—for example, where no coercion or payment is involved—and specify how case-by-case approval must be sought from the Human Tissue Authority.

We use the term "transplantable material" because transplants no longer only involve organs—the term can relate to part-organs or different tissue samples—and because it can be updated by regulation, as new procedures are developed.

Under the Bill, the Human Tissue Authority must make the regulations that define the term "transplantable material", while the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations setting out how and when cases would be subject to an approval procedure. The Secretary of State's power is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses and the HTA's power is subject to no parliamentary scrutiny at all. The Committee pointed out that inconsistency, and the Government have accepted its recommendation.

We accept that both regulation-making powers should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and the amendments will thus make the definition of transplantable material a matter for regulations subject to the affirmative procedure made by the Secretary of State. As with the other affirmative powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State will have to consult the National Assembly for Wales and the relevant Northern Ireland Department before acting under the powers.

Although we can agree that the Lords amendments appear to increase the transparency of the way in which transplantable material will be defined, will the Minister confirm that that is the purpose of Lords amendment No. 18? Lords amendments Nos. 40, 43 and 47 appear to say that the Secretary of State may define transplantable material, but that that could not be annulled by a resolution of the House. I am somewhat confused about that, so I would be grateful for her clarification.

I welcome the amendments because it is always important to ensure that the House has the opportunity to comment on such regulations.

Does the Minister think that altruistic donation will fall within the procedures on which she expects the Secretary of State to make regulations? In Committee in the House of Lords, there was a debate on altruistic donation and on whether current arrangements allow for stranger donation or indeed domino donation. I have tabled parliamentary questions about the matter because it is unclear whether regulations that the Secretary of State has already promulgated under equivalent provisions in existing Acts allow such donations to take place. If the Minister does not think that that is the case, will she give me an undertaking that under the power that the amendments will rightly give the Secretary of State through clause 33(7), rapid progress will be made to provide a structure under which the relevant authority may determine whether such donations may go ahead? I have received many representations from people who believe that it should be possible to make such donations.

If the Secretary of State is to make regulations instead of the authority—it will have rather less on its plate than him, albeit still a lot—it would be helpful if the Minister could assure me that she and her colleagues are considering the issue urgently. People have been telling me for several years that the existing regulations do not allow the relevant authority to permit such donations. The Minister might think that this is a small point, but people's lives depend on ensuring that the pool of donors is as wide as possible, so I hope that she will be able to address my point.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) is right that the purpose of Lords amendment No. 18 is to give the power to the Secretary of State. The other amendments are consequential and relate to the procedure for making regulations.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), altruistic donations are not prohibited at present, but the Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority does not currently allow them. The Human Tissue Authority will be in a position to consider altruistic donation further, and I know from our debates on Report and in Committee that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the supply of transplantable material. However, although such donation is not prevented at the moment, ULTRA has the power to decide whether a procedure can go ahead. The matter is being considered, but as I am sure that he knows, many issues must be resolved before we can proceed. The HTA will be able to consider altruistic donation and will do so.

Is the Minister saying that if such donations are to be considered and carried out, new regulations under clause 33(7) need not be promulgated and the Secretary of State need not give approval?

Nothing prevents the donations at the moment except for the fact that ULTRA makes decisions about which donations can happen. If ULTRA said that altruistic donations could go ahead, I am not sure whether the Secretary of State would have to approve that. I suspect that ULTRA currently has the power to make the decision without referring back to the Secretary of State, but if that is not the case, I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 35 — Inspectorate of anatomy and pathology

Lords amendment: No. 19

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this is it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 28, 31 to 33, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 58, 59, 70 and 71.

The structure of the Human Tissue Authority originally envisaged under the Bill was a single authority incorporating two inspectorates that would license and inspect regulated activities. The inspectorate for anatomy and pathology would have dealt principally with consent and ethical issues in relation to such matters as teaching anatomy and tissue banking for research. The inspectorate of organs and tissue for human use would have regulated banks holding tissue for transplantation and implemented the safety and quality protocols of the EU directive on tissues and cells.

As a result of the review of the arm's-length body, the Government announced in July that the Human Tissue Authority will merge its activities with those of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority when the current review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is complete, which is likely to be in about 2008. At that time, both the HTA and the HFEA will be subsumed into a new organisation called the regulatory authority for fertility and tissue, or RAFT.

The Government listened to the debate on the structure of the inspectorates of the Human Tissue Authority in the other place and reconsidered their position. We believe that it will be helpful for the HTA to have maximum flexibility as it organises its activities alongside those of the HFEA and prepares for the eventual merger. We thus tabled the large group of amendments to remove the inspectorates of anatomy and pathology and of organs and tissue for human use from the structure of the HTA. The amendments will also allow the HTA to delegate its inspection and licensing functions to any members and staff of the HTA, or a committee composed of members and staff, or both.

The amendments will not in practice affect the way in which the authority will inspect and regulate licensed activities. It will still be able to call on the advice of experts in the various fields that it regulates, but it will operate in as streamlined a way as possible. It will still be possible for the HTA to hear appeals against decisions taken by those to whom it delegates certain functions, for example committees that deal with licensing decisions.

Opposition Members asked us in Committee to ensure that the system was not overly bureaucratic. I hope that the amendments address some of the points raised.

Clauses come and clauses go, and quite a number are going in this respect.

The amendments address some of the questions raised about excessive bureaucracy, but we need further assurances. It was generally understood that one of the originating reasons for the design of the legislation, with the two parallel inspectorates under the authority, was not least because of the existing body of expertise and the confidence that was placed in the inspectorate of anatomy in particular. We were only too aware that the tragic events that gave rise to the mischief that the Bill is intended to remedy did not arise in respect of functions inspected by the inspectorate of anatomy. The measures partly originated to assure people that things done well, not least by the inspectorate of anatomy, would not be messed about. So the first assurance that we need is that the existing body of relevant expertise built up in the inspectorate of anatomy will be properly protected in the HTA.

That said, we are happy that what might have become a bureaucratic structure of parallel boards all within one authority is being dispensed with and that the HTA is being given the flexibility to structure its functions. Although the Minister did not refer to this, I am sure that she would recognise that clause 40 extends to the authority the ability to manage itself by giving agency functions to other public bodies and authorities. Given the intention to combine the HTA and HFEA into the regulatory authority for fertility and tissues from 2008, there are immediate questions for the HTA to consider about the extent to which it establishes parallel functions or agrees with the HFEA that they carry out functions on a jointly administered basis from the outset. I hope that the Minister can confirm that clause 40 does not bar any of that happening.

The amendments would probably have been desirable regardless of the arrangements proposed between the HFEA and HTA. They are not contingent on those two bodies being pushed together. However, the Minister has put them in that context, which raises one or two important issues.

The Minister will not be surprised if I remind her that on Third Reading on 28 June at column 118, I asked whether it was the intention of the Government, who had initiated the review of arm's-length bodies at that stage, to combine the work of the HFEA and HTA. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee were only too well aware that the two authorities were designed to function in a similar manner, and we raised that issue in February. Happily, our advice was that if that was the Government's intention, they should at least tell the other place before the Bill completed its passage. That was overtaken in September by further announcements on the review.

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that neither the review of arm's-length bodies nor the particular conclusion of he review was required to argue that there should be flexibility for a new authority to maximise its efficiency by not simply seeking to transplant into it inspectorates from existing provision. That, arguably, seemed an easier thing to do at the outset than implementing what is now the very short provision in Lords amendment No. 58, which enables the authority to organise these matters as it wants.

I have a further point to make about the implications of the review of arm's-length bodies. To ensure that I remain in order, I do so only in the same terms as the debate in the Grand Committee in the House of Lords. These amendments presume that the merger of the HTA with the HFEA is sensible and rational. We have not had an opportunity for parliamentary debate on that, and that will not happen until Parliament, through primary legislation, approves that measure. That is not intended to happen for several years, and anything may happen in that time, including a general election.

Both bodies have inspectorates and an inspection function. Nevertheless, it has been argued, not least by Lord Jenkin of Roding, for whom I have a great deal of respect on these matters, that the merger is not rational policy making. I would argue that the HFEA and the Human Genetics Commission might have more in common. I hope that the Government still have an open mind on the matter and that it is still open for debate, particularly given the fact that the Science and Technology Committee is due to report on the HFEA and its future, which will hopefully inform the Department of Health's review. I understand the Government's wish to reduce the burden of regulation and the number of bodies, but that has to be done in a rational way. The fact that both the bodies that the Minister has indicated should be merged have inspectorates is not sufficient argument for the measure.

Further to the points that have just been made about the advertisement for jobs that has just gone out, I say to the House that part of the problem with the way in which policies and decisions are made is that the Government are advertising for people to apply for jobs in an organisation that will effectively be abolished, or at least merged, a few years down the line. The timing is unfortunate, to say the least; we are setting up new authorities only to have advertised in advance the fact that people will need to reapply for the jobs within a short time.

We accept the amendments on the understanding that while the Select Committee is looking at the issue and her Department is looking at the HFEA's future, the Minister realises that acceptance does not commit us to the view that the merger between the HTA and the HFEA is right. Although a merger may be a good thing in and of itself, we hope that there is room to explore whether the precise mergers proposed by the Minister are appropriate, given that there are issues other than inspection that various arm's-length bodies need to deal with.

I shall tackle one of the last points first. The people who apply for a job with the HTA will be aware of the position. It would have been more difficult for them if they had been appointed and then told, perhaps a year later, that the body was to be merged. When we talk about merging the two bodies to become the regulatory authority for fertility and tissue, it will be clear in which direction the body to which people are being appointed is going.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked whether the merger was appropriate. The HFEA currently licenses in vitro fertilisation, fertility clinics and the storage of sperm, eggs and embryos. We believe that its approach and structure and those of the HTA are similar and that merging will not significantly disrupt their activities.

I assume that the Bill does not exclude the possibility of appointment to both the HFEA and the HTA.

That possibility is not excluded. Indeed, in some cases, it might be helpful in emphasising joint working. Again, it is for the NHS Appointments Commission to consider all the applications on their merits.

I hope that, with those assurances, hon. Members will accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 28 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 29

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 30.

Clause 44 ensures that activities that are carried out for criminal justice purposes are excluded from regulation by the HTA. By criminal justice purposes, we mean the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes, including appeals. However, the exclusion does not extend to coroners' post mortems.

One aspect deals with what happens when a body, or part of a body, is found at what is clearly a crime scene. We want to ensure that the police and investigating authorities are not hindered in carrying out their responsibilities. Although mortuaries that carry out post-mortems will have to have an HTA licence and be subject to periodic inspection, we would not require licensing of a crime scene, which might, for example, be in a forest, simply because a forensic pathologist needed to remove tissue samples at the scene.

Removing tissue from the deceased for a post-mortem examination is licensable, even when it is done for criminal justice purposes. Although in most cases the removal of samples could wait and be carried out in the licensed mortuary, there will be cases in which, as part of the criminal investigation, it is necessary to leave the body where it lies and take samples away for analysis.

Clause 44 therefore has two effects. Subsections (1) and (2) exclude from the regulatory regime of part 2 anything done for criminal justice purposes, other than the coroner's post-mortem examination. Subsection (3) excludes from the licensing requirement the removal of tissue for the purpose of investigating a suspicious death from a body at the scene where it is found. For example, when a person dies of a heart attack, the coroner might ask for a post mortem. That examination would be conducted in a place licensed and inspected by the HTA.

However, when a body has been found and it seems that a crime was involved, it might be important for the criminal investigation for samples, for example of blood, to be taken before the body is moved. As that would be part of the coroner's post-mortem, clause 44(2) provides that the location where the body was found must be licensed before the sample can be taken. That is clearly not sensible. We have, therefore, through clause 44(3), provided for the removal of tissue in those circumstances, once the police have attended, to be outside the regulatory scheme.

None of this has been contentious, but the difficulty that emerged during consideration in another place was the lack of clarity in the meaning of subsection (3), which is designed to ensure that coroners' post-mortem activities that take place "at the scene" do not require a licence from the HTA. The mention of the constable was possibly ambiguous as it could have referred to the police first removing tissue from the body, or to bodies being found only by the police, as opposed to passers-by. We recognised the possible ambiguity, so we tabled amendments Nos. 29 and 30 to clarify the purpose of subsection (3).

The usual expression "at the scene" was previously expressed as

"at the place where the body or part is first found by a constable."

Clearly, people other than the police will often find bodies, which may also be moved after having been found but before the police are involved. To avoid ambiguity, the amendments change the description of these "at the scene" post-mortem activities from

"at the place where the body or part is first found by a constable"

to

"at the first place, where the body or part is situated, to be attended by a constable."

I hope that that is clear. I recognise that these formulations are not elegant or easy, but I assure the House that the revised wording at least removes any possibility of ambiguity. Put simply, the exemption from licensing should apply only to the place where the police first arrive on the scene. I urge the House to accept the amendments.

I congratulate the Minister on dealing with an extremely clumsy amendment in her usual elegant fashion.

I shall describe to the hon. Lady one eventuality, which fortunately happens rarely—the situation that faces advanced trauma life support personnel. I should be grateful if she would say how the clause would classify and deal with the situation that I am about to describe. It concerns the scene of an accident or a crime at which, in order to get to a survivor to uncover them or to treat them, it is necessary to deal with someone who is deceased. That might mean moving the person or, in rare cases, removing parts of that person. How would such an eventuality be dealt with under the clause?

The clause deals with a coroner's post-mortem. What the hon. Gentleman described is the moving of a body from one place to another to try and reach another person to give them treatment. That is not necessarily relevant to the clause, which states that a coroner's post mortem must be licensed, but there will be circumstances where it may be necessary to take tissue from a body in order to assist the coroner's post mortem. That is where the clause applies. I hope I have correctly understood the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Perhaps I can expand a little further. If a doctor was required, for example, to remove a part of a body—disarticulate a part of it—in order to get to or to treat someone who was living, how would he or she stand in relation to the clause?

The doctor would not be affected by the provision because, as I said, it applies to the situation where a coroner's post mortem was being carried out. One would look elsewhere for the actions that would be taken in respect of the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. I do not know the relevant legislation that would cover it, but it sounds as though someone was taking action to help someone else. I do not believe the clause would apply.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 35 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 36

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Clause 52 enables the de-accessioning—that is, moving out of their collection—of human remains by specified museums that are currently prevented from doing so by their governing statutes. The clause fulfils the terms of the July 2000 joint declaration between the UK and Australian Prime Ministers, in which the UK Government undertook to increase efforts to repatriate human remains to Australian indigenous communities.

Lords amendment No. 36 is a response to representations made to the Government on behalf of the museum sector, which, while recognising the need to provide for de-accessioning of the remains of indigenous peoples, was nevertheless concerned to ensure that the power did not make the collections held by the museums listed in clause 52 vulnerable to gratuitous or vexatious claims for de-accessioning. There was particular concern about the ancient collections of human remains in the British Museum, such as mummies. The amendment that we tabled responds to this concern by ensuring that the remains of people believed to have died more than 1,000 years before the clause comes into force are outside the scope of this power. The amendment was prepared following discussion between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the relevant museums, particularly the British Museum, the museum of London, and the natural history museum.

There are a number of reasons why the Government adopted the present formulation. First, specifying a cut-off point of 1,000 years will allow the museum of London to make use of this power in de-accessioning the substantial number of mediaeval remains in its collection, such as remains that originate from mediaeval burial grounds. The original proposal by peers on behalf of the museums had suggested a 500-year cut-off, but that would have prevented the use of the power for the de-accessioning of this category of material.

Secondly, I am told that dating such ancient remains can be rather difficult. There are a number of ways in which human remains can be dated. These include radiocarbon dating, and the examination of the circumstances in which the remains were found and of the artefacts with which they may have been buried. However, none of those methods will necessarily pinpoint the date of death to a precise year. We have therefore formulated this amendment so that it will be sufficient that the remains are "reasonably believed" to be those of people who died less than 1,000 years before the clause comes into force, in order for them to fall within the scope of the de-accessioning power. The Government's formulation therefore allows for professional judgment to be exercised on the part of museum curators, archaeologists and other experts regarding the dating of the human remains. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree to accept the amendment.

I welcome the amendment. Like many others, my family and I enjoyed the mummy exhibition at the British Museum during the summer, and it would be a tragedy if those exhibits were to be dispersed. My understanding is that that would be prevented by the amendment and, to that extent, we welcome it. I am fascinated by the repatriation of indigenous remains, and the Minister clarified that that had taken place chiefly in response to requests by the Australian Government for the return of Aboriginal remains. I am not an expert in this field—the Minister is indicating that she is not an expert either, although I am sure that she is—but I suspect that there are other indigenous communities who would also be interested in this legislation, and I am concerned that there might be some remains that they would like to be repatriated.

As I understand it, this provision has to do with important artefacts. Clearly, mummies are important and the collection at the British Museum is of international importance. I suspect, however, that there are remains lurking in the depths of some museums that are of less significance historically and archaeologically, and it would be nice to think that, if they were significant to the communities from which they originally derived, they might be repatriated, even if they were more than 1,000 years old. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister knows of any requests regarding such remains that might be made in the future and, if so, whether it might be appropriate to amend the proposal in some way so as to allow the professional judgment, as she put it, of the curators of the remains to prevail.

I am concerned about the term "reasonably believe", because the dating of these artefacts can, as the Minister hinted, be rather an inexact science. Carbon dating is probably the most exact, but other means, such as examining the artefacts buried with the person, might be slightly less specific. My concern is that curators could be tempted to cherry-pick the method by which they determine the age of an artefact if there were any doubt about whether the remains fell within the strictures of the Bill. What safeguards does the Minister envisage in that regard? Does she envisage any guidance being issued to museums on best practice in determining the age of artefacts?

Just as my predecessors at Old Sarum—all two of them—represented five electors, I have the privilege of representing no electors at Stonehenge. However, I do represent a large archaeological community in south Wiltshire, which contains many hundreds of scheduled ancient monuments. I am also a member of the all-party group on archaeology.

I warmly welcome the amendment. It was first proposed in the other place by Lord Redesdale and Baroness Kennedy that there should be an amendment to do what has now been achieved in finding the right balance between real and effective claims, particularly from first nation communities—all of which now fall within this time bracket—and the need properly to preserve archaeological collections for future research. There is, however, a little matter on which I would be very grateful to receive some advice.

The Trust for Wessex Archaeology, which is based in my constituency, is now the second biggest contract archaeologist. It moves in whenever excavations for road building, housing or industrial development have to be undertaken to satisfy the grant of planning permission for such developments, and it regularly comes across bodies. They might or might not be 1,000 years old. There is already, therefore, a Home Office licensing regime for excavating in certain circumstances, and there is no problem with that. However, I have been asked to seek clarification on one aspect of licensing.

I have read the Bill, obviously, and I have read clause 52. I have also read clause 16, in particular, which deals with licence requirements, but I cannot find anything to satisfy my query. An archaeologist excavating a site might comes across a body—probably only a skeleton—that will eventually end up in a museum somewhere. One hopes that it would be the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum, which is by far the finest museum in the south of England. When the body is betwixt and between the original site from which it was excavated and its final resting place in a museum, is a licence required under the Bill? That is not quite clear. How would the interface work between the Home Office licensing regime and a licence required under the Bill? That is a practical consideration. I would frankly be amazed if even this excellent Minister could answer that question off the top of her head, or even with a little inspiration from on high. Therefore, if she cannot produce an answer this afternoon, I would be grateful if she could drop me a line on the matter, and put a copy in the Library of the House, so that we can clear up this practical point for the many hundreds of archaeologists who find bodies in these circumstances every day.

With regard to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I hope that I will be able to give him some reassurance. If he is not fully reassured by my sudden attempt to become an expert in this area, I can assure him that, if he wished to write to Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, they would be more than happy to go into detail on this matter. However, clause 16(4) provides that no licence is necessary in relation to the bodies of people who died more than 100 years before the Bill comes into force. Licences are necessary only in relation to certain activities, all of which are limited to scheduled purposes. Archaeologists may remove material from bodies for the purpose of determining the cause of death, in which case a licence would be required, but only if the body were less than 100 years old. Clause 16(4) was introduced precisely to meet the concerns of archaeologists in this regard. I hope that that is helpful, and I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving my officials notice that he would raise this matter.

The hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) sought clarification of whether we know of any further applications that have been made with regard to ancestral remains. The answer is no. I do not know of any other applications. I am sure that he will appreciate that the idea behind de-accessioning and the request for return of remains is that an ancestral link should be established, hence the Aboriginal connection and the attempt to meet the request from the Australian Government.

With regard to the issue of reasonably believing, and how that would be interpreted, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will issue guidance following its current consultation on human remains in museums. With those clarifications, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 57 — Orders and regulations

Lords amendment: No. 49

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

This one should be easy—[Laughter.] The amendment requires that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers to make orders and regulations on a number of issues under the Bill only after having consulted

"such other persons as he considers appropriate".

That is in addition to the existing requirement to consult the devolved bodies, where appropriate. The amendment responds to requests made by various people wanting to be reassured that consultation with relevant stakeholders would take place. While we had indicated that such consultation would invariably take place in any event, but we nevertheless agreed to set that down in the Bill.

The provision applies to the more important secondary powers in the Bill—the orders and regulations listed at clause 57(4), which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendment makes it a statutory requirement that, in each of those cases, the Secretary of State should consult. I urge the House to agree to the amendment.

The—[Interruption.] The Minister invites me to say yes. She suggested that the amendment might be straightforward, but nothing is ever straightforward.

Of course, we welcome the amendment. It was a long time coming, however, because one thing that has not characterised the Bill, and its passage through both Houses, is consultation. We might have to return to the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, but I thought that I would take this opportunity to moan about the lack of it and the fact that the Bill might have been improved earlier had we consulted more widely.

Clearly, the amendment, as far as it goes, is welcome. My noble Friend Earl Howe was instrumental in including this measure in the Bill, and he is to be congratulated on that, as on much of the Bill to which he has contributed. The amendment, however, is a little thin, as all it does is put a duty on the Secretary of State to consult those whom he feels it appropriate to consult. It would be helpful if the Minister, without committing herself too much, could give us an indication of who those consultees might be.

I had not realised that this amendment would be an issue, and perhaps I have overlooked something, but I would be grateful if the Minister would provide clarification.

Although the Minister's briefing refers to a list of provisions under clause 57(7)—to which we added section 33(7) in an earlier group of amendments—that list does not correspond entirely with the list given in the amendment, even though her briefing note implies that it should. Obviously, some clauses have been removed, so I do not expect her to defend consulting on clauses that do not exist. For example, section 4(10)(b), section 8(4)(d), section 16(3) and a couple of others are listed as provisions under which the Secretary of State

"shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the relevant Northern Ireland department"

before acting, but some in that list are not included in the list in Lords amendment No. 49. If that is the case, can she clarify the reason why?