 Aru rural ym gwsbl amser. Rwy'nusionnau i gyf fallson cerddordeb. Y dyfodol yn diynau i Gw llwyddo adeiladau yn ymgweithio ynghylch, ardal i gennu 2827, yn y miech o Jofis Paterg, ac yn bach o gyda'i gyfrin Laserbyr. I ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Joffus Patrick to move the motion 2827. Formly moved. Thank you. No-one has asked to speak against the motion. I'll put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 2827 in the name of Joffus Patrick. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. There are four questions to be put in decision time today. I wish to remind members that if the amendment in the name of Jackson Carlaw is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Lewis MacDonald falls. The first question is the amendment 2795.1 in the name of Jackson Carlaw, which seeks to amend motion 2795 in the name of Fiona Hyslop on the implications for culture, creative industries and tourism following the EU referendum be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the amendment in the name of Jackson Carlaw is as follows. Yes, 29, no, 84, there were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2795.2 in the name of Lewis MacDonald which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fiona Hyslop be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. The next question is that motion 2795 in the name of Fiona Hyslop as amended be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. Thank you. The result of the vote on motion 2795 in the name of Fiona Hyslop as amended is yes, 84, no, 29, there were no abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. And that concludes decision time. Oh, sorry, big one. Sorry. The final question is that motion 2796 in the name of Alasdair Allan on celebrating St Andrew's day be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. And we'll now move to members' business in the name of Rona Mackay. We'll just take a few minutes to move seats. The next item of business is a business debate on motion 1537 in the name of Rona Mackay on men who have sex with men, blood donations. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. With those members who wish to speak in the debate, press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Rona Mackay to open the debate. Ms Mackay, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted that, for the first time, we are debating this hugely important issue in the chamber and I'm grateful for the great level of cross-party support my motion on men who have sex with men being treated equally in regard to blood donations has had. At our party's autumn conference, the First Minister said that the key message that she wanted to promote above all else was inclusion, and that's exactly what my motion is about, equality and inclusion. Scotland has led the way on equality in recent years and our party has an unblemished track record promoting equal rights. In 2005, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender was banned. In 2009, same-sex couples were allowed to adopt children and in 2014, we legalised same-sex marriage. As the law stands, no men who have had sex with men in the previous 12 months or women who have had sex with men who have had sex with men may give blood within the 12 months deferral period. In my view, those rules are archaic and have their origins in the 1980s, when little was known of the risk of HIV, the modes of contracting it and the prevalence within specific communities. Presiding Officer, in the debate on adoption in the chamber last week, I spoke of close friends of mine who are in a same-sex marriage who have just gone through the adoption process. How will those men who are in a loving monogamous relationship explain to their child why they are being treated differently when it comes to giving blood? Shockingly, if their child ever needed a blood transfusion and they were a match, they would not be allowed to save their own child's life in an emergency. In the name of equality, it's time to end this discriminatory process and base donor eligibility on risk, regardless of sexual orientation. The current rules around blood donation make no reference to someone's personal risk of being a carrier of HIV and a promiscuous straight person would be able to donate blood whilst a monogamous gay or bisexual man would not. I believe that Scotland has a chance to address one major area where inequality still exists and, at the same time, address a chronic lack of uptake in blood donation and the coming forward of new donors to meet our demand for blood products. Over the past 10 years, there's been a 40 per cent drop in the number of people giving blood, and current figures suggest that only 4 per cent of people in the UK regularly donate, yet 6,000 blood transfusions are needed in the UK every day. Stonewall Scotland believes that excluding thousands of gay and bisexual men who may safely be eligible to donate threatens the blood supply, which one in four people will rely on at some point in their life. The fact is that the breakdown of heterosexual people with HIV is rising, and the eligibility rules take no account of that. Also, the regulation on men who have sex with mendingating is based on self-declaration, and it's incredibly simple to hide sexual activity in order to give blood. Of course, there must be stringent donor selection criteria aimed at protecting donors and recipients of blood transfusions. No one would ever argue otherwise, but I believe that they should not be based on sexual orientation but on participation in high-risk behaviour. The public needs to have confidence in the transfusion system, and it's important to stress that all blood is screened at the highest level. That said, the statistics show that only one bag of blood has tested positive for HIV in the past four years, so that puts what we're talking about in some perspective. We need to introduce a non-discriminatory risk assessment policy that will judge each individual equally, whether they're straight, bisexual or gay. The current rules were put in place in 2011, after the advisory committee on the safety of blood tissues and organs Sabto undertook a review of donation rules. Sabto recommended a reduction of the lifetime ban to a one-year deferment for men who have sex with men, and that recommendation was accepted. I believe that Scotland needs to go further to ensure that all people can donate blood based on their personal risk of bloodborne virus transmission, not to their sexual orientation. Although matters relating to health are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, policy relating to blood donation has so far been in line with approaches in England and Wales following the guidance provided by Sabto. In June 2016, at Westminster, an all-party parliamentary group, APPG, on blood donation began an inquiry into the current rules. The debate is happening alongside a review by Sabto into the blood donor selection criteria. Stuart MacDonald, MP for Glasgow South, recently chaired an evidence session in Westminster on the issue, and it is due to make a recommendation early in 2017. The SNBTS could determine its own policies and restrictions for men who have sex with men, but it would be unlikely to be willing to implement a policy that was contrary to safety of blood tissues and organ's evidence-based guidance. However, in 2011, the Northern Irish Government chose not to implement Sabto's proposed change to the deferral criteria for this group and maintained a ban. Wales, England and Scotland all moved a 12-month deferral period after the last MSN sexual contact. Northern Ireland subsequently changed its criteria this year to fall into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, which I believe sets a precedent for autonomy. To highlight the great anomaly, gay men can join the bone marrow register, donate organs and stem cells, and everyone goes through the same health and suitability checks. Your sexuality does not matter one bit. Whatever your age and whatever your health or sexual orientation, you can donate. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Spain, Italy and Mexico are just some of the countries that accept eligible donations not based on sexual orientation. Spain has a deferral period of at least six months after a change of partner for both heterosexual and MSM, with permanent deferral for individuals with multiple sex partners. Initially, a deferral of four months supplies for people who have cultural partners who have had a change in regular partner. I believe that it should be possible to ask donors more detailed questions about their sexual activity, rather than just whether they have had sex with another man in the past year, thereby gaining more accurate information on risk and making the blood supply safer, which is of paramount importance. Of course, the current law also affects transgender people who want to donate blood, meaning that any man who transitioned to a woman is still classed as an MSN and therefore not allowed to donate, even though it may have been a number of years since they last identified as being an MSM. I believe that lifting the ban on MSN donating blood and replacing it with a more equal non-discriminatory risk assessment is fairer, particularly since one in three 16 to 24-year-olds do not identify as heterosexual. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service recently published a document with an updated position on gay blood donation. Within that document, it recognises the principles of kindness and mutual trust expected of all blood donors between the individual and the blood donation service. However, the mutual trust expected by the service is not reflected in the selection and deferral criteria, evident by the fact that there is no consideration of the position of thousands of gay and bisexual men in committed relationships where the risk of HIV transmission is negligible. For the sake of equality, Scotland needs to go further to ensure that all people can donate blood based on their personal risk of bloodborne virus transmission, not their sexual orientation. We need to introduce a non-discriminatory risk assessment policy that will judge each individual equally, whether they are straight, bisexual or gay. That would increase the number of much needed donors throughout Scotland. As I mentioned at the beginning of the speech, my motion is about equality and inclusion. As my colleague Patrick Rady MP recently said at the first APPG blood donation meeting, for many gay men, a 12-month deferral is effectively a lifetime deferral. Even if we lower the deferral period to a three-month deferral, that is without doubt a discriminatory measure on MSM couples in stable, loving relationships. That is not equal or inclusive. I say, let's go further Scotland and this inequality now. I call Christina McKelvie. We have moved a long way since homosexual relations between men over 21 and in private ceased to be illegal in 1967. You would think that, by now, being gay wouldn't be an issue. Like gender inequality, the very notion of homophobia ought to have fallen out of use by now. I don't know why we find ourselves exposed to discrimination of any kind wherever it is directed, but I recognise that it is still very much with us, as we were discussing just a few weeks ago in a debate here on hate crime. However, when discrimination is actually built into the official system, we need to be very wary. Not long ago, as Rona Mackay said, you couldn't apply to adopt children if you were a gay couple. Thankfully, we have changed that. The public good must always be linked to the human rights of any individual. There are very solid clinical reasons why certain groups of people cannot give blood, though they could well become recipients of someone else's donation. Those with type 1 diabetes, for instance, can't donate control by insulin, not because there is anything wrong with their blood, but because the blood donation service deems the risk too high for a potential donor. There are some medications that will preclude you from giving blood certain blood conditions and a history of specific diseases that could potentially be passed on to a recipient. Those differentials are clear and widely accepted. We would be in a dangerous situation if clinical filtering mechanisms did not exist. Life events such as birth, major RTAs and all the diseases that we can now control and manage would become far more greater risks. That aside, critically, though those are decisions made on scientific grounds, not the results of some sort of irrational discrimination, they are, if you like, the outcomes of positive or rational discrimination. Blood donations must be safe, we all know that. Anyone can acquire a blood-borne virus or sexually transmitted disease, but some people have an increased risk of exposure and so may not be able to give blood. It will be excluded for a certain period of time, and we have heard much of that in Rona Mackay's opening remarks. Revealed in June this year that UK blood is safer since the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood was changed in 2011—safer. The Department of Health in England said, "...surveillance data derived from the tests carried out in every blood donation in England, Scotland and Wales since the policy change shows that there are fewer infections are being detected in donated blood." Major HIV charities, including the Terence Higgins Trust, support the change from the total ban on MSN-given blood to a 12-month exclusion period, of course they do, but now we are seeing calls to revisit that exclusion. With Sabtoe, the Government advisory committee on safety of blood tissues and organs set up a working group in April to review the current donor acceptance criteria and look at any available new evidence, I support those calls. Stonewall has described the move as a step in the right direction and highlights at a risk that a high-risk heterosexual would be less controlled than a low-risk gay man in a monogamous relationship. I hope that all of the organisations with an interest in ending this discrimination will work with Sabtoe, and I hope that Sabtoe will work with them to ensure that the policy and procedures maintain safety for all using transfusions and blood services irrespective of their sexual orientation. HIV Scotland also tells us in its briefing that, and I quote too, "...every blood donation in Scotland is screened and tested for HIV and they are now very, very highly accurate. Also that men who have had sex with one man in the past 12 months is likely to be of a lower risk than many of those who are allowed already to donate blood, including men and women who have unprotected sex with different partners." Presiding Officer, it is clearly time that we moved on to the non-discriminatory risk assessments to end this inequality and I support the motion in my friend's name and congratulate her for bringing this issue to the chamber. Thank you very much, Mr Kelby. I call Patrick Harvie to be followed by Miles Briggs. Mr Harvie, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also congratulate Rona Mackay for bringing this motion to the chamber for discussion this evening. It is pretty obvious to anybody that the primary objectives of the blood transfusion service should be to increase and to maximise the safety and supply of the blood that is needed in our hospitals and medical services. However, there is a good argument to say that the current irrational criteria that are being applied do not actually maximise safety or indeed supply. Additionally, there is an argument that applies to every aspect of our public services that any level of discrimination or prejudice that is built into the way that they work can seek to strengthen or to fail to challenge prejudice and discrimination in wider society. Therefore, there is a principal reason why all aspects of our public services have to avoid discrimination. As well as that, on a third level, there is a case for saying that the discrimination itself undermines that first objective of maximising safety and supply. There will be many people who might well be willing and able to deny blood that is needed in Scotland but who choose not to because of the way that they feel they are judged, because of the way that they feel they might be spoken to or because of the questions that they feel they may be asked that are inappropriate. That does not just apply to gay or bisexual men or men who have sex with men. Underlying some of those criteria—in my view, quite irrational criteria that are being applied now—we also have to consider, for example, trans or non-binary people who, being asked to explain whether they have had same sex relationships in the last 12 months, may feel that they are unable to give a straightforward answer that is both honest to themselves and giving the person asking the information that is being sought. It may be that they simply feel unwilling to be categorised in a binary sense in being asked to give that information in the first place. The most important thing that we have to do to ensure safety of blood supply is testing. Testing is being done now to a far higher standard than it was in the past, certainly to a far higher standard than was possible when the original criteria were set down. We also have to make sure that people feel that giving blood is something that is valued and, if some people are simply being told that they are not valued, or that they have to tell lies in order to supply safe blood, which they know is safe, then we are undermining that second goal of increasing the supply of blood that is needed. I want to say something about the other aspects of the criteria that we are not talking about as well. The idea that any woman who has had sex with a man who has ever had sex with a man, or that someone who has had sex with someone who has ever had sex for money, how many people honestly could give 100 per cent guarantee that they know the correct answer to those questions? Again, we are asking for information that people may not be able to give with 100 per cent certainty, which is not, in fact, needed to ensure 100 per cent certainty of the safety of blood that is being donated. I would like to close by thanking, as I am sure that we all will, all those many people who donate blood and the people who deliver that service in communities up and down the country. It is a vital service. It is one that genuinely saves lives. We should value everybody who chooses to donate blood and everybody who works to make sure that the supply of that blood is available and is safe where it is needed. We should change the irrational rules that are undermining both of those objectives. I call Miles Briggs to be followed by Colin Smyth. I would also like to congratulate Rona Mackay on securing this evening's debate and also to congratulate her for the campaigning that she has undertaken in this area since she was elected. The 2011 change that was initiated by the UK Government's advisory committee on the safety of blood, tissues and organ was a welcome step forward, but, looking at it now, it looks like just a small step forward. I recognise that many men who have sex with men, including many gay couples in long-term monogamous relationships and who want to donate blood remain deeply disappointed and frustrated that they are still unable to do so. As Patrick Harvie has mentioned, today we have seen advances in technology and testing, and I think that all of us can agree that it is the right time to look again at this matter with the aim that blood donation would be under a risk assessment being carried out, as is currently the case with organs, stem cell and bone marrow donations. I am very sympathetic to the suggestion that sexual behaviour and not sexual orientation should be the determining factor for whether someone can donate blood and that individual risk-based assessments are thus more appropriate than a blanket ban approach. I welcome the fact that the UK Government's advisory committee has initiated a new review of the policy in this area, and I think that we all look forward to those conclusions to be able to move this issue forward. A number of other developed nations, including our European partners in Italy and Spain, do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather use the individual risk assessment approach. I think that we should look at how they manage their systems of blood donations in a safe and effective manner and see what we can learn from those countries. I also want to take this opportunity, as others have, to say thank you to those who work in our Scottish national blood transfusion service and all the blood donors not only in my Lothian region but across Scotland for literally the life-saving contribution that they make. They really do help to save lives and we must do all that we can to support them and encourage more people to come forward and donate blood. Last Friday, I met with a local cancer charity in my region who informed me that, on average, patients with leukemia commonly require up to eight units of blood or blood products every day during treatment for weeks at a time. It is estimated that 18 blood donors are required to provide the blood required for just one leukemia patient undergoing a month's treatment. It is therefore a real concern that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has said that the number of new donors in Scotland has declined by 30 per cent in the last five years. Statistics show that, while 96 per cent of new donors are under the age of 55, the blood transfusion service is increasingly reliant on those donors over 55 to make sure that there is always enough blood for patients. With less than 4 per cent of the eligible population in Scotland being active blood donors, we need to look at new and imaginative ways of getting more people to become active blood donors. In responding to the debate, I would be interested if the minister would also outline the Scottish Government's position with regard to people who have had blood transfusions, who are also currently excluded from donating blood, as this is another potential large group in our society who would very much like to give blood. I think that that is an area that we also need to look and move forward on. To conclude, I again welcome today's debate and recognise the cross-party support that exists for a better assessment policy in this area. I hope that, working together, I believe that we can introduce a system and I look forward to progress to be made to implement this. Thank you very much. I begin by commending Rona Mackay for bringing this important motion to the chamber today. For the work that she and many groups across Scotland have done to raise awareness of the important issue, I think that all members are in agreement that the absolute priority for blood donations is ensuring that we have a safe and reliable supply of blood for those who need it. That means having enough blood to meet demand and ensuring with confidence that the blood supply available to the public is free from infection and disease, but current trends in Scotland show that the number of registered blood donors has fallen by 30 per cent since 2011. At present, only 4 per cent of the eligible population aged between 17 and 70 are registered to donate blood. In preparing for this evening's debate, I checked the Scottish national blood transfusion services' current stock levels and it showed that current stocks of all negative blood are below the services' 60 supply target. We owe a real debt of gratitude to those who donate blood, but it is clear that more needs to be done to encourage those who are not already blood donors to sign up and to give blood on a regular basis. The safety of that blood supply is, of course, of paramount importance, but, as we have heard in the debate this evening, the current rules are not focused on that supply being safe. They were introduced in 2012 at a 12-month blanket deferral period for blood donations from men who have sex with men. A reduction of the previous lifetime deferral introduced in the 1980s, but it simply does not go far enough. The previous policy was born from a fear of the transmission of HIV and other infections to those receiving donated blood, and the severity of those concerns cannot be downplayed since 2001. We have seen the rates of HIV cases in Scotland rise annually from the previous decade. Health Protection Scotland have calculated, for example, that 372 cases were reported in 2014. Of course, the rising numbers can be attributed to many factors, including an increase in the number of people coming forward to get tested. Thanks to scientific advances with the right treatment, it is now possible for someone living with HIV to have a normal and healthy life expectancy if they are tested early and that treatment begins as soon as possible. Scientific advances mean that it is now appropriate to review the policy of a 12-month deferral period for blood donations from the MSM community and consider a new, non-discriminatory risk assessment in line with organ stem cell and bone marrow donations. We know that testing is now, as Patrick Harvie said, far more accurate than ever before. The current nucleic acid testing carried out in all blood donations can detect HIV in the blood after nine days, a shorter window period than, for example, hepatitis B and syphilis. It is clear that blood donation services accept that specific behaviours, rather than someone's sexuality, determines the risk of infection. A man who has sex with one man in the past 12 months is likely to have a lower risk than many who are allowed to donate blood, including many women who have unprotected sex with different partners. If we make the assumption that gay people are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, we make the same mistake as those who regarded HIV and AIDS as only a condition that affected gay men. The issue raises the question, in light of the 2010 Equality Act, whether it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in this case because it is the provision of a good or service and whether the current rules are indeed lawful is an important factor that we have to consider. The act states that a donation can be lawfully refused if it is based on scientific evidence, but it has become increasingly clear that the scientific evidence does not make it reasonable to refuse donations simply on the basis of a blanket ban. Therefore, Labour very much welcomes the motion that is before the chamber today. As Rona Mackay said, the current rules are archaic. They do not promote equality and continue to exclude people who may be able to name threatens a sufficient supply of blood, something that one in four of us will rely on at some point in our lives. First of all, I, too, would like to join other members in congratulating Rona Mackay on securing this important debate. Blood must be available quite simply 24-7 throughout Scotland, and that includes remote areas of Scotland, too. However, blood has a very short shelf life and cannot be stockpalled. Therefore, every day, NHS Scotland depends on donors to help to maintain those stock levels. As Colin Smyth has just said, the number of new donors has fallen by 30 per cent in just five years, and less than 4 per cent of the eligible population are active blood donors. It is also important to note in this debate that funding for Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has fallen by 16 per cent since 2010, and I hope that that is something that the minister will also heed and take into account. I think that we are in absolute agreement that there is a need to encourage new people to give blood. I think that there is a whole generation of Scots who do not remember Rowan Atkinson talking to a Ston TV adverts that I recall as a child and the effect that that had on me and the importance of the matter. We now need to think about how we encourage new people to give blood. On this specific debate, at a time when it is so critical that we need more blood, we cannot afford to exclude any potential donors unjustly. I share the view from across the chamber that men who have sex with men should not be prevented from donating blood based on their sexual orientation alone, but on their individual risk, as assessed by a healthcare professional. There is little chance of a potential donor of any sexual orientation being allowed to donate blood if they are not entirely fit to do so. In fact, just yesterday, I had a meeting in the Clyde Row hospital with some nurses who work in blood-borne viruses. They were telling me that the cases of heterosexual HIV infections are going up, so I think that there is a huge amount of misconception around gay men and blood donation. Improvements in testing and many other safeguards have reduced the risk to an acceptable level. Due to the drop-in donors that I mentioned, we face a shortage. Right now in Scotland, there are only six days supply of blood type B negative, for example, and just seven days supply of A+. That is a real problem if you are in need of blood and in one of those blood groups or if you are involved in an accident or have an operation coming. That really is affecting people in Scotland today. I am sure that we all agree that it is in our interests not to just prevent healthy people from donating blood, but if the scientific evidence tells us that they do not pose a risk, we should allow them to do so. From a personal point of view, I am a card-carrying organ donor, but I have never given blood. A lot of that comes down to some of the issues that Patrick Harvie raised around the stigma of going and having that very difficult and private discussion about your sexual practices. I think that we must make sure that our policies are based on scientific evidence and in the best interests of the public. I absolutely welcome this new subtle policy review. I hope that the UK and Scottish Governments try to implement any recommendations that come out of it. We should remember that the regulation of blood donation keeps us all safe but it should also keep us all equal. Thank you very much. I call on Maureen Watt to wind up for the Government Minister up to seven minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, the Minister for Public Health and Sport is not able to be here today, but having held the post and having considered this issue, I am happy to be here to speak on this important issue. I would like to thank all those members who have contributed to this important debate. I welcome the intentions that this motion reflects. Of course, we want to ensure that the NHS has sufficient blood to meet demand, so I want to thank the many thousands of people who come forward to give blood every year. Demand for blood has actually reduced by 20 per cent over recent years, but we continue to ask for new donors to replace older ones who perhaps dropped off. We need to get donations from people with certain types of blood, so anyone who wishes to join the register is very welcome indeed. The motion talks about equality, and the Government takes equality very seriously. However, the issue is not a matter of equality or deliberate discrimination. It is a matter of the safety of the blood supply. I would like to explain the rationale for the current restrictions that are in place. I know that some men who have sex with men feel that they are being unjustly prevented from donating blood, but the deferral is based on current epidemiology and a scientific assessment of risk. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has a clear duty to minimise the risk of a blood transfusion transmitting any infection. When we go to give blood, we are all asked the same questions on the same questionnaire. In 2015, for example, around 25,000 potential donors were deferred for various reasons. 31 of those were men who have sex with men. The rest were deferred for other reasons, including people who have travelled to certain countries, people who have recently had a tattoo, people who take certain medications or have certain illnesses. People are not deferred on the basis of sexual orientation but on the basis of high-risk behaviours. Patrick Harvie I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Does not that low figure suggest that, as many of us during the debate suggested, a great many people who identify as men in stable, monogamous same-sex relationships just do not turn up? Those are potentially valuable blood donors whose blood is not at any risk because of their sexual activity, who are just not turning up to offer blood in the first place. I am not sure whether there are any figures of people who have turned up and not giving blood in the first place, but I think that everyone will agree that the safety is paramount. The deferral of men who have had sex with men is based on two facts. First, they are at significantly higher risk of HIV than other groups. Secondly, it is not always possible to detect the presence of infections in donated blood. From health protection Scotland data, we know that, in Scotland, the prevalence rate of HIV amongst men who have sex with men is 7.7 per cent. In heterosexual individuals, that figure is not 0.07 per cent. Men who have sex with men are 100 times more likely to be infected with HIV than others. Of course, monogamous relationships and the use of condoms reduce the transmission of HIV and other infections, but it cannot eliminate the risk altogether. Approximately 30 per cent of men who have sex with men who are infected with HIV are unaware of their infection. That would not represent such a significant risk if it was possible to always detect HIV infection in donated blood. The latest tests are very sensitive, but they are not perfect. Certain infections, including HIV, have what is called a window period immediately after infection, where they are not yet detectable. The last two transfusion-related transmission of HIV in the UK were as a result of this window period. That is not purely a theoretical risk, and that is why the deferral is currently recommended. The motion makes specific reference to the donation of organs and cells. However, it is important to understand why the criteria for those donations are different. For example, there is a limited supply of organs, and in those cases, the recipient will often be in a life-or-death situation. The life-saving benefit of a transplant will often outweigh the potential risk of HIV or other serious infections, so the risk assessment differs. That is not the case for blood donations, as a blood transfusion always has sufficient blood available to meet demand, so they do not need to take the risks. Decisions about the criteria for donating blood are based on the best available scientific evidence. That is complex technical work, so we follow the advice of the expert advisory committee on the safety of blood tissues and organ donations, as others have mentioned, known as SABTO. SABTO has set up a working group to review the donor selection criteria, and, as has been mentioned, it will report next year. The Cabinet Secretary for Health wrote to SABTO earlier this year to encourage them to give consideration to other methods of managing the risk to the blood supply, including looking at other models of individualised assessment of donor risks. The review is welcome because it is assessing the latest evidence and considering different approaches to blood safety. The working group is also engaging with groups that may be affected by its recommendations, including organisations that represent men who have sex with men. The advice from SABTO is not static. It previously recommended a change in policy in 2011, which has been implemented. I am grateful to be able to provide the Government's position on the issue to explain the good reasons for the current policy, but also to provide reassurance that that continues to be under review. It is also important to reflect the historical experience of those who were infected with serious viruses such as HIV or Hep C as a result of NHS blood and blood products. The Penrose inquiry on this was published last year. Having met many families involved at the time of publication of the report, I know that those affected would feel strongly that blood safety should never be compromised and that any risks should be mitigated as far as possible. That is what our current deferral policies seek to do today, based on expert advice. One inadvertent infection via blood would be one too many. It would have lifelong consequences for those affected and could have a detrimental effect on the trust in the blood transfusion service and the wider NHS. We will seriously consider any recommendations from the review. Can I say to the member that I will let you intervene? It is a very serious and important debate, but health have you intervened earlier. I knew that you were thinking about it for a long time. There you go. Just that, although I agree with the minister that safety is of paramount importance, does she not agree with me that risks should be based on sexual behaviour rather than orientation? I think that that is absolutely what I have said throughout my speech. That is absolutely what I have said throughout my speech about the high risk of certain behaviours, not on sexual orientation. I hope that that made that absolutely clear, but I hope that, having said what I have said, that members also understand why the current deferrals are in place. Of course, if Sab2 comes up with recommendations that we change, that will be considered at the time, but I hope that I set out the current position. Thank you very much, minister, especially stepping in for a colleague, and thank you for a very serious and thoughtful debate from all members. That concludes the debate, and I will now close this meeting of Parliament.