Mr. Mark Murphy:

Only for 2%. If we had a register of all the people who said "Yes", it would make many more decisions easier because the vast majority will say "Yes" to organ donation and the family would be able to be shown the data that Johnny registered ten years ago that he wished to be an organ donor. One would be able to show the family. Rather than having the donor card in someone's pocket and leaving it to chance, it would be there on the register. The family, in the vast majority of cases will follow the decision, and studies from the UK prove that it is so in almost 99% of cases.

Regarding I stated earlier on the statistics, Professor Egan is correct. In the middle, I have the nurse specialists who are the ones we do not have. We need infrastructure to make this happen. That relates to the conversion rate. Being on the register and the nurse being present improved the data considerably to conversion from potential donor to actual donor, which is all about the consent. Making it easier for the family at every stage and ensuring the specialist nurses have the data means I expect we could get half the population's data. The UK has failed to do that. Before we conduct a campaign, we will have 38% from the driver's licensing system. Before we advertise, we will, therefore, have 38% of the adult population registered. That is a gift that we must use and it would be a significant lost opportunity not to do it.

The consent systems are the same. It is only a rewording of them. I see no difference and I do not argue about it. I only argue that having a "no" registry on its own is a lost opportunity. We should have a "yes" registry.