Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston & Skegness, Conservative)

Clause 7 strikes me as a curious measure. It states that the authority, meaning the HFEA, should carry out its duties

“effectively, efficiently and economically”,

but one would have thought that that is implicit for any Government authority. Does it mean that the HFEA has so far been ineffective, inefficient and uneconomic? What would be the impact on the HFEA if the clause was not included? The HFEA’s behaviour and performance should not be altered because it should operate that way whether or not the clause is included.

John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Treasury; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

My question is on proposed new section 8ZA(2), which states:

“In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as is relevant”—

I am not clear when it would not be relevant—

“have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice...including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable”

and so on. It is accepted that the HFEA and its delegated committees will make some big decisions, but it is not guaranteed to be without conflicts of interest, whether financial, as have been mentioned, or based on research—people may wish to encourage research in which they are involved or actively discourage research in which they are involved. In fact, such conflicts of interest, far from being hypothetical, are regarded as extremely likely by most members of the Committee who have spoken. There are also public funding issues.

I recognise that the HFEA has a strong lay element, but in any environment in which there are lay and professional people, the latter have a big impact on what the former decide and think. The HFEA has a strong ethics committee, but that is largely concerned with the treatment of its clients.

It is perfectly likely—I am assured that this happens—that when making decisions that have financial or research implications, members declare and state their interests.  However, I pondered some time ago whether there was a standing register of interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon declared an interest at the beginning of the previous sitting, but I assume that if we check carefully, we will find a further declaration in the Register of Members’ Interests—[Interruption.] One would indeed hope so. I have scoured HFEA’s website to find out what are people’s relevant standing interests, whether financial or research. I could not find that information, so I contacted the HFEA and asked whether it had a standing register of interests. I thought that that was a good idea if only because there will be huge sums of money riding on some of its decisions—one has only to see the investment by the Wellcome Trust and others to realise how big those sums might be. Does the Minister know whether there is a standing register of interests for HFEA members? If not, suggesting that it produce one might be a laudable way of future-proofing legislation.

Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

I point out to my hon. Friend that there is a difference between declarable interests that one might want to make Parliament aware of and registerable interests. The registrar is quite fussy about what he or she thinks it is necessary to register.

My point concerns the issue of HFEA mission creep. If the Minister will permit me, I think that it is appropriate to raise it here, because it is relevant to proposed new section 8ZA(2), which says:

“In carrying out its functions, the Authority must, so far as relevant, have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).”

It is a minor concern, but I hope that the Minister can set my mind at rest. A couple of years ago, the HFEA sent out a mission statement to Members of Parliament. The mission statement did not stick to what Parliament had intended the HFEA to do. The HFEA decided that part of its job was to maintain public confidence in the law. If Parliament makes the law, it is Parliament’s job to maintain confidence in the law. Otherwise, acceptable activity that Parliament has said should be licensed and considered appropriately should not be subject to extra regulation because of a perceived need to keep public opinion on board.

Otherwise, newspapers could raise scare stories and, if the HFEA’s mission has crept to include a general issue of public confidence rather than what is set out in proposed new section 8ZA(2), it might say, “Well, we might have licensed this and permitted it, but it might kick up a fuss. There’s an institutional risk.” That is the other thing. The HFEA’s policy documents include a little section saying what the risk is to itself of bad headlines, rating them low, medium, high or whatever. It is inappropriate for the HFEA, which was set up by Parliament to do a job—a job that, generally speaking, it does well—to start having regard to interests such as what the Daily Mail might say about its decisions.

The HFEA rowed back from that position when I raised the matter, asking where it came from, as I could not find it in the HFEA’s own terms of reference or the statute. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the excellent paragraph that she proposes to insert in the Bill makes it clear that

“activities should be...targeted only at cases in which action is needed”,

and that nothing in the statute requires the HFEA to distort what it is doing in order to please what it perceives as public or media opinion. Unfortunately, it is in the firing line. I respect the HFEA for what it does, because it gets a lot of hassle from some in the media, and indeed some politicians, when it takes a decision that they do not like. However, it would be open to greater criticism if it bent towards that or away from implied criticism. I hope that she will make it clear, albeit only briefly, that the HFEA’s job is to implement the law as Parliament has laid it down and develop policy where appropriate. Perceptions of public opinion, short of formal consultations where the HFEA feels them to be relevant, are not part of its remit.

Dawn Primarolo (Minister of State (Public Health), Department of Health; Bristol South, Labour)

It is always surprising what things catch a Minister in Committee. I thought that clause 7 was very straightforward. Perhaps I can explain why the Government did it and then answer the points.

Of course the Government expect all public authorities to operate effectively, efficiently and economically. That is not a reflection on the HFEA’s past practice or performance. It is simply that the principles of better regulation were implemented following the Hampton report, which was quite a long way after the 1990 Act. They require regulation to be transparent. Regulators should be open and keep regulations simple and user-friendly. Regulation must be accountable. Regulators must be able to justify decisions and be subject to public scrutiny. It must be proportionate. Regulators should intervene only when necessary. Remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed and costs must be identified and minimised. The principles also require regulation to be consistent whereby rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly. They require regulation to be targeted so that it is focused on the problem and minimise the side effects.

The Government took the opportunity provided by the fact that we were updating the 1990 Act and included the principles in the Bill. They have been widely accepted by the House. It was no more, no less than that. Such action was not a reflection on the performance of the HFEA. We just took the opportunity offered by the Bill to put on the record something that we already expected. We did so for clarity. We did not mean to cause difficulties in Committee. In answer to the points that have been made, I must say that it is nothing to do with whether I continue to be the Minister; it is simply a tidying-up exercise.

The hon. Member for Southport raised a different issue—a register of what is declared. I am not exactly sure about what detail is provided publicly at the moment, but I agree with him. I shall put to the HFEA the point that such a register should exist and be accessible. It would be good practice and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it with me.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked me to confirm that the measure is about complying with the Bill, not with the views of the media. I am happy to confirm that. I think that he wanted to make sure that that was on the record, and I am pleased to assist him. I hope that members of the Committee will accept that there was no other motive behind the provision,  expect that it is a good principle. I hope that I have put their concerns to rest, and that they agree that what must be the most modest clause in the entire Bill should now stand part.