Clause 7
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and 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.