Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)

I will not detain the Committee for long. I find the clause quite interesting because of the ambiguous language in the Bill. It allows the authority to assist other public authorities and then, quite naturally, to charge them should it do so. I am conscious that  those bodies could be some of the ones that the authority has already contracted out to that could be charged for the work that the authority does for them. I am particularly concerned about proposed new section 8E(2), which states:

“Assistance provided by the Authority under this section may be provided on such terms, including terms as to payment, as it thinks fit.”

Could we be in a situation in which one department—the authority—is charging another part of Government, but they do not agree and therefore the work cannot be done? The measure is very ambiguous. This is the second time this afternoon that we have seen such terminology—“as it thinks fit”—in the Bill, so will the Minister clarify it?

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

The provision is a reciprocal arrangement with proposed new section 8B. New section 8E will permit the HFEA to provide services to other public bodies, such as the Human Tissue Authority or the Healthcare Commission, undertaking inspections in the same premises as the HFEA. They might arrange for the HFEA to cover their inspection in the course of the authority’s inspection regime. The HFEA, not the Healthcare Commission or the Human Tissue Authority, would then carry the cost of undertaking the inspection. The provision gives a mechanism for sharing the benefits of reducing the burden to those who are inspected and the cost to the public authorities performing the inspections.

Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for being so clear. I only wish that this part of the Bill, which is quite long and detailed, had given us a couple more sentences, as the Minister has done. The provision is very simply put: “as it thinks fit”. I do not wish the Minister to disappear soon, but other Ministers will be around to take her place. They will see the provision in the Bill, and the situation is not as clear in the Bill as the Minister has described.

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

But the clauses interact together, so if we rewind to the debate on better regulation and the obligations of the HFEA in discharging its duties as a public authority, the same duties apply to the Healthcare Commission or the Human Tissue Authority. Those public bodies would act responsibly and accountably. I think that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the HFEA would act in a predatory fashion by charging another public authority for the purposes of income generation, following which there would be a dispute.

I do not know why parliamentary draftsmen settle for these phrases, although they are excellent people who do fantastic things and get our legislation into understandable forms, whatever the hue of the Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure does not provide for some sort of turf war or disagreement on charging, and I hope that he accepts that. It is reasonable to reduce regulation, and when there is a gain to one authority because another authority has undertaken work, there will be a sharing of benefits between the authorities, as well as a clear benefit to the establishment that was inspected, because it will end up with only one inspection, rather than two.