Clause 17
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
2:45 pm

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

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in clause 17, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (1)(b) for “equipment is” substitute “equipment and premises are”’.

Although the premises would have been inspected before the licence was granted or renewed, it is also important for the person responsible to ensure that the right equipment and parts of the premises are used for each procedure, and that there is no risk of cross-contamination between admixed embryos and IVF embryos, for example. On my visit to the Centre for Life in Newcastle I saw that it undertakes different types of medical research or treatment in separate parts of the same building. It is obviously the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that there is no transfer or confusion between the two.

There is an inconsistency. There is no mention of equipment and premises in clause 17, yet in clause 18(d) and (e) they are mentioned as specific reasons for the potential revocation of the licence. Will the Minister explain that inconsistency?

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

The amendment would add a requirement to section 17 of the 1990 Act to ensure that it would be a duty of the person responsible to secure appropriate premises as well as equipment in which to carry out activities as they are licensed under the Act. Furthermore, the requirements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Quality and Safety) Regulations 2007, which incorporate the European Union tissue and cells directive into the 1990 Act, would apply to any embryos that are intended for human application. The directive made various extensions to licence conditions, which are set out in schedule 3A to the Act and incorporated by section 14A. The provisions ensure that appropriate equipment and materials are used as well as suitable facilities and premises. It means that any licence that relates to gametes and embryos intended for human application must satisfy those conditions. If they do not, they will be in breach of the licence.

I hope that I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. The HFEA always ensures that the person responsible will secure the appropriate premises as part of the licence application. The suitability of the premises is already part of the HFEA inspection process so the twin arrangements are catered for and, if that were not the case, it would be a breach of the licence,

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

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the fact that there is not an inconsistency between the two clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.