Clause 18
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Mark Simmonds (Shadow Minister, Health; Boston and Skegness, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 143, in clause 18, page 13, line 29, after ‘person’, insert
‘and is so qualified by training and experience’.
The amendment relates to the variation of a licence. Under section 16 of the 1990 Act, the initial applicant had to satisfy the licensing committee that the character, qualifications and experience of the applicant were suitable. My understanding is that, under this Bill, the person to whom the licence is transferred will not need to satisfy the authority that they are anything more than suitable. There is a difference between those two definitions. One could have a suitable character without the required qualifications and necessary experience. Is the Minister happy with that difference? Would she not prefer a more robust system, with a new inspection under the person responsible or the licence holder?
Will the Minister also clarify whether there is a prohibition on the sale of a licence? Can a licence effectively be bought and sold within the context of the criteria I have just mentioned?
I have one further issue with regard to this amendment. In proposed new section 18A(3), a very clear distinction is made between
“the person responsible”
and
“the holder of the licence (if different).”
Will the Minister say how many licences have been granted where the person responsible and the licence holder are not the same person? In the revocation categories, again, it refers only to “the person responsible”, not the licence holder, which implies that one, “the holder of the licence”, is a subset of the other, “the person responsible”. If they are different, why are they not different in the revocation categories, and if they are the same, why is there a distinction in the first part of clause 18?