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

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in clause 19, page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (7).

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 145, in clause 19, page 15, line 14, at end insert—

‘(8) Notification to the applicant of a decision whether to grant or refuse a licence must be given within a specified time period to be determined by regulation.’.

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

Again, I shall be brief; these are probing amendments. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why on page 15 there seems to be some duplication. In clause 19A there are four distinct categories:

“In the case of a decision to grant a licence, the Authority shall give notice of the decision to—

(a) the applicant, and

(b) the person who is to be the person responsible”.

and those seem to be exactly the same for the four categories: granting, revocation and the two types of variation. I understand that in clause 19A(7) a distinction is drawn with subsections (2) and (4), but I cannot see why it is broken down into four distinct categories under 19A and not two or three. The people who must be notified after decisions are taken are exactly the same. That is the purpose of amendment No. 144.

Amendment No. 145 has been tabled because there are clearly delays that can be damaging both to business and research—particularly the latter as research grants elapse after a certain period of time. Under the current provisions, the authority can take as long as it chooses to decide whether to grant or refuse a licence. The amendment would ensure that the authority understands that it would be helpful if a specific time period—specified in the regulations after consultation—could be set out to help provide clarity. Perhaps the Minister and her officials could give that some thought.

Most public bodies have specific time scales within which they must respond. For example, the Department of Health is supposed to respond to correspondence from MPs within 20 days. I am sure that the Minister will be the first to acknowledge that that is not always the case, but attempts are always made to ensure that the time scale is met. There is concern within the industry—if I can call it that—that there may have been unacceptable and unreasonable delays in specific circumstances. I would not seek to specify the time period in the Bill; that will have to come through discussions and be put through regulations after consultation. However, it is a key point and requires addressing.

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

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point perfectly and the reasons why he seeks to set a time limit, or at least to get an indication of one. This issue is often raised. I accept that the HFEA should respond in reasonable time, and recognise that regulations would allow a suitable period to be determined in consultation with interested parties.

However—the hon. Gentleman touched on this, so I think that what I am about to say might help—setting out such a time limit in statute would restrict the HFEA in having the added flexibility that might be needed in certain situations in the more complex licence applications. I can reassure him and the Committee, however, that the HFEA is committed to notifying the applicant of its decision either to grant or refuse a licence within set time scales. It has a self-imposed target of three months for licence applications, and four for any new treatment and storage licences. It is right that we allow it that flexibility.

Over the past 12 months—I accept that this would not necessarily apply to the more complex applications—the HFEA has received three applications for research licences, all of which were processed and decided upon within the required three months. That indicates that currently it is processing applications in a timely fashion, although  we would expect it to be thorough as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that his probing amendment on time limits is dealt with.

Proposed new section 19 provides that reasons must be given for certain licensing decisions and provides an opportunity for representations to be made before a decision is taken. It sets out the person to whom notice is to be given when the decision is made. The new provisions set it out that if the HFEA agrees to an application from a licence holder or person responsible to vary or revoke, it does not need to give reasons for its decisions when giving notice to the specified persons. That makes sense, because the HFEA is granting what was requested. That measure is aimed at reducing the unnecessary bureaucratic measures that have also been mentioned. When a decision goes against a request, proposed new section 19A(5) will require the applicant to be given reasons for the refusal. I think that that provision satisfies the concerns raised in relation to the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman then asked about the reason for the different categories. It is to cover the different areas—granting, revocation, application or any other variation—so that they are all covered by slightly different notification requirements based on the relevant application. I accept that that might appear more complicated in the Bill, but in practice it will speed up and make clear what applies in the case of different decisions. I hope that that deals with his questions.

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

Again, I thank the Minister for her response. Amendment No. 144 is really a probing amendment on which she has clearly satisfied me. I hear what the she says about amendment No. 145, but I urge her and the relevant officials in the Department to monitor the situation carefully, because there is concern among those applying for licences.

I am intrigued that the Minister says that there has been no delay in applications in the past 12 months—that is not what people have been telling me. What was the point of Tuesday’s debate on delegated powers to speed up the process, if it does not need speeding up? From what she has said today, the process seems to be working well. I suspect, however, that because of the additional potential licence areas with which the HFEA will have to cope when the Bill is enacted, it will receive more licence applications than it has to date. The situation therefore needs to be monitored carefully.

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

I hope that I did not convey any complacency in explaining what has happened in the 2007-08 period. I accept that comments have been made, and the hon. Gentleman is right about needing to be vigilant and ensuring that the process continues to be accurate and timely—without unwarranted delay—unless there is complexity.

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

I confirm that the Minister certainly did not give the impression of complacency on this particular occasion. On that note, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.