Clause 19
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
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.