Schedule 5
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
12:30 pm

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

I have a couple of questions about the schedule, which provides detail on inspection, entry, search and seizure. First, are the premises searched and the dates on which they are searched publicised? Is it public information? Is compensation paid if search and seizure has taken place but there was no prosecution or variation in licence? That is one reason why I asked a little earlier—a question that the Minister could not today answer—how many seizures have taken place since the 1990 Act came into force.

Secondly, how much notice, if any, needs to be given for entry under the schedule, or is it merely random, with those doing the inspection turning up as and when they see fit? Indeed, it may be sensible for someone to be there to demonstrate that there is nothing wrong or untoward with the licence.

If my understanding is correct, provisions in earlier parts of the Bill allow third parties to be contracted by the HFEA to enter and inspect premises under the schedule. Will permission need to be granted by the authority for those arm’s length bodies to undertake that work in individual cases, or will it be a block contract, with the bodies inspecting on behalf of the HFEA acting on their own discretion?

The Minister answered my question about two years, but I want clarification of a further matter in relation to paragraph 7(1)(a) to proposed schedule 3B about seizure in the course of inspection. I am puzzled as to why the HFEA or a body acting on its behalf would want seize anything when granting a licence or varying a licence at the request of a person who already has one. I understand why seizure might be applicable in revocation or suspension cases, particularly if it is to be used for evidence for the proceedings detailed in paragraph 7(2) to proposed schedule 3B.

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

We covered the question of qualified inspectors not directly employed by the HFEA in a previous debate, and what they would inspect—the laboratories and equipment, rather than some of the other issues. It would be necessary for that person to be a qualified inspector.

As for periods of inspection and notice of inspection, I do not have information to hand on that; it operates at present, and as far as I know we have not had any problems. However, if the evidence justifies it, we need to allow for spot inspections. I shall need to include that in the letter that I have written to the hon. Gentleman; it will be a subset. He asked whether details of seizures will be made public—perhaps on the HFEA website—and if there is no such obligation, why not. There may be some caveats, so I shall certainly write to him on that.

The last point raised by the hon. Gentleman was about compensation when a search has taken place. No provision has been made for compensation. The whole point is that those making inspections and seizures under the 1990 Act should act reasonably. That means within a certain time, and it also requires a reason for the inspection. All that would have to be demonstrated, and I will put that into the letter too.

This regime has worked well. The hon. Gentleman will need to be satisfied when I give him the details of how many revocations there have been and how many inspections have resulted in revocation, but I say to him that the whole point of the regime is that it does not need to be used often and in the period since 1990—apart from the required inspections—those spot inspections or seizures have not been used often. I hope that I will be able to reassure him and other members of the Committee on that in writing.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Perhaps she could add to that list of paragraphs in the letter that she is going to write a brief explanation of the last point that I made regarding paragraph 7(1)(a). In other words, why is it necessary to have as grounds for the seizure the purposes of the authority’s functions relating to the granting or variation of a licence, which would include the variation of a licence at the behest of a licensee? I cannot think of any situation where anything would be seized in those circumstances.

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

I am happy to confirm that I will address that point. I apologise for missing it.