Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 27, 117 and 118. Amendments Nos. 24, 25, and 26 relate to Clause 29 of the Bill, which amends Section 41 of the 1990 Act that sets out offences under the Act. These amendments are minor and technical and carry forward existing provisions in the 1990 Act. A licence or appeals committee of the HFEA has the power to require, or summons, oral or written evidence. If the summons is not complied with, it is an offence under the 1990 Act. This is set out in Section 41(7) of the Act, which states that if there is not a reasonable excuse as to why the summons for evidence has not been complied with, a person is guilty of an offence. The Bill has the same power for an appeals or licence committee to require evidence but does not, as currently drafted, make it an offence not to comply with the request. These amendments would ensure that the power under new Sections 19B and 20B could be enforced. Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 amend Schedule 8 to the Bill, which sets out the sections of the 1990 Act that will be repealed. These amendments ensure that the relevant sections of the Act are not repealed. Amendment No. 28 relates to the process, set out by the 1990 Act, for appealing against licence decisions. Clause 21 of the Bill replaces these provisions in the 1990 Act with new Sections 20, 20A, 20B and 21. These provisions set out the process for reconsideration and appeals. Clause 21 introduces two regulation-making powers, at new Sections 20A(3) and 20B(2), to make provision for the proceedings and membership of an appeals committee, and procedure in relation to reconsideration of licence decisions. It was deemed appropriate to make these provisions through regulations rather than in the Bill so that the detail could be consulted upon. Both regulations are subject to negative resolution under the Bill. Amendment No. 28 makes these regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and follows discussions on this issue during Public Bill Committee in another place. In light of these discussions, and taking into account the likely interest and importance of these regulations, I believe that the affirmative procedure is more appropriate. The Department of Health will consult on the detail of these regulations in due course. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26.—(Baroness Thornton.) On Question, Motion agreed to.