To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 3 June (WA 88–89) and by Baroness Thornton on 27 October (WA 124), whether the numbers of human gametes and embryos used in research are monitored by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in order to ensure that the proposed use still fulfils the criteria of the research licence upon renewal; and what assessment they have made of how progress in the work undertaken has met the objectives of the original application for research licence R0152. [HL6144]

The numbers of human gametes and embryos used in licensed research are monitored by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in order to ensure that the proposed use still fulfils the criteria of the research licence upon renewal.

Regarding research licence R0152—granted to the Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life—I understand that the HFEA's research licence committee was informed of the number of eggs and embryos used in the research project during 2007, when it considered renewal of the licence. The inspection report to which the committee referred and the minutes of the meeting are available at www.hfea.gov.uk/2015.html#Newcastle_ Fertility_Centre_at_Life-0017 and www.hfea.gov.uk/ 1564.html respectively. The process used to determine whether to renew a research licence is set out in a decision tree used by the licence committee (this can be found at www.hfea.gov.uk/1128.html). One step in this decision tree is a determination of whether the proposed use or creation of human embryos is necessary for the purpose of the research.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 27 October (WA 124), why the Answer stated that a total figure of only 36 human oocytes were used between 11 August 2004 and 3 July 2005 under research licence R0152 when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority indicated in response to a Freedom of Information request (F-2005-00134, cited in correspondence with Lord Alton of Liverpool on 6 August 2007) that 486 human oocytes were used between 11 August 2004 and 31 March 2005. [HL6145]

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the figures supplied in the response to the Freedom of Information request (F-2005-00134) were incorrect. The authority is undertaking a full reconciliation and will write further to the noble Lord.

The total figure supplied for 11 August 2004 to 3 July 2005 in the Written Answer of 27 October (WA 124) is correct, save that the 36 eggs used included 10 failed-to-fertilise eggs, which should have been recorded separately. An amended table is included as follows.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 28 October (WA 151), whether UK Biobank does not expect to receive any applications to use the samples it holds to create cloned human embryos or human admixed embryos because it would not fall within the scope of improving the health of future generations. [HL6146]

UK Biobank has made no judgment of this sort. UK Biobank will give full and proper consideration to any proposal for the use of the samples it holds for the purposes the noble Lord describes if, and when, any such proposal is received.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answers by Baroness Thornton on 28 October (WA 150–51), whether tissue banks providing material for research are required to use contact information at their disposal in order to ensure that researchers can fulfil the requirements of paragraph 21(4) of Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. [HL6147]

There is no legal requirement on tissue banks to use contact information at their disposal to aid researchers.

In considering whether to grant a research licence to a project which proposed to use human cells without consent in the creation of embryos, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would expect the applicant to show that they had complied with the provisions in the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990 (as amended). In particular, the applicant would need to demonstrate that they had taken reasonable steps to contact the cell provider or, where the cell provider was dead, to contact people in a qualifying relationship to the cell provider.