To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 10 February (WA 135–7), what were the services provided to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) by Hanover Communications during 2007 and 2008; what were the public relations matters that necessitated such services; whether such services were in addition to those provided by the HFEA's Head of Communications and Press Officer; and whether the HFEA's Head of Inspection received the same financial support to fulfil the authority's regulatory role. [HL2385]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 27 January (WA 337), to what the Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was referring when writing in the internal memo placed in the Library of the House that “something clearly has gone wrong—badly wrong over a sustained length of time”; how that was communicated by the HFEA to the public; how long the authority's Head of Inspection had been aware of those issues; and how the relevant concerns are being addressed. [HL2386]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 8 February (WA 81–2), why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) does not hold a record of the particular witnessing system used in each licensed centre; how that relates to moves towards risk-based regulation following the Toft report; and how Trish Davies affected the way the HFEA ensures compliance, as described by the HFEA chief executive in his press statement on 11 January 2010. [HL2387]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 22 February (WA 214), which employees of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have been responsible for the loss of records following requests by researchers; and why losses that could only be described at disproportionate cost were not included amongst the cases of misconduct described in the Written Answer on 8 February (WA 81–2). [HL2388]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 8 February (WA 81–2), why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's Compliance Report for February 2009 stated there were no Grade A incidents at the time; how the HFEA had reclassified the grades of serious incidents; why; what were the dates for the initial reporting of incidents 01073 and 01079 at centre 0102; and at what point incidents 01073 and 01079 were subsequently classified as Grade A incidents (as described in the HFEA's press statement on 4 January). [HL2389]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 8 February (WA 81–2), whether incident 01079 at centre 0102 was considered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to be closed on 23 March 2009; whether incident 01073 at centre 0102 was initially considered by the HFEA to be closed before 23 March 2009; and why the HFEA contacted Mr Yacoub Khalaf again regarding those incidents after contact with the Sunday Times on 24 April 2009 (prior to publication of an article on 26 April 2009). [HL2390]

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that the services provided to the authority by Hanover Communications during 2007 and 2008 were strategic communications advice regarding regulatory action and associated litigation regarding licensed centres 0157 and 0206. These services were in addition to those provided by the HFEA's head of communications and press officer. The HFEA has also advised that the head of inspection did not receive the same financial support.

HFEA has advised that the matter to which its chief executive was referring is described in paragraph 2 of that same internal memo, which, I am informed, has been given to the noble Lord. As individual cases relating to this matter were resolved, details were placed on the HFEA’s website. In addition, a programme of change at the HFEA (known as “Programme 2010”) was commenced in late 2007 and extensively publicised. This programme has now been completed. To assess its effectiveness, the HFEA has commenced an internal governance review. Again, I am informed that the terms of reference of the review have been provided to the noble Lord.

The HFEA has advised that it does not hold a record of the particular witnessing system used in each licensed centre because it considers that this is not necessary to fulfil its statutory duties. The HFEA has implemented the recommendations of the Toft report and, in 2007, further recommendations regarding witnessing were incorporated into the seventh edition of the authority’s code of practice. With regard to Ms Trish Davies, the HFEA has advised that it has nothing to add to the press statement of 11 January 2010.

With respect to the nature of the disproportionate costs referred to in my Written Answer of 8 February 2010 (Official Report, cols. WA 81-2) the HFEA has advised that it would need to scrutinise all records created since 1991 in order to establish whether any have been lost following a request from researchers. The resources that this would involve would be substantial and would breach the £800 cost limit.

The incidents at centre 0102 relate to a complaint against the HFEA about the handling of events to which the noble Lord refers. This complaint is currently the subject of an investigation. Once the investigation into this complaint is complete, the HFEA has undertaken to inform the noble Lord of the outcome.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 19 January (WA 224–5), whether the use of women's eggs for research is considered a serious matter by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts provide for an egg producing an embryo by parthenogenesis. [HL2443]

To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) received a copy of the document by Dr Alexandra Plows and others entitled Should scientific researchers be allowed to ask women to provide their eggs for disease research?—A statement of concerns in response to the current HFEA consultation; how the HFEA responded to each of the points raised therein; and why the HFEA did not include that document alongside Annexe F in the paper for a meeting held on 21 February 2007 (agenda item 8). [HL2444]

To ask Her Majesty's Government from whom the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority obtained permission to reproduce the Summary of Edinburgh meeting in a document published on its website. [HL2445]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Baroness Thornton on 8 February (WA 81–2), when Trish Davies highlighted that laboratory operators were the source of the majority of errors reported as “category A incidents”; and what solution was proposed by Dr Stephen Troup of Liverpool Women's Hospital at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s annual conference on 15 March 2005.[HL2448]

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that, regarding the use of eggs for research, it has nothing to add to the information that I gave in my Written Answer of 19 January 2010 (Official Report, cols. WA 224-5). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, applies to embryos, whether created by means of fertilisation or by parthenogenesis.

The HFEA has advised that the response from Dr Alexandra Plows and others, to which the noble Lord refers, was received and considered during the authority's public consultation in 2006. It is referred to in Annexe D to the paper to which the noble Lord also refers.

The HFEA has advised that the document Summary of Edinburgh Meeting, to which the noble Lord refers, is a publicly available document.

In respect of the noble Lord's final Question, the HFEA has advised that it understands this reference to relate to a written account of the authority's annual conference 2005, by Dr Neville Cobb, published on the website of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics. The HFEA has no comment to make about third-party accounts of its proceedings.