Human Tissue Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Dr. Harris: Will the Minister make clear her perspective on exhibitions such as ''Bodyworlds''? I do not demur from the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said, but where certain conditions are met it should be possible for adults to view displays such as those at ''Bodyworlds'' and to watch anatomical examinations. I imagine that those qualifying conditions would involve the clear consent of the people concerned, as in the consent provisions in part 1, and the licensing of the premises and of the person in charge.

I should like the Minister to confirm that the Government will seize the opportunity presented by the Bill to make it clear that they will not censor properly regulated public displays of human anatomy which adults in this country might wish to see. Indeed, engaging in an informed discussion about what happens to our bodies after our death can demystify aspects of human anatomy. Clearly von Hagens's public post mortem or autopsy was not ideal from many points of view. This is an opportunity to establish what is permitted and how such activities will be regulated rather than to use the measure as an excuse to ban such displays completely.

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): I, too, welcome the amendment and the fact that it seeks clarification from the Minister about exhibitions such as ''Bodyworlds''. As has been stated, the clause puts qualifying museums, which are categorised as not-for-profit museums, outside the authority's remit. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury that some of those museums could probably get good assistance from the inspectorate or the authority on how to exhibit their items. Although they will be outside the authority's remit, ''Bodyworlds'' would presumably have fallen within it because people paid to see it; it was done for profit. I know that about

Column Number: 156

500,000 people saw that exhibition in this country, and on the whole they thought it a worthwhile exhibition. I found it beneficial.

I should like to know how the authority will judge an application like this when it comes before it. Clearly, the Bill's emphasis is on approval and consent, and in this case that would have applied to how the bodies were obtained. I asked the Library to obtain some information for me about the ''Bodyworlds'' exhibition, and I will quote from an interview that Professor von Hagens gave about this time last year. He was asked:

''Is it true that you were illegally supplied with bodies from Novosibirsk, Siberia? If so, are any of them on show in London?''

He replied:

''No. All these allegations are just satisfying the old tradition of mixing body-snatching with anatomy. I agreed that preserved specimens would be sent from Novosibirsk to Heidelberg for plastination and then they would be sent back to Novosibirsk University. They were exported legally— I got the signature of the local customs official and the director of the university. I did not need the consent of the body donors because in Russia, bodies that are not claimed within a certain period of time are transferred by law to anatomy departments. The same law exists in the United States, for example in Maryland. Since the bad publicity, I have cancelled the whole agreement. All the body donors in the exhibition have given their consent.''

The case concerning whether those bodies were obtained legally still continues in the Russian courts. Originally, those supplying them were found not guilty, but now the case is being re-examined. However, the key point in that case was that the law on consent and approval is weaker in Russia and apparently, as Professor von Hagens said, in the United States, and presumably in many other parts of the world. I believe that he is currently having an argument about body parts supplied in China.

Although it is right for us to put the emphasis on consent in the Bill, it will not be possible to tighten the law in relation to an exhibition of that sort unless Professor von Hagens obtains more bodies from voluntary donors in the west, as he has talked about doing. I think that the Human Tissue Authority could have a role in examining that aspect.

There are two other aspects that I want to mention, other than the question of where the bodies came from. One is art. ''Bodyworlds'' was an exhibition that was intended perhaps to shock, to entertain and to make people think. In my view, that is a legitimate purpose, and I wonder how the authority would judge it. Would it have the power to call in art critics to examine that aspect if it were considering such an application?

Dr. Harris: I do not think that authorities involved in regulation should be making subjective judgments on artistic merit. If something is, in principle, lawful, it is up to the visiting public to decide on its merits. If it is a lousy exhibition with no artistic, entertainment or educational value, one relies on the paying members of the public who visit it to make that decision.

Harry Cohen: I hear that point, but my question on the amendment is whether the authority will consider the art aspect at all.

Column Number: 157

Dr. Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Damien Hirst might be co-opted on to the authority?

Harry Cohen: That relates to the point that I am making: how will the authority deal with the art aspect—assuming that that is included in its remit—of such an application? Will it co-opt someone like Damien Hirst, or other critics? Is the Minister saying that the authority should not examine the art aspect, but just consider where the bodies came from and the consent issue, which is the other main theme of the Bill? I do not think that that approach would work for such exhibitions, and it would therefore need to be expanded.

The other point that I was about to make was that exhibitions such as ''Bodyworlds'' have a clear knowledge factor. The exhibition was presented—I was almost going to say that this was the most boring part—as an anatomical exhibition about how different parts of the body work. That was explained in great detail; it was great for a medical student or anyone interested in biology. There might be a case for showing such an exhibition, and perhaps the authority will consider that aspect, or will it be limited to what is rightly the core of the Bill—consent and the origin of body parts? In a groundbreaking exhibition such as this, the authority's remit must be wider. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that.

Ms Winterton: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, raising a number of questions about the authority's ability to judge the artistic relevance of different exhibitions. I shall come back to that later. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) went to the von Hagens exhibition, which he mentioned on Second Reading.

I shall first address the individual amendments and then explain how we intend to address the issue of the qualifying museums. The hon. Member for Westbury said that amendment No. 28 was perhaps a test of grammar; he believes that it would correct a perceived technical flaw in the Bill. However, the problem is that the amendment would limit the clause's flexibility. As drafted, the clause covers any purpose of a qualifying museum, rather than promoting any particular purpose. We do not feel that the amendment is required.

Amendment No. 83 would bring qualifying museums within the licensing regime in respect of post mortems, anatomical examination and the removal of material from the body of a deceased person for use for a scheduled purpose. As members of the Committee know, we all agreed on Second Reading that the Bill was a response to the distress of people whose deceased relatives had had their organs retained for research without the families' consent. At the same time, it is also an attempt to create a framework to support research and development in science and medicine.

Museums have substantial holdings of human remains of historical or archaeological interest, so they deserve special consideration in the Bill. The treatment of human remains held by qualifying museums is not different in ethical terms from that in other sectors that

Column Number: 158

might be affected. Although museums do have substantial holdings of human remains—in a survey commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2002, museums in England alone were found to have more than 61,000 remains in their care—the vast majority of those remains date from before 1900. Many are a great deal older than that: there are archaeological remains ranging across thousands of years, including Egyptian mummies, Lindow man—the body of a prehistoric human found in Cheshire which had been preserved in a bog—items, such as pipes, made from human bones, and reliquaries.

The treatment and use of human remains in museums is the subject of a report by the working group on human remains, which was set up by the DCMS in May 2001 but published its findings only in November 2003. Following on from that report, we plan to launch, in the next few weeks, a consultation on the treatment and use of human remains in museums. The consultation will specifically address whether, and in what manner, museums should be brought within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and the licensing regime, which we could do after the consultation by using the order and regulation-making powers in clauses 11(4) and 13(5).

10 am

Assuming that the Bill is passed, we would be able to use its powers to bring museums within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and the licensing regime. However, we would do that only in a way that is sensitive and appropriate to the needs of the museum sector, working in the context of a Bill that is aimed mainly at modern or recent remains that have been obtained in a medical or clinical setting.

We are undertaking the consultation exercise to assess the manner in which the licensing regime should apply to qualifying museums. The consultation will also address the financial impact on the museums sector of bringing it within the licensing regime. Although we are confident that a museum such as the Natural History museum could afford to be under the licensing regime, we need to establish the impact that the change might have on smaller institutions.

One example of such an institution would be the Old Operating Theatre museum in Borough high street, London. It has only a small number of staff and limited facilities, but houses the only surviving Victorian operating theatre, which it makes available to the public. The Committee will understand that we want to make a proper assessment of how such museums would be affected by the licensing regime. I understand the points that have been raised, but that is how we are planning to act and, as Members will know, the Bill contains powers to make that possible.

I turn to the detail of amendment No. 83. As the hon. Member for Westbury said, it is designed to prevent the scenario suggested on Second Reading in which Professor von Hagens or someone like him collaborated with a qualifying museum in putting on exhibitions or demonstrations and thereby avoided regulation.

Column Number: 159

First, that scenario is unlikely. Professor von Hagens operates a commercial enterprise and makes a profit by charging for access to his exhibitions. To escape regulation, he would need to become a qualifying museum. He would be required to maintain a permanent collection that was open to the public and to become a not-for-profit enterprise. It would not be sufficient for him merely to make use of rooms in the grounds of a qualifying museum. Even if he performed a public autopsy in such grounds free of charge, he would still fall under regulation unless he could establish that he maintained a permanent collection available to the public on a non-commercial basis. We certainly do not think that Professor von Hagens would willingly give up all his profits, particularly in the light of the very expensive process of plastination.

Secondly, the amendments do not cover the full scope of von Hagens' activities. They cover the performance of a public autopsy in a qualifying museum, but leave open the possible display of plastinated corpses—which is von Hagens' main activity and source of income—particularly if performed in a qualifying museum.

 

---

Prepared 3 February 2004