Human Tissue Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Dr. Murrison: I might have misunderstood. Just for clarification, is the Minister saying that, hypothetically, Professor von Hagens would not be able to find a qualifying museum in this country in which to mount one of his displays or to carry out some of the activities that he carried out a couple of years ago? Is she saying that he would have to have his own museum set up legally as a separate entity?

Ms Winterton: It would not be sufficient for Professor von Hagens simply to make use of the rooms in a museum. He would have to have a permanent collection that was open to the public, and that itself would have to be licensed.

I reassure the Committee that even if museums are not brought under the licensing regime—as I have said, we are consulting on the issue; we want to be quite clear about the implications for the qualifying museums—if a qualifying museum were somehow to stage such an exhibition, the Government would certainly use the powers under subsection(4) to bring the exhibition within the licensing regime. We see that as the way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead talked about the source of bodies and unclaimed bodies going to the anatomy department as in Russia. It is quite clear that, because of the strict consent required—in writing, witnessed, and so on—the Bill makes it impossible for that to happen in this country. In addition, the Human Tissue Authority will establish conditions on import and public display so that we can make sure that appropriate consents have been given.

We have to recognise, as I said in earlier debates, that there may be different ways of consent being given in different countries and that we cannot necessarily apply exactly the same standards, but because of the regulation of imports, the Human Tissue Authority would want to see some evidence of consent. I also reassure my hon. Friend that we are not talking about

Column Number: 160

banning public display. We want matters to be appropriately regulated, and for the consent for public display to be clear and explicit.

I turn to the question of art. The Human Tissue Authority will regulate the display of human tissue and license it in certain circumstances, but the Government are not seeking to determine what is or is not art. We do not envisage that being in the remit of the Human Tissue Authority.

Dr. Harris: Will the Minister respond to the question I asked? How does she see the Human Tissue Authority acting on the question of public displays? I hope that, assuming the appropriate consent and that all the licensing requirements are met, she envisages no problem with a display, including that of a publicly visible autopsy that adults in this country can see. The Government were quite negative about the matter at the time, perhaps for reasons to do with consent.

Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. The issue was about consent. We have taken the opportunity of this Bill to make it very clear that we require high levels of consent—in writing, witnessed, and so on—that somebody wishes their body to be used for such purposes. However, as I have said, we are not seeking to ban such practice; we are simply seeking to ensure that it is properly regulated and licensed.

Amendment No. 106 would remove the ability of qualifying museums under clause 29(3)(b) to acquire human remains by purchase without committing a criminal offence other than by seeking designation from the Human Tissue Authority. We adopted the policy in that subsection because of the differences, which we have already discussed, between the museums sector and medical and scientific facilities, which are the main target of the Bill. Clause 29 is primarily aimed at prohibiting the trade in organs, but museums do not sell or buy organs. They have no purpose in doing so, and nor would they have the facilities even if they decided to do so. The intention of the Bill is to maintain the status quo and to enable qualifying museums to continue to acquire in connection with their publicly available collection policies in the certainty that they will not be committing a criminal offence by so doing. Although much of what museums would try to buy, such as Egyptian mummies, has been subject to the application of human skill, and so falls outside the restriction, museums are interested in the acquisition of other categories of human remains that are not widely available and which they may conceivably have to acquire by purchase. The Natural History museum in London, for example, might wish to acquire a ''bog man''.

Amendment No. 129 would delete subsection (3) of clause 33, thereby bringing museums into the remit of the inspectorate of anatomy and pathology. The issues and the reasons that we oppose the amendment are almost identical to those I set out in replying on amendment No. 83, so I will not go through them all again. I reiterate just that we will be launching a consultation in the next few weeks to address the issue

Column Number: 161

of whether museums should be brought within the licensing regime, and that because the working group on human remains produced its report only in November, we have not had time fully to consult the museums sector on the proposal. It would not be appropriate to bring the qualifying museums under the licensing regime immediately.

Although we certainly share the concern expressed by hon. Members that Professor von Hagens should not be allowed to exhibit or stage demonstrations unregulated, the order and regulation-making powers in the Bill give us the facility to bring Professor von Hagens into regulation and within the remit of the inspectorate of anatomy. That is a much more sensible and cautious way to proceed at this stage.

We think that this is a much more sensible and cautious way to proceed at this stage. I hope that with those reassurances, hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

10.15 am

Dr. Murrison: I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive account. I am reassured because we seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. The amendments may come to pass as a result of the consultation exercise that she told us about today, and I welcome that necessary exercise. It is a pity that it was not conducted before we drafted the Bill. I am also reassured by the Minister's assurance that she is prepared to use the powers granted to her under clause 11(4) in the event of someone like Professor von Hagens needing to be investigated and his activities needing to be restricted in some way. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

remit

Mr. Lansley: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in

clause 11, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 30, in

clause 11, page 9, line 30, leave out from 'order', to 'to' in line 31 and insert 'vary, omit or add'.

Mr. Lansley: Amendment No. 29 effectively would delete subsection (4), the purpose of which was initially to test the question of what the Ministers had in mind by adding to the activities. We have learned from the previous debate what Ministers have in mind as a possibility of adding to the activities within the remit of the authority.

On amendment No. 30, there remains the substantive question; why it is the Government's intention to have the power to add to the activities within the remit of the authority, but not to be able to vary, omit or add to activities in relation to other matters, such as scheduled purposes within the remit

Column Number: 162

of the authorities, as we have seen illustrated? Although there were changes in the scheduled purposes, by extension they would automatically change so far as the remit of the authority was concerned. It may be that as time goes on and in ways we cannot yet determine, the authority will see a necessity not only for additional activities, but to vary the terms in which its activities are defined, or even omit some of those activities.

In so far as the scientific and research community and the commercial biotechnologies industries are concerned, the licensing regime and the requirements of the authority create some burdens. It is desirable to contemplate, in the long run, that the authority may wish to pursue a deregulatory path at some point. It may be that it will want to retain activities within its remit but behave in a different way. However, current legislation may not allow it to do so. It may be that the only way in which to pursue a self-regulatory path would be to remove activities from the remit of the authority. At the moment there seems to be no mechanism for that to happen, even if the authority were satisfied, in practice, that some activities were capable of being conducted in a perfectly lawful manner without being licensed and regulated by the authorities.

Amendment No. 30 opens up the possibility that the authority could have a deregulatory intent with the consent of the Secretary of State at some future point, as well as responding to changes in circumstances with regard to these activities.

Ms Winterton: In drawing up the Bill, it was vital to ensure a comprehensive framework so that all sections and interest groups—everyone who contributed to our wide consultation—felt that all aspects were covered. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is important for the integrity of the Bill that the remit of the authority remains comprehensive in terms of its job regarding the oversight of the keeping, use and disposal of bodies. It would not be right to have the ability to remove aspects of that remit from the Bill. The public and those who had an interest in helping us to put together this important Bill would not want an ability to remove anything from the list of functions. That might undermine confidence in the Bill.

Over and above that, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, we have already highlighted that there is something that we might wish to add to the Bill. I will not go over that again, because I think that he completely understands that point. The approach taken to the regulatory mechanism in the Bill is not unlike that taken in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. We examined that legislation closely when preparing the Human Tissue Bill. In the 1990 Act, the general functions of the authority are set out in section 8 and can be extended under section 8(d). However, as with the Bill before us, the functions cannot be reduced. Similarly, there is no provision to reduce, by means of regulation, the regulatory oversight of the key activities of creating and keeping embryos outside and of storing embryos. The integrity of the scheme is maintained in the same way in the Bill, which is based closely on previous legislation.

Column Number: 163

As I said, we have carefully considered the powers under the Bill. Obviously, there may be instances in which we might wish to add to those, and we have touched on them. However, in terms of maintaining the confidence—and, on many issues, the consensus—achieved in the Bill, it is appropriate to say that the functions can be added to, but not taken away. With those explanations, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

 

---

Prepared 3 February 2004