Clause 11 - Remit
Human Tissue Bill
9:30 am
Dr Andrew Murrison (Westbury, Conservative)
The amendments deal with the vexed question of qualifying museums, which appear to have assumed a special status in the Bill. The explanatory notes tell us that qualifying museums are those that are open to the public and do not make a profit. Because of that, they appear to have been given several attributes and exclusions that will make their life much easier. We may all say that that is jolly good, but the Bill is about controlling the way that organs and bodies are handled, and it seems extraordinary that those museums should be excluded.
One concern that has been raised by members of the general public relates to the activities of Professor Gunther von Hagens and his ''Bodyworlds'' exhibition. At the very least, that was controversial. It is a matter of opinion as to whether it offended the public sense of good taste or decency, and although I do not think that any Opposition Members would want to see those activities banned out of hand, there is a feeling that they need to be regulated. Of all the activities that we are discussing, this one needs the light of scrutiny poured upon it. It is unusual and new, at least in terms of this century and the last, so we need to delve into it more closely. We need to ensure that the inspectorates that will be set up under the Human Tissue Authority can scrutinise what is going in exhibitions such as ''Bodyworlds'', and in other activities that could spring up.
We understand that the activities of Professor von Hagens were legally controversial at the time. It therefore seems strange that the Bill has not grasped the opportunity of defining what is permitted and what is not. In respect of the other activities under discussion, and in the context of a qualifying museum, one could say that things are being allowed to become institutionally lax.
The group of four amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) would degrade the special consideration that qualifying museums are given in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee why those museums, which are defined by having public access and being not for profit, are given such special handling.
Amendment No. 28 is a presentational amendment. It would insert the word ''the'' in connection with purposes. We merely want to quiz the Minister on her grammar. It seems that ''the'' would improve the way that the Bill reads. I would be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with our interpretation.
The remainder of the amendments stem from what I have been saying about qualifying activities, and probably do not need to be explained in any further depth. I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 83, which would clamp down on the exemptions that can be enjoyed by qualifying museums. It
mentions specifically paragraphs (d) to (f), which refer to activities about which we would be particularly concerned.
Amendment No. 106 would delete clause 29(3)(b) by removing the exemption that qualifying museums have under clause 29. Similarly, amendment No. 129 would delete the exemption that qualifying museums have from the scrutiny of the inspectorates of anatomy and pathology. In the case of such scrutiny by inspectors, I can think of no more compelling an argument than that they should be able to enter qualifying museums, especially given the novel activities that we have seen over the past few years—I am thinking in particular of ''Bodyworlds''.
It is extraordinary that the Bill should specifically state that those museums are excluded from the inspectors' remit. We do not for one moment say that they should be subjected to the increasing bureaucracy that would come with the inspectors, but it is remarkable that they should be specifically excluded from their scrutiny. Indeed, I hope that the inspectors will be able to help qualifying museums to determine how they might proceed with their exhibits. The amendment is meant to be helpful.