Clause 11 - Remit
Human Tissue Bill
9:45 am
Mr Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead, Labour)
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
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?