REMIT (Hansard, 28 June 2004)

Ms Winterton
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 9, line 30, leave out from 'if' to end of line 31 and insert—

'(a) it relates to the body of a person who died before the day on which this section comes into force or to material which has come from the body of such a person, and

(b)at least one hundred years have elapsed since the date of the person's death.'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74.

Ms Winterton
These amendments fall within the policy area of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Nevertheless, I am delighted to present them. In the present draft of the Bill, "qualifying museums" are excluded from the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and from the licensing regime, as it is not our policy intention to regulate museums holding human remains in the same way as tissue banks. Since we discussed the Bill in Committee, however, the archaeological community has pointed out that the Bill as drafted might criminalise the examination of excavated remains to discover the cause of death, if this were undertaken without a licence, and not for the purposes of a "qualifying museum'.
109 Determining the cause of death is an activity that archaeologists undertake occasionally, and not all archaeologists' work would necessarily be connected with the purposes of a "qualifying museum". The identification of diseases causing death may help to shed light on past human health, and the examination of fatal wounds sometimes seen on skeletons may be undertaken to shed light on warfare and violence in past societies. Under the Bill as drafted, this activity might fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and the licensing regime, which could result in its coming within the scope of the offence set out in clause 22, which carries a potential prison term of up to three years if the activity is undertaken without a licence.
It was obviously not the Government's intention that the archeological community should be subject to the regulatory regime imposed by the Bill. The Government are therefore proposing amendments that will except human remains from the licensing provisions where those remains come from an individual who dies before the new regime comes into force and where there is a gap of more than 100 years between the date of death and the undertaking of a regulated activity.
For example, public display of a prehistoric skeleton will be unregulated whereas display of remains from a person who died six months after the relevant provisions come into force will be regulated. That includes Gunther von Hagens' plastinates. This will align the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and the licensing system with the consent requirements in part 1 and the DNA provisions in part 3.
In the light of that, the Government are also proposing to remove the qualifying museum exemption. As we said in Committee, the vast majority of remains in museums date from before 1900. That was the basis for the qualifying museum exemption. However, if the licensing regime is restricted to activities in relation to remains of people who have been dead for fewer than 100 years, as the vast majority of the human remains in museums are older than that, the Government see no need for the qualifying museum exemption.
Additionally, the removal of the exemption responds to representations made by hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee that we should ensure that the display of more modern remains, and other activities undertaken in relation to such remains, should be regulated irrespective of where that takes place.
All those amendments will impose very few extra burdens on the museum sector and will avoid the unintended imposition of regulatory burdens on activities such as archaeology. It is anticipated that the cost to licensed institutions will be proportionate to the number of remains held by them that fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority and the licensing regime. As museums hold few remains that are likely to fall into that category, the impact on the museum sector will therefore be very small. Licensing will be imposed only in respect of modern remains, which the Government believe should be licensed.
We therefore propose that amendments to clauses 11, 13 and 33 be made to achieve that effect and that clause 42, which provides the exemption for qualifying museums, be omitted. I commend the amendments to the House.

§ Dr. Murrison
We broadly welcome the amendments. We have all seen on our television screens the delightful archaeological programmes that deal with, among other things, debate on cause of death, usually related to mediaeval remains. In that context I am a little dubious, I suppose, about the 100 years that the Minister cites. Most remains in which we have an interest relating to cause of death, mortality and morbidity are probably a great deal older. Indeed, 100 years is not a long period in terms of people's knowledge of antecedents and so forth. So, 100 years seems a strange cut-off point and I would be interested in the Minister's explanation of how it came to pass.
Government amendment No. 74 is also welcome, although I do not know whether it is bad form to construct a clause and then delete it entirely at this stage. It seems very strange, but I nevertheless welcome the removal of the special exemption given to so-called qualifying museums. Several of us discussed in Committee our unhappiness with various displays that we have seen recently, in particular those of Professor Gunther von Hagens involving his plastinates. At best, we can say that those offended the sensibilities of a number of our constituents. Had they looked into this matter, many of them would have been rather surprised had such displays been exempted from a measure of this sort. I am glad that that is no longer the case and that qualifying museums will be subject to the rigour of the Human Tissue Authority. That is to be warmly welcomed.
I wonder a bit about the costs of licensing for museums. The Minister says that they will be small, but I can think of museums with reasonably extensive remains of more than 100 years old. I suspect that they are less than reassured by her comments and will be wondering what cost they will have to face, given that in many cases their budgets are not large. It would be good to have a more precise estimation of what sort of financial burden licensing will be for them.

§ Ms Rosie Winterton
At this point, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an estimate of the cost to museums. Clearly, however, officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been liaising closely with museums, and have made it clear that there will be very little burden on the museum sector. As I said, the cost to licensed institutions will be proportionate to the number of remains held by them within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority.
With regard to the point about 100 years, the issue is that that is in uniformity with the clauses on DNA and consent, which were designed so that there would be no living memory of patients. I hope that the House will support the amendments.