Lord Boateng
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the offence caused to the indigenous peoples affected by the sale of human body parts in public auctions, and their display and retention in public collections.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, this Question and its answer are not to be confused with, and set no precedent in relation to any issue with, the Benin Bronzes or the Elgin marbles, important though they are—they also demand a just and equitable resolution. This Question is about a shared and common humanity, basic common decency and the sanctity in death of the human body in all its parts, in any shape or form, of any age, race or religion. It is about respect for diverse belief systems and the spiritual longing in us all for rest and resolution. The trade in human body parts is an affront to all of the above and is, literally and figuratively, an abomination. The retention of those human parts in any shape or form, without the option of return or decent disposition according to the wishes and sacred rites of their community of origin, is deeply offensive.
The question was put this way by one affected person:
“How would you feel knowing that one of your family members is in some strange place and more importantly hasn’t been afforded the right burial? This has an impact on the psyche of a group”.
This question was put some years ago by Ned David, then chair of the Torres Strait land council. He was recalling the comments of an elder among his people. It is a good question, and I wonder how any of us in this Room would answer it. How would the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, answer it? One of his ancestors was a governor in Virginia—at that time the site of numerous skirmishes with the native indigenous peoples of the state. Another was a soldier in the Russo-Turkish war. If history had turned out another way, could the noble Earl’s ancestor’s scalp have turned up for sale in a public auction in Oxfordshire—the site of numerous attempts to auction human body parts—or on the world wide web where, I fear, scalps are on sale to this very day? If, on a visit to the Ottoman Naval Museum in Istanbul, a quite remarkable museum that I have been to on a number of occasions, he was to find his noble ancestor’s skull in the shape of a goblet—because that is the reality for many people in this day and age—how would we feel?
The offence is real and the hurt continues from generation to generation. This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease. The legislative and other obstacles to their return should be removed. I hope the Minister’s answer will give us some cause for hope that this will now happen, albeit belatedly.
As a first step, the guidance issued to museums by the department needs to be strengthened so there is a presumption in favour of the return of human body parts, whether modified or not, on request by the affected persons and originating community groups, and we need a national data base so that we know what is held in our public collections—because at the moment we do not. Will the Minister undertake to do that and convene a group of experts to advise her department on the way forward on this and other issues affecting human remains, and will Ministers ensure that the voices of indigenous communities affected are heard in this process? Will the Minister agree to meet, with me and other interested parties, some of those indigenous groups when they visit Britain, as I know they intend to, in June and October this year?
The Government of which I was a part sought, almost a quarter of a century ago now, to give effect to a joint statement by the then Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, saying that we
“recognise the special connection that Indigenous communities have with ancestral remains, particularly where they are living descendants”.
There has been insufficient progress since that statement was made by the two Prime Ministers, albeit the Minister’s distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, produced some excellent recommendations and charted a way forward, which sadly was not followed up by the subsequent Conservative Government, despite several opportunities to do so. I hope that the expectation is that the Minister will give us some indication that, in response to this grievous and continuing wrong and this gaping hole in legislation, the need to implement our international obligations will be met and recognised by this new Labour Government.
But the good news—and there is good news—is that despite this dismal tale of theft, disrespect, and the continuing retention of the parts of fellow human beings in public institutions and their hideous and deeply offensive sale as objects of curiosity in public auction and on the world wide web, there are some outstanding examples of good practice to be found in the work of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford and of a number of charities that have worked over many years to address this issue. The Honouring the Ancient Dead initiative, or HAD, offers museums the opportunity to register the human remains that they hold, and the work of Survival International and the organisation Routes to Return are cases in point—plus the work of campaigning journalists, such as Patrick Pester, who have exposed the worst excesses of this odious trade.
We can build on this good practice, and I hope that the Minister’s answer indicates that our Government will do just that—but the bad practice needs to be addressed also, by museum trustees themselves now, as a matter of urgency. They should not have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to change their current practice and interpretation of all too often ambiguous law to do the right thing. Chief among these recalcitrants, as in other matters, is the British Museum—forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot, and ripe as an institution for long-overdue reform.
Take this as an example: the museum’s returns policy starts with the presumption that the collection will remain intact. As a result of that, it has refused to hand over several—indeed, there are seven—preserved Māori tattooed heads, as well as the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait Islands that have been decorated for use in divination. One of the descendants of those persons from the Torres Strait Islands said this:
“They are bastards, mate, bloody bastards. I can’t say anything good about them, man. They’re just—well, they’re the British Museum. I guess no one tells them what to do, eh? There’s not an ounce of humanity in that group. They’re bloody thieves. They stole it. They nicked it. There’s no way in the world they have any right to hold on to those remains”.
I conclude with that. Those are the words of an indigenous person affected. We need to hear them. We need to give effect to our signing of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. We need to make ourselves an example of best practice, which we can do with the good will, talent and expertise that is to be found in the museum sector in this country.
I hope that, in her answer, the Minister will enable us to build on those relationships and that capacity so that we have a sense of pride in a common humanity—in a shared past and a lived present that is a source of pride rather than a source of shame, and which is rooted in respect for the bodies of our ancestors.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for raising this important issue and securing this short debate. I am an anatomist who led a large teaching and research department for 15 years. I am also a forensic anthropologist. So I understand the legislation surrounding human remains, their ownership, their display and the macabre fringe community that finds this subject of interest and value.
The law regarding both the purchase and the sale of human remains is fragmented and remains largely unchallenged until an incident occurs, which is not rare. This weakness is exploited by those who seek financial gain from the sale of the dead. Most human remains are housed in museums or licensed anatomical premises, where they are regulated or have guidelines for a code of conduct, but the legal status regarding those held privately remains ambiguous and open to both commoditisation and exploitation.
If death occurred within the last 100 years, human remains fall within the remit of the Human Tissue Act 2004 —the HTA. Therefore, those who died prior to 1925—in the lifetimes of my grandparents—do not carry such protective legislation. It is also important to note that the HTA requires consent and makes only sale for the purposes of transplantation illegal.
What about those remains that fall outside these restricted boundaries? There is a buoyant market in the sale of body parts from the deceased. In 2012, Etsy led the way by banning the sale of all human remains; eBay followed suit in 2016. Both deem it unacceptable to be responsible for the sale of any part of a human.
What is being bought? Where do these remains come from? Are they people or are they property? In English law, there is no property in a human body. However, if an element of skill or technical process is applied to the remains, they can be classified as an object of art and legally bought or sold—so there is precedent.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld a conviction against an individual who stole anatomical specimens from London’s Royal College of Surgeons on the grounds that the application of skill to create the specimens technically made them property and that, therefore, their removal was a legitimate theft. Is it not ironic that the law recognises the skills but not the propriety of the deceased person who became property?
Real human bones as objects of alleged art can be found for sale mainly online but also in curiosity or Gothic shops, where they have been turned into lamps. Skulls are carved with symbols and images or dentally altered to look like vampires. There is jewellery made out of human teeth and bones. There are skulls with their teeth removed and coffin nails drilled into each cavity. There are human bones turned into pieces for Ouija boards or chess sets, as well as wind chimes made out of human ribs. There are also—I apologise for the image—earrings made out of freeze-dried human foetuses. We are not just talking about the skeletons of adults; these are also the remains of children, babies and foetuses. It is shameful, deeply disrespectful and unacceptable to any decent person.
Where did these remains come from? There is an increase in vandalism of graveyards and forced entry into crypts and mausolea. Twenty-one skulls were stolen from an ossuary in a Kent church, with the intention to sell them on social media. Each human skull can sell for around £l,000, and if there is mummified skin or hair attached to it, it can fetch more. A child’s skull will fetch over £4,000. The majority of specimens in private hands, however, are the result of trade from impoverished societies. They may be trophies from antiquarians of the past or, more likely, originate from the medical supply trade of the last 150 years. At its peak, India was exporting over 60,000 skeletons each year for the instruction of medical and dental students. It was a lucrative colonial trade route, from remote Indian villages to the distinguished medical schools of the West. India placed a ban on sales in 1985 but, prior to that, almost every doctor and dentist trained in the UK had access to a real human skeleton that they had purchased.
Hundreds of thousands of human remains are in circulation, sourced mainly from India without consent. The means of acquiring these remains was unethical by today’s standards and, I would argue, by any standard. They were acquired by our medical schools and they have, in turn, been handed down to family members and frequently, of course, brought out to decorate at Halloween. Over time, though, people have started to become uncomfortable about the box of teaching bones in the attic, the skeleton hanging in the school biology laboratory or the articulated foot in the doctor’s surgery, and they wish to divest the responsibility for housing the remains of these unnamed deceased. Even the anatomical departments now shy away from the use of real human remains, replacing them with plastic teaching skeletons.
What should we do with all those real bones? Museums will not accept them without a licence and neither will anatomy departments. So the artists, the collectors and the macabre curiosity sellers will buy them and sell them—thousands of them. The Human Tissue Act 2004 provides no assistance for the management of these remains, even though they were purchased for the purpose of instruction in human anatomy—indeed, traders often quote the Human Tissue Act to legitimise their sale. The critical issue, as we have heard, is surely about dignity, decency and respect for the remains of those who have gone before us, and our responsibility, as the living, to speak for the dead and protect them from exploitation. How can we tolerate desecration or mutilation of human remains with impunity, when, as a society, we will send somebody to prison for 10 years for desecrating a statue?
We have a precedent in law that bans the sale of ivory but, ironically, we have no legislation that bans the sale of human remains, except for transplantation. Surely the overarching responsibility is to ensure respect for the deceased, and it should not be measured by how long they have been dead or whether we can attribute a name to their bones. I therefore hope that the Minister will take heed and help us take a global lead in instigating an outright ban on the sale and purchase of any part of a dead body. Surely it is unconscionable to do anything less. It should be a very simple process that would affect only the traders, because museums and anatomy departments do not sell human remains.
I think we should set up a task force of experienced personnel who can advise the Government and help find the best way forward. We could create an amnesty for the material that currently exists in our private collections, but I think that we must, surely, create a robust legal framework that bans the sale of the dead and addresses what is currently held in these private collections. It is no accident that when we choose to bury those we love, we trust that they will “rest in peace”. That should apply to all. We already have precedent and some guidance to work with; we just need to become international leaders, with a strong moral compass, through a simple mechanism that protects and prioritises the dignity and decency of, and respect for, the dead.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who made an extremely powerful and obviously expert speech. I will come back to her point about the chance of global leadership here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this debate and apologise for missing the first few seconds of his speech—I will get my printer sorted out one day.
It is disappointing that there are so few speakers in this debate. In the Chamber, they have just finished a debate on the UK’s global position, and I had to drop out of that to be able to take part in this debate. But what we are debating here is important not just as a moral or a legal issue; it is an issue of major importance to the UK’s standing and place in the world and to the way we are regarded by particularly significant parts of the world—parts that it is crucial to work with to defend human rights and the rule of law when major global players seek instead to impose the rule of might and the cynical interests of corporations over the well-being of the human and more-than-human world.
I feel it is important to declare my own position here. I come from a white settler background in Australia, and I grew up on unceded lands that were stolen from the Aboriginal people. My speech will focus particularly on public ownership of human remains—the noble Baroness, Lady Black, already covered private ownership very well. In acknowledging my Australian origins, I will begin with a single tale—it is just one, and there are many more—of the genocide with which white settlers established themselves on the Australian continent. It is a story of one man and of barbarous settler behaviour.
On the land of the Bunuba people in what is now Western Australia, Jandamarra became a famous leader of the indigenous resistance. For three years, he was hunted by settlers and police, until in 1897, when he was aged about 24, he was cornered by the police, shot and killed, and his body was beheaded. His skull was sent as a colonial trophy to a private museum in a gun factory in Birmingham. The factory was demolished in the 1960s and Jandamarra’s skull has disappeared. Bunuba elders and researchers continue to this day to search for that skull. His story is very important to indigenous people and other people in Australia. It was first put on stage as a play at the 2008 Perth International Arts Festival and, more recently, it was staged with the Bunuba people by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. That is my telling of an indigenous story.
I also want to put on the record the words of another indigenous leader from another continent, with another coloniser: Mnyaka Sururu Mboro. Speaking for his ancestors, in Berlin, last year, he opened a symposium on colonial human remains with these words:
“Free us from the museums. Free us from the basements where they spray us now and then with disinfectant. Free us from the universities, from the clinics where they keep us on the shelves with the skulls of monkeys, gorillas and orangutans. Free us from the depots where we cannot breathe. Bring us back home and rest us in peace forever”.
At the conference where those words were said, he also told a story told to him by his grandmother about an acacia tree where she, with hundreds of others, was forced in 1900 to witness the hangings of 19 regional leaders, among them Mangi Meli. He was regarded as the most senior, so he was the last to die. After he was hanged, the Germans chopped off Mangi Meli’s head and took it for their colonial collections. There is no record of it after that.
Two different colonised nations, two different awful colonial powers, two remarkably similar stories. There is a huge issue there, which has already been well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. He focused this debate on remains such as those of indigenous peoples, and I note that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Afrikan Reparations has said that it should become an offence to sell ancestral remains or put them on public display without consent, and the noble Lord, Lord Boateng set out some other legal steps that should also be taken. The APPG rightly says that that would be a modest form of reparation for past wrongs—the kind of wrongs that I was telling the tale of—together with the return of the remains, whenever possible, with appropriate treatment by the communities from which they were taken.
Rightly, the APPG also points to the issue of Egyptian mummies. Perhaps, until we heard the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we might have thought that we had made some progress since the days when mummies were ground up for medicines or even to colour paint. There was a colour of paint called Mummy Brown, made from the flesh of mummies mixed with white pitch and myrrh, from the mid-18th century into the 20th century.
It is worth noting that last year the Chau Chak Wing Museum at the University of Sydney—I declare an interest as it is one of my former sites of study—decided to remove fragments of mummies from public display, and has been seeking to rename its so-called mummy room to something more respectful. They removed a mummified foot that had been donated in an old biscuit tin, the preserved feet and partial shins of a child, a partially bandaged adult head and a mummified hand that had been donated in a separate biscuit tin. As the curator there said, the ancient Egyptians are not around as a people today to object to this disrespectful treatment, but that does not mean that we should not look more broadly than just at those remains for whom there are identifiable peoples who are still able to speak for them, such as the voice I quoted from Berlin. It is not just about those remains; we should be thinking about all remains.
As I started off by saying, this is a geopolitical issue and an issue of reparations. Most foundationally of all, it is an issue about what kind of society we want to be. It is not about the remains at all; it is about us and what we are like. If we are going to be respectful of human life of the past, the present and the future; what is in our museums; what our children visit and view; what our scholars study; and how they are presented with the past, that has an impact on the nature of our society today. We often hear talk about being world-leading. If we were to take the steps outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, we would be world-leading and we would also be taking steps to improve our own society.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for securing this important debate. I will speak to the two issues posed by this Question for Short Debate separately—namely, the sale in public auctions; and subsequently the display and retention in public collections.
As it stands, businesses and auction rooms decide whether to prohibit the sales of human body parts, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Human Tissue Act 2004. There are some gaps in that Act, in that it bans commercial dealings of human tissue only in the context of medical transplantation, rather than sales as artefacts. However, in many cases—not all, but many—where a business is perceived to be in the wrong when selling human body parts, the solution is that they withdraw their auction lot. In fact, we saw this in October 2024, when an auction house in Oxfordshire withdrew human and ancestral remains from a sale following criticism from native groups and museums.
The director of the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, which holds such items in its collection and is in dialogue with communities over the future of such remains, said that she was “outraged” at the proposed auction and praised the decision to remove the items. She said that the sale was “ethically really problematic” for many communities worldwide, and went on to say:
“The fact these objects were taken is really painful, and the fact that they were being put on sale is really disrespectful and inconsiderate”.
This is a live, worked example of challenging constructively and the complainants were indeed within their rights to do so. It illustrates that, generally speaking, the sensible free market appears to be operating with a measured approach and in an appropriate way that does not necessarily need to come under closer regulatory control. I quote Tom Keane, an auctioneer and valuer and the owner of the Swan auction house:
“We looked into it, we respected the views expressed and we withdrew the items”.
However, I very much take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Black, that there are clearly some extremely disturbing practices in other sale markets, which obviously need to be addressed.
On the display of human body parts, I highlight the great importance of museums in their educational function. Museums preserve historical artefacts, and I would hope that their trustees are sensitive to the subject of displaying human body parts; their intentions should be honourable. Through the display and retention of human body parts, we learn the lessons of the past. The British Museum, for example, has a truly magnificent collection of mummified bodies and Egyptian art, inspiring everyone, young and old, to learn about the pharaohs, the curse of Tutankhamun, Cleopatra and, most recently, Thutmose II. Through these displays and exhibitions, future Egyptologists learn about ancient burial practices and techniques.
The British Museum holds and cares for more than 6,000 human remains. They mostly comprise skeletal remains but also include bog bodies and intentionally or naturally mummified bodies, as well as objects made either wholly or in part from human remains. The key phrase here is “cares for”, whether it is the curator, the learning and participation team, front of house, the conservation or restoration technician, the museum technician or a fundraiser. While I cannot speak for everyone involved, I hope that the majority of those individuals treat body parts with the extreme respect and courtesy they rightly deserve as playing a part in the rich and varied history of the past. Losing this reminder of history could have a detrimental effect on people’s learning about the time it represents.
I quote a British Museum spokesperson, who said:
“The museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Human Tissue Act 2004, which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity”.
Most importantly, many museums, such as the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, are reaching out to communities whose human remains they display, so that the communities themselves can let the museums know how they would like those museums to care for them, or whether they would like them to be repatriated.
Finally, I highlight by way of an example—we have many different arguments here—the removal of a mummy from Spain’s National Archaeological Museum. The 11th-century remains of a 40 year-old chief of the Guanche, the indigenous group who populated the archipelago before the Spanish arrived, was moved from display in Madrid in response to new decolonisation laws. The president of the Government of Tenerife denounced the mummy’s removal to a warehouse as “inadmissible”, describing the mummy as
“a symbol of our ancestral culture … with an incalculable historical and cultural value for our people”.
Obviously, this is a subject that must be treated with the utmost respect and sensitivity. We have heard arguments on both sides of the coin. It is our wish that we try to find a workable solution that honours the views and feelings of those directly affected by this issue while attempting to retain the educational value, where appropriate, of any items by mutual consent between museums and communities. Clearly, work also needs to be done on what is acceptable for all parties involved so that everyone is happy with the outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for securing this debate on this sensitive and hugely important topic.
I begin by echoing the Deputy Prime Minister who, speaking in the other place last year, declared the sale of human body parts, regardless of their age and origin, to be abhorrent. I am personally appalled by any disrespectful treatment of human remains and agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy Prime Minister’s view. As my noble friend said, this issue is about basic human decency. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, I genuinely cannot see how we have more stringent law around the sale of ivory—the briefing I got mentioned birds’ nests and birds’ eggs—than around human remains. It feels completely out of step with where we should be as a society.
I know the Museums Minister met with Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP this morning to talk about this topic. The Secretary of State and I have also spoken, and I have read with interest the report Laying Ancestors to Rest, published by the APPG for Afrikan Reparations yesterday. Its recommendations will inform the Government’s consideration of the issues raised today and is very timely. It is clear that the practices that prompted this debate impact many people, with the potential to cause significant distress and offence to communities across the globe. As a result, this topic should be given the respect and attention it deserves.
In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the number of speakers in this debate, I point out that the time allowed for speakers as a result of the number of speakers means that noble Lords have had more time, which feels more appropriate than a more rushed debate. I was in the youth debate immediately before and people had three minutes each; this feels much more appropriate so that we can go into a bit more depth on this important issue. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is about the type of society we want to be.
On the issues in my noble friend’s Question, I will discuss the treatment of human remains, first in museums and secondly at public auction, before turning to what I hope are some helpful next steps we will take as a Government in the coming weeks. I apologise that some of this reflects the current position we are in and not necessarily where people might wish us to be.
Although I acknowledge that museums are operationally independent of the Government and that decisions relating to their collections are for their trustees to make, I expect them to be respectful in the way they care for and display human remains. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boateng that this country should lead in relation to best practice—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Black. Arts Council England clearly requires museums to abide by the long-established code of ethics, overseen by the Museums Association, as a prerequisite for museum accreditation. All museums in England are able to remove human remains from their collections. National museums in England, which otherwise have legal restrictions on the disposal of items in their collections, were permitted by the Human Tissue Act 2004 to remove human remains from collections, provided that they are reasonably believed to be the remains of a person who died fewer than 1,000 years ago.
My noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referenced the Pitt Rivers Museum, which has, for example, taken steps to remove all human remains from public display and is working to contact descendant communities to agree ways forward. As noble Lords will be aware, DCMS issued guidance for the care of human remains in museums in 2005. This encourages museums to establish an advisory framework to assist in determining repatriation claims and provides a set of criteria that need to be taken into account in assessing claims. I read this guidance this morning, and it is clearly 20 years old; the world has changed substantially, as yesterday’s APPG report makes clear. It is also clear that, sometimes, incomplete collections and databases make it really difficult to know what and where human remains are held—which, in this age of digitalisation, seemed surprising to me, although I am not an expert.
My noble friend Lord Boateng referenced the British Museum and the issue of the tattooed Māori heads. DCMS Ministers regularly meet with the British Museum’s chair and directors, and I will ensure that this is raised with them, as well as other issues raised during the debate.
As I mentioned earlier, the majority of museums in England would be able to return mummies and mummified remains. However, the cut-off date in legislation is currently a thousand years from the date the relevant sections came into force. Although many museums do undertake extensive and detailed work while looking at the return of human remains, documentation establishing the provenance of some human remains is often incomplete, lacking detail or incorrect. As a result, the research and identification process is a challenging and resource-intensive task. I am not underplaying the importance of that task; it is a vital piece of work to ensure that the human remains are treated with appropriate respect.
Since the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004, a number of successful repatriations of human remains have been made. For example, the Natural History Museum has returned the remains of just under 600 individual people to a number of countries, including to communities in Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. They are continuing with detailed provenance investigations to inform potential future returns.
I understand that museums often hold repatriation ceremonies when returning ancestral remains, to try to ensure that the communities involved feel that they have an opportunity for healing and to honour their ancestors. We are in regular contact with relevant museums and we support them in their work to return human remains. This includes recent meetings to discuss the concerns raised, the communities impacted and recommendations for further action.
The topic of the sale of human remains via auction houses, online or by any other means was spoken to at length by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome. As she made clear, while the Human Tissue Authority created by the Human Tissue Act in 2004 regulates the public display of human remains, it does not cover sales or purchases, as the Act does not regulate the sale of human remains that were not intended for transplantation.
Over the course of the week since I started preparing for this debate, I have been appalled by the type of objects that are readily available online. In my view, it is appalling and unacceptable. UK auction houses have to set their own standards and best practice in this area, taking into account the consent and licensing provisions of the Act as it stands. As DCMS officials have already relayed to the sector’s representative bodies, the Government expect all organisations and individuals to act appropriately and respectfully in relation to these sales.
I turn briefly to the UK art market—this is not art, in my opinion. However, we have one of the largest art markets in the world and play host to some of the most renowned institutions for the study and practice of art. This Government are committed to maintaining this reputation and want us to be a global centre of expertise, both in arts and in culture.
Although the sale of human remains is rejected by representatives of the UK art market, recent events, including, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, in Oxfordshire, have demonstrated that some auction houses are involved in the sale of body parts. This is hugely concerning. This Government call on all auction houses to scrutinise their activities rigorously and for anyone trading in human remains to consider very carefully the ethical implications of this deeply disturbing activity for those communities impacted.
As a Government, we must also consider how we can work together to address these issues, which cut across multiple departments. The Health Secretary met with Bell Riberio-Addy, MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill, in December, following concerns she raised in the other House on the topic of the sale of human remains online and via auction. In the last year, and again over the past few days, DCMS officials have raised the sale of human remains with the British Art Market Federation, the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers and the Human Tissue Authority, as well as discussing the display and care of human remains from indigenous and other peoples in public collections with representatives from the museums sector.
We are now in a position to set up a cross-Whitehall meeting of relevant Ministers and policy officials to discuss a range of options, including legislative change, to prohibit the abhorrent sale of human remains and to further protect the dignity of those remains belonging to indigenous peoples.
I once again thank my noble friend Lord Boateng for bringing this topic to my attention and the attention of my department and the Government.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—she has given a very encouraging response to the Question—will she address the question of a possible meeting between indigenous communities, when they visit the United Kingdom in June and October, and her and other Ministers, because that would be hugely encouraging to this conversation? It must be said that when in the past they have met representatives of the British Museum trustees, they have not returned with an answer that was acceptable to those indigenous communities, and it would help them to meet with Ministers.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was just coming to the point that I would be very happy to invite my noble friend to meet me, or another Minister from DCMS, to continue this conversation. I would be very happy to facilitate a meeting of the type he has requested. I am happy to commit to a meeting myself. I will pass on the request to other Ministers, as is appropriate in my view, rather than committing my colleagues to specific meetings, but I am very keen to work with him to discuss pathways forward to address some of the hugely disturbing and distressing practices discussed today, which should be for the past, not the present day.