Human Remains (Prohibition of Sale, Purchase and Advertising)

I should stress that this is by no means the full extent of the sales that take place. While the human remains taskforce does an excellent job of tracking what it can, there are undoubtedly hundreds more sales that go unnoticed. To my knowledge, the taskforce is the only body that actively attempts to police this trade. In 2026, one can sell a piece of human remains or an object partially consisting of human remains with no checks on how those remains were acquired and no verification of how old they are, who they belonged to, whether consent was given or what the buyer intends to do with them.

The biggest obstacle sellers face is not the law, but the user rules of social media platforms and e-commerce sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Gumtree and Etsy. Even then, sellers routinely circumvent those rules by misspelling words, mislabelling real names as replicas or advertising collections without explicitly stating an intent to sell before completing transactions through private messages or in person. The most serious repercussion sellers are likely to face is an account suspension, and we all know how easy it is to simply set up a new one. Ultimately, the only hurdle sellers face is platform moderation; they face no legal barrier at all. In-person sellers face even fewer obstacles, with no oversight of the human remains sold in curiosity shops, flea markets or satanic markets.

The UK is not wholly devoid of regulation, however. The Human Tissue Act 2004 makes it an offence to hold human remains that are less than 100 years old for certain scheduled purposes without a licence, but it does not expressly prohibit commercial sale beyond very narrow circumstances. It is silent on the sale of remains as curiosities or private objects outside regulated contexts. At present, we have stronger licensing rules for animal remains than for some human remains. That is what my Bill seeks to address.

Beyond this being an incredibly disturbing trade, there is a clear moral and ethical case for banning it. There is no reliable way to establish how remains were acquired—whether they were looted or grave-robbed—their age or whether any consent was given by the individual themselves or by their relatives or descendants. During the colonial era, ancestral remains from communities across the world were stolen from battlefields, looted from graves, taken as trophies or curiosities, or used in the now discredited racist pseudoscience of phrenology, which sought to claim inherent inferiority based on skull shape. Many remains still in circulation are sold as so-called antique medical skeletons, having been imported in the tens of thousands during the 20th century until the export bans from India in 1985 and China in the 2000s.

I have been informed that the underground trade continues. Imagine seeing your ancestor’s body parts listed at auction as decorative objects. That was the case for some when the skull of a tribesman from Nagaland was auctioned online in the UK as part of a “curious collector sale”—one of thousands of items taken by British colonial administrators. In fact, that has been the case for many African and Asian remains, as is outlined in the “Laying Ancestors to Rest” report. Long after colonial rule and our acceptance that racism is wrong, we continue to deny the people affected dignity, even in death.

Some may argue that remains that are hundreds of years old raise fewer concerns, yet there is good reason to believe that some remains being sold are far more recent than is claimed. Labelling them as antiques does not make it so, and serious questions remain about provenance. A case currently before the US courts involves a man accused of grave-robbing and selling remains online. While we have not seen such a case here, it would be naive to assume that similar practices could not be taking place.

I should be clear that there are legitimate circumstances that the Bill would not prohibit. For example, cost recovery for medical research, teaching and scientific use would remain regulated through existing licensing and ethical frameworks. Nor would it outlaw respectful bereavement practices, such as memorial jewellery containing a lock of hair, where consent is clear. The Bill carefully distinguishes between consented memorial items and the commercial sale of unprovenanced remains.

I believe there is universal agreement across the House that the sale of human remains, particularly where their origin, age and acquisition are unverified, should not be allowed to continue. Although import and export restrictions exist, legislative oversight has allowed domestic sale to remain perfectly legal. This Bill corrects that oversight, and I commend it to the House.

That Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Siân Berry, Carla Denyer, Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Diane Abbott, Apsana Begum, Dawn Butler, Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis present the Bill.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy accordingly presented the Bill.