§ 2.59 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Haden-Guest.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
§ Clause 1:
§ Removal of eyes of deceased persons
§ 1.—(1) If any person, either in writing at any time or orally in the presence of two or more witnesses during his last illness, has expressed a request that his eyes be used for therapeutic purposes after his death, the party lawfully in possession of his body after his death may, unless he has reason to believe that the request was subsequently withdrawn, authorise the removal of the eyes from the body for use for those purposes.
§ LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (1) after "request" (where that word first occurs) to insert "in words that imply." The noble Lord said: On the Second Reacting of this Bill (which I, as much as any other noble Lord, should like to see passed into law) I raised the point whether the drafting of Clause 1 was completely apt for its purpose. I am under the impression, and other noble Lords may agree with me, that not many people, if they wanted to leave their eyes for the good of the blind or those who are about to go blind, would say: "I should like my eyes, after my death, to be used for therapeutic purposes.'" Probably few members of the population of this country would use those words. I have therefore put down two Amendments. The first is that after the word "request" there should be inserted "in words that imply"—indicating that they would like their eyes used for therapeutic purposes. The second Amendment is consequential on the first. I do not know whether I shall be told that the words in the Bill are apt as they are, and that any words will do, so long as they imply that the eyes can be used "for therapeutic purposes." But when we are taking a step such as this it is well to see exactly what words we are using. I suggest that my words may be better, although if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill assures 11 me that the present words are completely satisfactory, having taken advice upon it, of course I shall not press my Amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after ("request") insert ("in words that imply").—(Lord Llewellin.)
§ LORD HADEN-GUESTI know that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord is devoted entirely to the intention of improving the Bill. I have gone into the matter very carefully with the legal advisers of the Ministry of Health and with the draftsmen, and I am assured—and I have been convinced—that the words in the text of the Bill as it is now before the Committee are quite adequate and would allow the eyes to be used in the way in which it is desired—for the good of persons who are blind. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that he will not press the Amendment but is prepared to accept my assurance. I trust that after this short explanation—which I can assure him is based on very good authority indeed—the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. I would remind the noble Lord that the Ministry of Health took a considerable part in the actual drafting of the Bill in the first instance, and I assure him that the danger he fears does not exist and that, in fact, the point he makes is covered by the words already in the text of the Bill.
§ LORD LLEWELLINIn view of that assurance from the noble Lord—because I think all the House requires is to assure itself that the Bill will work in practice—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.