I rise mainly to add to the words of wisdom that have been expressed in relation to this section. There are many sections in the Bill which I regard as objectionable but, in addition to being objectionable, this section must have been motivated by some sinister reasons. It is a reflection on the high standard of training of nurses. Of all the various professions which require high standards, I doubt if there is another that requires the extremely high standard that applies to the nursing profession. This recognition has been accorded them not alone by the highest medical authorities here but by the World Health Organisation who have recognised the excellence of service performed by Irish nurses throughout the world.
Is this an effort to reduce the standards of efficiency and excellence of our nurses? The nursing profession in the UK are moving away from that kind of development. Our nurses pass examinations which are not easy. Our nurses undergo training in medicine and the dispensation of drugs as rigorous as that of doctors. Year after year the nursing examinations become more difficult. Qualified nurses are obliged to take on refresher courses to keep them up to date on the modern techniques of administering drugs and medicines and treating patients. Everybody interested in the nursing profession would like to know the purpose of this register. What does it mean? What is it likely to mean in view of the fact that there are 2,500 nurses unemployed? Many of them are working as waitresses, despite all their training. Most of the UK hospitals are staffed by Irish nurses. A lot of State finances have gone into the training of nurses many of whom are emigrating and the Department of Health are compiling a register which will not be in the interests of the nursing profession.
Everybody has spoken against section 31 and one Deputy spoke very strongly against it. Can the Minister give a justifiable reason as to why it is necessary to establish this register? When this register is established will there be a complete list of persons who will be readily available to take up nursing posts? If a register were compiled in relation to teachers, barristers, solicitors, economists and other professions there would be an immediate uproar. This will be a register listing people who will not have passed examinations in medicine. Will the Minister put these people in charge of dangerously sick people? Will it mean that we will eventually have a Green Shield section of the nursing profession who can be called upon to work at a cheap rate in order that the health boards and the Department may economise at the expense of the public?
This Bill should uphold the dignity of the nursing profession. Who will be eligible to go on this register? There was once a lady called Biddy Early who had a knowledge of all forms of cures. Would the late Biddy Early with her knowledge of medicines qualify for inclusion in this register? Who could deny her the right to be registered? Will we have a register of 1985 Biddy Earlys? Will we have a register of medical quacks?
Is is not correct to say that there is some degree of comparison between nurses and fully qualified Red Cross personnel who are not nurses. They have not done the nurses' examinations. They are not fully qualified in nursing but can put on a bandage. They can look after a wound or stop the free flow of blood. They have certain knowledge in relation to care of the ill and the disabled and can deal with emergencies. May I take it that if section 31 is passed we will have in this register everybody who has a knowledge of Red Cross activities?
In Civil Defence there are certain ladies fully trained to meet emergencies in the event of a disaster. Will these people be entitled to be registered? As regards the quack who has all manner of medical remedies and excels in his own form of nursing, but who has not received training, would he be entitled to register?
I object to section 31 because it will take from the high standard of nursing and there is no need for a register of what I would describe as the modern Biddy Earlys. There should be no question of keeping a register of those willing to work for low wages in hospitals or elsewhere caring for the sick. Have we not a duty first to our sick people, those deprived of the great blessing of good health? Are we going to make provision for people with fewer qualifications to look after those who are in hospital?
The motives behind section 31 of this Bill have never been explained to me. The only indication is that all connected with health in the nursing profession, all grades, will be registered. Every Member of this House sees something seriously wrong with this section. I put it to the House that there are sinister and evil motives behind the inclusion of such a section and the establishment of a register to include the names of people who may be called upon to perform nursing duties but are not fully qualified. Why should a person become fully qualified in the nursing profession when she can be registered without being fully qualified and obtain employment in our hospitals, our health boards and with those charged with caring for the sick?
This is a very serious matter. Hospital services throughout the world can boast, with a high degree of credibility, about their standard of nursing. Are we going to be one of the first to make it more difficult for our nurses to become fully qualified to the highest possible medical standards? Will those on this register be employed where it is thought wise or prudent by those in authority who have no responsibility to health boards, no mandate from the people and no right to be put in charge of the sick?
I join with others in asking the Minister to delete this section. Everybody except himself is opposed to it. He should be aware of the reasons why he should be opposed to this section. A Nurses Bill must always be in the interest of the nursing profession, but section 31 is not in that interest. Everyone, particularly senior medical people in our hospitals, agrees that Ireland can produce the best and most fully qualified nurses. Should we not be careful to preserve that record, to ensure that it is carried on by those who are coming into the profession and will keep up the high standard which our Irish nurses in the four corners of the world have attained with credit and distinction? Their record has brought admiration for all our nurse training institutions. We should be slow to take any steps which would lower the high standards of Irish nursing. Section 31 is not helpful in maintaining these extreme standards of efficiency, care, courtesy and medical knowledge. No reason or justification has been given for the inclusion of section 31.
I am sure that the nurses' organisations will be reading this debate. In the event of the establishment of such a register, which may not happen today or tomorrow, I want to warn the nurses' organisations that it will prove to be disastrous for the future qualification of nurses to the very high standard of their profession. In this country we want the best possible care of our sick, to have the best trained people possible. We do not want a group either of Green Shield nurses or of pretending Biddy Earlys to take over our hospital wards. The establishment of such a register will not lead to the production of the best possible type of nurse and nursing care in our hospitals in general and emergency wards.
I ask the Minister to consider the plea being made by all sides inside and outside this House, indeed by everybody who has had a comment to make on this Bill. I have yet to see one word of praise for the inclusion of section 31 and this most suspicious register about to be established. Irish nurses will regret the day such a register was compiled. Because of the united opposition to this section outside the House I add my voice in the interest of preservation of the perfection of Irish nurses, their standards and skills and I ask that it be deleted. It can serve no purpose, no good, and there is no comparison between any ancillary profession and that of the real profession of nursing. One cannot have two grades or degrees. One must have one highly satisfactory, fully qualified standard. One cannot have a Green Shield list from which to draw in the event of having to acquire cheap labour.
Is there any trade union in Ireland with a list of tradesmen who would also have a list of those who are supposed to be tradesmen who will be called in the event of tradesmen not being available? I think of the Stonemasons' and Bricklayers' Union in past days in Cuffe Street when only a fully qualified stonemason or bricklayer was allowed go on a list for a union card. I can think of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers in respect of which indentures had to be produced and investigation of completion of apprenticeship recorded before one's name could be inscribed. I doubt if the Incorporated Law Society would compile a list or register of legal quacks that administer hob law — and, God knows, this country has its fair share of them too. Then there is the Painters' Union. Would they grant membership of their union to those who can take up a paint brush and use it at will? This is a most serious matter. We expect the obligations of all professions, trades and trade unions to be fulfilled. But in regard to the nursing profession there is to be a register compiled of people akin to nurses but who will never possess the same full qualifications.
On reconsideration I ask that this section be deleted from the Bill. I have been longer in this House than any other Member present and I have not seen a similar section in any other Bill that passed through this House. As was customary on the part of Deputies many years ago, I have carried out certain research before making my speech in order to ascertain if I could find a similar section dealing with any profession or trade. With all the help and assistance available to me, together with my fair share of commonsense and intelligence in relation to procedure in this House, I have not found anything similar to section 31. Why do the Department of Health not tell us what they mean? What is at the back of this section? What is hidden in this? What is the purpose of the register? If there is silence on this there must be some strange reason therefor. I believe that section 31 is not in the interests of the production of the best most highly qualified nurses. I foresee difficulties. I see no need for such a register and for that reason I ask that this section be deleted.
