Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1994

Vol. 439 No. 1

Supplementary Estimates, 1994. - Stillbirths Registration Bill, 1994 [Seanad]: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "forty-two" and substitute "sixty".

I do not seek an extension of the period for trivial reasons. Birth is a major event in a woman's life and in normal circumstances the impact of that experience continues for some time. That is recognised internationally, even in legislation on infanticide. The Church also recognises that period after birth. In cases of stillbirth we should be particularly sensitive to the fact that women need a certain time to recover from the physical experience and to come to terms with the fact that the child is dead.

A considerable length of time may be involved in that process and I am a little concerned that the provision of 42 days would limit the opportunity for parents to come to terms with the stillbirth and take the step of registering it. While registration will occur anyway, the fact that parents take that step themselves is significant in the process of coming to terms with their grief. Considering that a three month period is provided for, if necessary, the extension of the 42 days to 60 days would not interfere with the process. Perhaps the Minister would allow for that slightly longer period to accommodate parents in their grief.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I support the amendment. As Deputy McManus outlined, people suffer great trauma after a still birth. In some instances the stillbirth may have taken place outside the country and the parents may wish to come back to Ireland after the event. In these circumstances people should not be rushed. The Bill provides for retrospective registration and the whole purpose of it is to help people. To provide for 60 days rather than 42 days would in no way interfere with the process. It would be a sympathetic gesture and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

On balance, I support this amendment. How did the Minister arrive at the 42 days? I am sure there is some medical or other basis for it. I do not know what the requirement is in relation to registration of live births, but perhaps the Minister's intention was to bring it into line with the requirement in this case.

That is exactly the reason.

If that is the case I freely acknowledge that there is merit in doing that. As I said on Second Stage, the principle of trying to eliminate the difference between the requirements for live births and stillbirths is a good one. Part of the principle of the Bill is to apply the mechanism to stillbirths which at present applies to live births and I welcome that. As that is the Minister's reasoning for the provision, I can understand the rationale behind it.

However, there is merit in Deputy McManus's amendment. It is difficult for people who have not experienced the enormous trauma of stillbirth to even begin to understand the impact it has on women. It may be that the 42-day requirement is too restrictive in that a woman may not be able to face up to the issue in 42 days, she may be too shattered to confront this procedure. Therefore, I ask the Minister to carefully consider the amendment. It would in no way take from the central thrust of the Bill. If it results in a better, more compassionate Bill, I appeal to the Minister to be more open about the matter.

By extending the time we may help women, especially those who are particularly badly affected by stillbirths. All women who experience stillbirths are affected very deeply, but the recovery rate may be faster in some cases. This may be due to a number of factors such as family support, the age of the woman or the fact that the mother may have other children. In such cases the healing may be at a more rapid pace. However, in the case of some mothers, the stillbirth may be the first or only child, or perhaps the woman does not have a great deal of family or community support. In those cases women cannot reasonably be expected to heal at the same pace. For those reasons I support the amendment tabled by Deputy McManus.

Will the Minister clarify the position regarding stillbirths which occur in another jurisdiction? If my reading of the Bill is correct, the information specified in the section must be given within 42 days to the registrar in the district in which the stillbirth occurs. If the stillbirth occurs outside the country to whom is the information given?

It would not be registered here.

Other countries have legislation to deal with those cases.

It would be registered in the country where the death occurred.

Will the Minister tease out this issue a little further? Very often it is difficult to say when a stillbirth will occur. Obviously when something goes wrong in a pregnancy the woman could have a spontaneous miscarriage. Is the Minister saying that a family will not be able to register the fact that a child is born dead if the child is born while they are on holidays in Spain or elsewhere? Will the treatment of people in these circumstances be different than if their child had been born in Ireland? Will the Minister consider that matter?

I accept that the requiremennts in regard to stillbirths should be along the lines of those that apply to live births. It is interesting that maternity leave is paid for a great deal longer than 42 days. Most women tend to take the bulk of their maternity leave after the child is born which means there is time for bonding between the mother and child. I have sympathy for the sentiments in this amendment. After all 60 days is less than two calendar months and we should take into account that two months is a very short time to get over the trauma of a normal birth. It must be even more difficult to get over the trauma of a stillbirth, particularly when the woman knows that the baby she is carrying will be born dead. In those cases it may take longer to get over the trauma. Therefore, there is merit in this amendment and perhaps the Minister will accept it.

As I understand it, the legislation puts the obligation on the State to register the birth. There is no obligation on the parents to register the birth.

They must sign the register in the presence of the registrar.

Yes, but there is no obligation on them to register the birth. The obligation rests with the State. Of course, parents will have the opportunity voluntarily to register the stillbirth during the period proposed. If the legislation is to mean anything it must put an obligation on someone to register the stillbirth. In the initial stages that obligation will rest with the State. The signing of the register by the parents in the presence of the registrar is a different matter.

Will the Minister refer to stillbirths outside this jurisdiction? Most countries have met their responsibilities in this area but there may be some jurisdictions, even within the EU, which do not have a register of stillbirths. This issue needs to be addressed as parents will suffer a sense of loss if the stillbirth occurs in a jurisdiction where there is no such register. As in the case of a live birth, the initial responsibility for the registration of stillbirths will correctly rest with the State.

As in the case of a live birth, if a stillbirth takes place outside this jurisdiction it cannot be registered in Ireland. Births are registered in the country where they occur, and the same applies to stillbirths. I understand that most, if not all, EU countries have had stillbirths registers in operation for some time. Registration of a stillbirth would have to take place in the country in which it occurred. It would be totally alien to the entire registration scheme if an event which took place outside this jurisdiction could be registered here. The registration system applies to events which occur within the jurisdiction.

With regard to timing, the Bill provides for a period of six weeks within which the registrar has to be notified of a stillbirth. That is the same as the time within which an ordinary birth has to be registered. As Deputy Owen correctly said, it is my intention to keep the registration system for stillbirths as close as possible in all respects to the normal registration principles which apply. I would make two points in this respect.

The fact that the registration is not effected by the parents within the 42-day period does not mean that the birth is not registered. The birth is still registered through the hospital or medical practitioner procedure. The registration will take place in any event and it will be possible at any time thereafter for either parent to obtain a certificate of that registration when it has gone through the procedures provided for at the instance of the medical people. Second, the registration does not have to be done by the mother. The birth can be registered by either parent; it is also open to the father to effect the registration.

Taking all those factors into account, I think that the normal 42-day period within which either parent can effect the registration is reasonable. Even if the parents do not register the birth within that period it will still be registered. As Deputy Ferris correctly said, the obligation is on the medical people to register the birth. If the parents are minded to effect the registration, which I imagine the vast majority of them would be anxious to do, it will be arranged in the hospital in the same way as for live births — I think the hospital authorities consult with the parents and the registration is effected in that way. Once the register is established those procedures will apply.

I very much regret the Minister's inflexible approach to this issue. I accept that the process for the registration of stillbirths should be as close as possible to the process for the registration of live births. However, no one can say that a live birth and a stillbirth are similar — they are totally different. It is a great pity that the Minister will not make this very simple alteration to the Bill to acknowledge that while the registration of a live baby is a positive action which many parents simply carry out as a matter of course, the registration of a dead baby is a very significant and traumatic action for parents. They are officially stating that their baby is dead and are recognising this formally. This act will be healing in itself if people are allowed to do it when they are ready. If they are not able to register the birth they will bitterly regret it and if they register it in a rush they may be emotionally damaged.

I regret that the Minister is not prepared to accept the very simple modification proposed in my amendment. I do not think it would have any effect on the Bill other than to enable mothers to register their stillbirths. Many mothers are not married. We are all aware of the huge increase in the number of single mothers who end up carrying the responsibility for pregnancy and birth and, tragically, for stillbirth. Will the Minister look again at my proposals for a very minor change, which I believe is still in keeping with the overall thrust of the Bill? While the registration of stillbirths should be as close as possible to the registration of live births, we should recognise that there is a difference between the two and provide for this in legislation.

With regard to the registration of births in another jurisdiction, it has been pointed out to me that there may be a rather obscure provision for registering live births in Ireland in such cases. I must admit that I was not aware of that point when I made my earlier comments. I will look further at this provision in the context of stillbirths which take place in other jurisdictions and of the overall review of the registration system. It may be possible to make some provision in those cases. I would think that the numbers involved would be very few.

But very important.

With regard to timing, I do not think an additional 18 days will make all that much difference to the basics of the system and the provision in the Bill in that regard is satisfactory, given that either parent has the option within six weeks to register the stillbirth. The overwhelming majority of cases will be taken care of in the hospital through the normal procedures which apply there. Even if the parents decide not to proceed with the registration themselves or do not register the stillbirth for whatever reason within that period, the registration still takes place on an automatic compulsory basis at the instance of the medical people. I regard this procedure as satisfactory.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (2), line 9, after "medical practitioner" to insert "or registered midwife".

I do not intend to dwell on this matter but it involves a practical consideration in view of the fact that a small number of births occur at home and, obviously, a smaller number of stillbirths, that would have the attention solely of a midwife. It is fair to say that doctors generally disapprove of home births and would prefer women to go into hospital to give birth. However, a minority of women choose to have their babies at home and in this case it is primarily midwives who attend to them. In relation to this Bill we should include registered midwives to cover the rare cases in which they are involved.

At present, my understanding is that if a stillbirth occurs and a midwife is in attendance, she or he has a responsibility to report it to the senior medical officer. There is not the same involvement of the registered midwife in regard to this Bill and the intention of my amendment is to include that aspect of birth where a registered midwife is involved rather than the normal practice of hospital care.

I fully understand Deputy McManus' point in tabling this amendment but I am concerned about it. The registration of any death, irrespective of the circumstances, is carried out by a medical practitioner. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response to this amendment; perhaps he will be able to make an exception in this case. However, I would be concerned about a change in this area that might create a precedent in regard to other forms of death where somebody other than a medical practitioner was present. In the event of a home birth assisted by a registered midwife, it stands to reason that in all practical circumstances a doctor would be present. The Minister may approve a joint signature on the certificate to indicate the death was as a result of a stillbirth which was attended by a registered midwife. I do not wish to ignore the valuable work carried out by midwives but I am concerned about this amendment and we will not be supporting it.

During my Second Stages speech I was not aware that Deputy McManus had tabled this amendment but I did refer to it. Perhaps the Minister might consider making what is a minor amendment which will affect only a small number of people. In the context of home births, with particular reference to the Health Act, section 62, states specifically that a women is entitled to receive free midwifery services at home, we must decide whether we intend to encourage women to have home births. I am aware of the difficulties that have been mentioned by Deputy McManus and my colleague, Deputy Owen, but if we are to give women the opportunity to give birth at home, it is important that due recognition is given by the State to the status of the midwife.

I referred to this on Second Stage and I did not realise we would be dealing with the matter again on Committee Stage as I had not seen the amendment, but as a State we have grossly underplayed the function and importance of the midwife within the health services to such an extent that the natural process of giving birth is almost equated now to being an illness. In other words, the medical practitioner must be involved from beginning to end. I wonder is that necessary. If we accorded sufficient status to the role of the midwife, we would not have as much regard for the close involvement of the medical practitioner. This issue could be considered in an overall review of maternity services and the manner in which we deal with those services.

The effect of Deputy McManus' amendment will be minor. It obviously concerns a small number of people and because of that it is worthy of consideration, notwithstanding the concerns of my colleagues on this side of the House.

I am more inclined to accept Deputy Owen's interpretation of this amendment.

I would like them to be recognised if the Minister could find a way of doing that without changing the present position.

I recognise the importance of the midwife and I am aware of how active midwives are, in country areas in particular. They serve a useful purpose but as I understand it the Minister is placing the responsibility of registering this occurrence on a certain category of people. While we would all hope that the majority of births would be normal, stillbirths have a particular connotation in that there is a responsibility — as with any death — on somebody of the category of a general practitioner or hospital doctor to register the death.

When I first saw Deputy McManus's amendment I wondered whether a midwife should have the responsibility to register this type of tragic occurrence, even if it took place at home. I am prepared to listen to the Minister's response and I have an open mind on this matter. However, special cases do arise and I doubt if a midwife would act in isolation without some consultation with a medical practitioner.

Although Deputy McManus indicated that most doctors prefer births to take place in maternity hospitals, for insurance purposes and so on, that does not remove the right of parents to opt for home births. However, in so doing, they should consult with their local general practitioner, which would result in consultation between the midwife and the general practitioner in any event. If that is what takes place at present, there is no need for this amendment. However, I am prepared to listen to the Minister's reply in this regard.

I wish to ask for further brief clarification as perhaps I did not make clear one of my main concerns about this amendment. Section 6 (2) refers to a medical certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner. I take it that medical certificate certifies death but that is not actually stated in the Bill. It states that it must contain certain information where applicable, but if that refers to a death certificate, my concern would be that including a registered midwife in the category of people who could sign death certificates is an issue that would have to be examined further. For example, in geriatric nursing homes and other similar institutions, people can die in the presence of a nurse but there is no provision in any of our laws that a nurse can sign a death certificate; only a medical practitioner can do this. I would like the Minister's clarification on this. I assumed that the certificate to be signed by a medical practitioner was a death certificate and that was why there was need for the presence of a medical practitioner. If that is not the case, then I have no problem. This amendment should be accepted. It was creating the precedent of anybody other than a medical practitioner certifying death that was my concern.

Will the Minister consider the possibility of including a registered midwife so that the register would show that it was a registered midwife who attended at that birth?

I wonder whether we are not confusing the issue here between the presence of a midwife in the case of a normal delivery and the delivery of a stillbirth in that, in the case of normal deliveries, there has to be combined care which is stipulated by the health boards. Certain criteria must be met before home births can be proceeded with.

On the point raised by Deputy Owen, the stillbirth certificate does and is intended to operate on the same principle as a death certificate; that has to be understood. As Deputy McManus rightly pointed out, the number of home births is extremely small. In fact, according to the latest statistics the number would be less than 1 per cent of births, and of those, the number of stillbirths would be infinitesimal. Even in the case of a stillbirth at home — where no medical practitioner was present at the birth — a medical practitioner will examine the body and produce the required certificate as in the case of a death certificate.

Deputy McManus's amendment would affect not only section 6 (2) but would have implications for other subsections of that section. In other words, if the midwife was unable to produce a certificate it would follow that the duty to notify would have to be extended to the midwife also. I did consider that option but decided that this important statutory duty should be confined to registered medical practitioners. However, I do not want to detract in any way from the excellent and important work undertaken by registered midwives; on the contrary, I pay tribute to their work.

Having considered the matter carefully and consulted, where appropriate, I came to the conclusion that the provisions should remain in place, having regard to the similarity of the death certificate and it is appropriate that a certificate should be signed by a medical practitioner. I am prepared to consider this question and, indeed, all aspects of the operation of the Bill in the light of practical experience of its operation. If amendments on this or any other issue are found to be necessary, they can and will be taken into account within the context of the wider review of the births, marriages and deaths procedures in the Department.

Therefore, I regret I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

I would be willing to withdraw my amendment following on what the Minister said. From my reading of the Bill it is not a death certificate that is being sought, but rather, as is stipulated in section 6 (2):

..... a medical certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner who has attended the birth or has examined the child, stating, in the opinion of the medical practitioner, the weight and gestational age of the child and, naming, where applicable, the hospital in which the birth occurred or which had care of the mother following the birth.

That is not my understanding of a death certificate. There is no conflict between the original point I made and the responsibility of medical practitioners to sign death certificates. That is a separate question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert "Evidence of any Birth Defects".

This Bill offers us an opportunity to collate information that is badly needed in that we are very deficient here at collecting important health statistics. The whole question of birth defects has been of concern to people for quite some time. A certain amount of information has been collated but in Dublin and Galway, or the greater Dublin region, only. This Bill affords us an opportunity to at least include evidence of birth defects. Many birth defects do not become evident for quite a while after birth and inevitably there would be a certain amount of information not available because of the child having been dead. Some information could be collated in this register. We have an opportunity to do so and we should grasp it.

I mentioned in the course of our Second Stage debate the need to obtain as much statistical information as possible. A number of Members referred to different circumstances prevailing nationwide where such statistics appeared to identify specific health problems in certain areas. Therefore, acceptance of Deputy McManus's amendment would constitute a small but correct step in that direction. It would not give us a complete picture but rather the beginning of a picture. It is my hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.

When re-examining the issue about the location in which a stillbirth might take place — in the list in the Schedule the first stipulates Date and Place of Birth — will the Minister allow for listing in the register if the place of birth was outside this jurisdiction?

I support this amendment. We have a very low data base on genetics here. I am not sure that we have more than one or two practising genetic experts here; there may be one in private practice but I know there is nobody working in genetics for the State. Acceptance of this amendment is very important, not merely for the collation of statistics but also to have such information available for family members of the baby that was stillborn. Very often such information may not be available to a brother or sister of the stillborn child which could have some effect on their lives if they knew a specific defect was present in a stillborn sibling. This amendment has great merit. Indeed, I am surprised that this data was not stipulated in the list included in the Schedule. I hope the Minister will accept it.

There is great merit in raising this issue in this debate. On Second Stage I said that one of the beneficial by-products of the putting in place of the register would be that information will now become available to medical people which, when they correctly collate the facts, will enable them to undertake research. They may not have had that type of informational base heretofore. If any information becomes available as a result of the putting in place of this register it is important that maximum use be made of it. Indeed, if that information could be put to use in bringing about circumstances in which some future stillbirths could be averted, when medical science would benefit from such information, that would be a major advantage.

The issue being raised could be pursued with greater advantage perhaps by the Minister for Health and his Department. The most we can expect the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to do is to note this, to incorporate the substance and spirit of what has been requested in this amendment in the Bill and, more fundamentally, to bring it to the notice of the Minister for Health so that there will be clear, productive communication between the two Departments. This would mean that the information could be put to maximum good use in health practice and in public policy in the area of health in the future. I support the amendment.

I am not sure what is meant by birth defects because some birth defects are visible on close examination while others will only become apparent during an autopsy. There will be a difficulty there if we go ahead with this suggestion.

It is a choice.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of this Bill is therapeutic and not statistical. Statistics on stillbirths, including the cause of stillbirths, are compiled by the Central Statistics Office and by the Department of Health. I would take the view, therefore, that the inclusion of details of birth defects on the register and on the certificate is not necessary. I have to take account of the very likely fact that the recording of such details in many cases could be extremely distressing to the parents. In cases where, tragically, there are defects in live births these are not recorded on the register or on the birth certificate and I am sure we would all agree it would be inappropriate to do so.

The purpose of the Bill and the register and certificate is to bring comfort to people, not cause them distress. For these reasons I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

I think the Minister underestimates how difficult it is to get accurate information. Under the international programme, EUROCAT, there are concerns about getting the full picture in relation to congenital malformation.

The register will be private and will not be open to public persual. The importance of collating this information is equally valid in relation to live births and should be extended to it. It would be therapeutic for parents of stillborn children to feel that, in their own small way, they were helping to ensure that the level of stillbirths was reduced because there was greater information available which would show why stillbirths and deformities occurred. We cannot discover what causes these unless we have information. This register affords us a good opportunity to obtain such information particularly as it is a private register. We can ensure that this information, which is badly needed in relation to the formation of health policy, can be obtained in a sensitive way which is in tune with the needs of the parents involved.

The information which would be made available may prove to be the only information which would assist years hence in the medical treatment of a relative of a stillborn child. How often do doctors ask if there is an incidence of heart disease or whatever in a family in order to assist them in their diagnosis and treatment of patients? I agree with Deputy McManus that perhaps this kind of information should be available in relation to live births. I do not know what my grandfather or grandmother might have suffered from. Such information could well assist in the medical treatment of a future relative of a stillborn child. We are not looking for this information in order to be prurient, cause distress or for the sake of statistics, but because it may assist some future relative of the stillborn child. That is one of the reasons why I think this is a good amendment.

I listened to the Minister's reply and my understanding is that what is sought in the amendment is already compiled by the Central Statistics Office.

Not birth defects.

There are records of stillbirths in the CSO. We are entering into an extremely sensitive area. We have gone down the road that the parents of stillborn children asked us to. If such information is registered, it will appear on the certificate which is not what the parents of stillborn children wanted. They did not want this on the certificate but just to have the stillbirth recorded. Provision could be made to keep statistics by way of ministerial order to ensure that information is available for medical purposes, but the information should not appear on the register or on the certificate. I understood the Minister to respond in that way.

We cannot understate the rationale behind the Bill which is therapeutic rather than statistical. I accept the validity of the amendment in that there is a statistical deficit in this area. We need a far more comprehensive data base particularly in the health area. While I accept the need for it, I am doubtful whether this Bill is the correct mechanism by which to deal with it. I am unsure of the precise nature of the statistics which are presently compiled by the CSO and the Department of Health on stillbirths. It would be helpful if we had an exact idea of the nature of the statistics.

As regards Deputy Owen's point, there are medical records available in relation to all of us, particularly at birth. There is a process by which people go through gynaecologists, GPs and so on. It is in that general area that the matter should be looked at. The Minister for Health should bring forward specific proposals in that regard.

Can the Deputy call the Minister for Health?

As regards the amendment, I am unsure as to whether this Bill is the correct mechanism through which to pursue it.

I understand the motive behind the amendment and sympathise, up to a point, with the comments made by Deputy Owen. The data we are talking about is already collected and collated by the Department of Health. In their publication, Perinatal Statistics 1990, table 46 gives the cause of death of stillbirths, early neonatal deaths and mortality rates. It lists the various defects and conditions that have caused them with analysis, numbers, percentages and so on. That information is already collated and given there. Many parents who would look at these certificates from time to time to bring back memories would be reminded of a particular defect in the child. This would be entirely counter to the objective of this Bill which is to provide comfort for these people. The cause of the condition is a matter on which they will be consulting with the hospital and with their doctor. That is family information in so far as it may be relevant. I would not regard it as appropriate to record details of defects in the case of a live birth; neither would I consider it appropriate in the case of a stillbirth.

I recognise the element of comfort which this Bill will provide for parents. I would not wish that any amendment of mine would damage that and I do not believe my amendment would have that effect. Deputy Martin said he was not certain about the position. A cancer register has recently been established, not because there was no information in the country but because it was not collated and the overall picture was not clear. The stillbirths register will be a national register which can provide the grounds for carrying out research and also for making improvements or changes in health policy which may ensure that babies can live. That is a point that would bring comfort to parents. Perhaps it is the Minister for Health who should be here today. I welcome the fact that this Bill was introduced by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform but there are medical implications and we cannot pretend otherwise.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank Members on all sides of the House for their understanding, helpful, constructive and sympathetic comments. I know the Bill will give comfort to many parents, siblings and members of extended families. It has been said that the Bill was long overdue but I was at pains to ensure that the retrospective provisions were inserted to ensure that parents can now proceed to get these stillbirths registered. I pay tribute also to the staff of my Department who worked long and hard on this legislation.

I welcome this Bill. It is a good day for democracy because this is the fruition of a campaign that has taken many years. I hope many other groups who are seeking changes in legislation will take heart and perhaps not have to wait quite so long. It is a good day's work that this Bill has passed unanimously. Obviously we would have liked some changes in it, nevertheless I welcome the Minister's replies on those issues and I think he understands the changes which were proposed.

A great day's work has been done. This is not the first time the Bill has been debated; it was debated extensively in the Seanad where it was introduced. It must be said that the Bill meets all the requirements of ISANDS, the group who spearheaded the campaign. From speaking with members of ISANDS I understand they are very happy with the Bill as it stands. That is fundamentally important. All credit is due to the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House. When he comes to write his political memoirs he may have introduced much more extensive legislation.

Not for a long time I hope.

Some people may be writing theirs already.

Small as this Bill is, it may make a major difference to many people in sad and lonely situations in the years ahead. This may be something for which he will be remembered with great affection as well as appreciation. That comes very seldom in politics.

The issues raised in the amendments are valid but they can be pursued with another Minister and within the ambit of another Department. I have no doubt they will be pursued and that there will be a constructive and positive outcome. Today's business is work well done. I congratulate the Minister and the officials of his Department.

I thank the Minister and his staff and ISANDS for today's success. This Bill is a step forward and I am glad it got through the Dáil relatively quickly. It makes our legislation more humane. It is progressive legislation and it will certainly help to alleviate some of the suffering and pain experienced by parents. If you are somebody who has been fortunate to have children and never had a stillbirth it is difficult to imagine the pain involved. It is easy to sympathise with those parents who have had to bear such a loss. I believe this Bill will help to alleviate some of that sense of loss.

I congratulate the Minister and his staff and all the Members who have worked on this Bill. The amendments gave us an opportunity to debate the pros and cons of the issues. When the Bill has been signed by the President and enacted into law, it will allow ISANDS to report at their conference in April 1994 the success of their campaign which has continued for a decade or more.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share