Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Mar 1944

Vol. 28 No. 14

Midwives Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As indicated in the Long Title, the purpose of this Bill is to make further and better provision for the enrolment, certification, control and training of midwives, and for other purposes relating to midwives and the practice of midwifery.

A difficulty arose in connection with the provisions of the Act of 1918 for payments to the Central Midwives Board by the county and county borough councils, described in the Act as local supervising authorities. Section 13 of that Act provided that if in any year the income derived by the board from the fees paid by candidates in respect of examinations and certificates was insufficient to cover their expenses or showed a balance against the board, the board could apportion the balance between the local supervising authorities in proportion to their rateable valuations. Those authorities were required to pay the amounts apportioned within six months of the date of the receipt of the communications notifying them of the amounts or within such further period as might be agreed upon. A long period might therefore elapse before the board received money sufficient to enable them to meet a deficit shown in their accounts at the end of a year. The board desired that special provision should be made to meet this situation and to enable them to obtain funds to pay off their deficits without such long delay.

Section 13 of the Midwives Act of 1918 provided that every woman presenting herself to the Central Midwives Board for examination and certificate should pay such fee as the board, with the approval of the Privy Council, determined, but not exceeding one guinea. The functions of the Privy Council in this matter have passed to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. When the Act of 1918 was passed the period of training for midwives was six months. Candidates for admission to the roll of midwives were required to pass only one examination. Candidates must now pass two examinations and the period of training is two years. The Central Midwives Board consider that they should now be empowered to charge a fee for each examination, and provision is being made accordingly.

Paragraph (5) of Section 5 of the Act of 1918 empowered the Central Midwives Board to remove the name of any midwife from the roll of midwives for disobeying the rules and regulations from time to time laid down under the Act by the board, or for other misconduct. The board were not given power to summon witnesses to appear before them to give evidence in any proceedings for the removal of the name of a midwife from the roll, or to require any person to produce documents for the purposes of such proceedings. It is proposed to give the board these powers, as without them they cannot effectively carry out their functions.

Paragraph (2) of Section 16 of the Act of 1918 empowered a local supervising authority to investigate charges of malpractice, negligence, or misconduct on the part of any midwife practising within their district, and should a prima facie case be established, to report the same to the Central Midwives Board. The local supervising authority were not, however, given power to suspend the midwife when they made the report to the board, and they had no means of preventing the midwife from practising even when they had reported her for a serious offence Under Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1918 the Central Midwives Board could frame rules authorising the local supervising authority to suspend midwives from practice but the power of suspension by the local supervising authority under that section was limited to the case of a midwife against whom a prosecution had been taken for a contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. It is felt that the local supervising authority should have power to suspend the midwife from practice when they have established a prima facie case against her and reported it to the board.

The Central Midwives Board also consider that they should be given power to grant certificates of competency to teach midwifery. It is desirable that they should have such power and the necessary amendment of the law is embodied in the Bill before the House.

When providing for the amendments suggested by the Central Midwives Board some difficulties arose in connection with the drafting of a new Bill to fit in with the existing Acts on account of the different terms and authorities provided for, and it was thought desirable to draft a Bill which would consolidate the provisions of the previous Acts and embody the proposed amendments.

The Bill makes no change in regard to the constitution of the Central Midwives Board. The board is to consist of 11 members, seven of whom are to be appointed by the Minister. Four of the members appointed by the Minister shall be midwives ordinarily resident within the State. They shall be selected by the Minister after consultation with representatives of nursing organisations. One at least of the remaining three members appointed by the Minister shall be a registered medical practitioner, and the other four members of the board shall be registered medical practitioners ordinarily resident within the State elected by registered medical practitioners who are also so resident. There are no changes in the provisions constituting the Central Midwives Board. These are the provisions in the 1918 Act.

Appointments and elections to the board must be made quinquennially. Members of the board who are in office when the Act comes into operation are to continue in office until the expiration of the existing quinquennial period. The Bill contains the provisions now usual in such enactments governing the meetings and proceedings of the board and the appointment and term of office of the chairman of the board.

The appointment of the office staff required by the board is also dealt with in the Bill. The board shall, subject to the consent of the Minister, appoint such and so many officers and servants as they think proper. They are given power to regulate the remuneration of their staffs and to grant retiring allowances and gratuities to officers or servants leaving their service. In Section 20, a new provision appears which enables the board to establish a contingency fund. Under the existing law the board has no power to establish a contingency fund and from time to time unforeseen contingencies arise and it was thought desirable to give the board the necessary power to establish such a fund to meet such emergencies.

The board are required to submit an annual report of their proceedings to the Minister. The accounts to be kept by the board are also provided for, and if during any year the receipts and payments of the board show a balance against the board they are required to apportion the balance between the local supervising authorities in the same manner as was done by the former board. Each local supervising authority is required to pay the amount apportioned to it, one-fourth of the amount within one month after the receipt of the notice specifying the amount assigned, and the balance within three months.

As regards the registration of midwives, the Bill requires the Central Midwives Board to maintain and publish a roll of midwives and it indicates the procedure to be followed for the purpose of ensuring that the particulars in the roll are correct. The roll kept by the former board becomes on the appointed day the roll of midwives for the new board, and registrations in the former roll become on that day the first registrations in the roll of midwives. The board are required to register in the roll every woman who applies for registration in the prescribed manner.

The registration of a woman who is not physically and mentally fit to attend women in childbirth is prohibited, and the board are empowered to require an applicant for registration to furnish evidence of physical and mental fitness.

The provisions for the removal of the name of a midwife from the roll of midwives are dealt with in Sections 25 to 28. Section 25 empowers the Central Midwives Board to remove the name of any midwife from the roll in accordance with rules to be made by them. Such rules must provide that where it is proposed to remove the name of a midwife from the roll, proceedings in that behalf must be instituted before the board and that the defendant shall have an opportunity of answering the charges made against her.

As regards the education and training of midwives, the board are empowered to make rules providing for the courses of training and examinations to be taken by candidates for registration in the roll of midwives. They may also approve of lecturers and teachers and of institutions in which courses of training may be taken and provide for the conditions of admission to examinations. The board may also hold examinations and regulate the conduct of examinations. The board are empowered to provide post-graduate courses of training and examinations for midwives and to grant certificates or diplomas to midwives taking such courses and passing such examinations. This latter power would include the power to grant certificates of competency to teach midwifery. Under Section 47 of the Bill, the board may require midwives to attend courses of instruction approved, provided or arranged by them.

The board are required to issue to every woman who becomes a midwife, or whose name is restored to the roll of midwives, a certificate certifying that she is registered in the roll of midwives.

Section 46 of the Bill deals with the calling in by a midwife of medical assistance in an emergency. Where a midwife calls in a medical practitioner, she must report the nature of the emergency to the local supervising authority, who are required to pay a fee to the practitioner requisitioned by the midwife. The amount of the fee may be recovered from the husband or other person responsible for the patient, unless the patient is eligible for medical assistance under the Public Assistance Act, 1939. No fee is payable to the medical practitioner called in if he is the medical officer of a dispensary district and the patient is a person eligible for medical assistance and resides in the dispensary district. In this matter the section differs from Section 22 of the Midwives (Ireland) Act, 1918, under which no fee could be paid to any medical practitioner called in by a midwife to attend a patient who was entitled to medical relief under the Medical Charities Act.

These are the main provisions of the Bill. I have not gone into them in much detail. It is really a machinery Bill that very largely explains itself. I think it is a good Bill, as it contains provisions necessary for the proper control of midwives in the practice of midwifery, and for maintaining the highest standards in this branch of our national health service. In the Dáil substantial amendments were made. They were not of a very important character but, as the Bill now appears before this House, it is almost as good as we could make it. If Senators feel that it can be further improved I shall be very glad indeed of their assistance, in trying to make it a better measure than it appears to me to be.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary's pride in this Bill is justified. He has made improvements as far as registration is concerned. He has also made some useful amendments in the Bill—they are not perfect —in regard to the education of midwives. Nevertheless, there are some faults in the Bill. As to the arrangements for the education of midwives, I notice that they must undergo a course of instruction at certain intervals. They may be paid travelling expenses and cost of maintenance, and the local authorities may employ substitutes during their absence from duty, but I do not think there is any provision—I did not hear it from the Parliamentary Secretary and I cannot find it in the Bill—whereby they would be paid the expense of their course of training. If midwives go for a course of training in order to fit themselves the better for the public service they have to pay certain fees.

I understand this question was raised in the other House but I do not remember what answer was given. It appears to be manifestly unjust if midwives in the public service are compelled to attend courses of training or study at certain intervals that they should not be reimbursed for their loss or, to put it further, that they should be compelled to leave districts where they usually have private practice as well as their public practice, for that purpose. It is only fair that they should be reimbursed during such training. Unless that condition is put into this Bill midwives will be very discontented in being compelled to leave their districts to undergo training, at their own expense, apart from travelling expenses, or any fees they may have to pay. The Department which the Parliamentary Secretary represents has very frequently impressed upon dispensary doctors the propriety of taking up special courses of training. But, when these gentlemen apply for leave to attend the course, they have great difficulty with their authorities in obtaining it, and they are not paid any expenses when they are away. They are, in fact, giving up their time to better themselves in their professional work, a good deal of which is paid for by the Government, but it is very hard to attract them to courses of training if they have to do them at their own expense, temporarily lose their practice, pay the cost of travelling and meet the bill for maintenance at whatever centre of learning they attend.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that it is reasonable with regard to midwives, to make it attractive to them to take this extra training and so give better service to the country and those inhabitants to whom it would be their duty to give attention. Section 47 makes one uneasy as to the intentions of the Department. Is this a progressive or a retrogressive Bill? I said a few moments ago that I thought in regard to the machinery of the Bill and the arrangement of the register and so on, that probably it is a very water-tight measure. I pointed out a very grave fault in regard to the exploitation of midwives—compelling them to attend courses of study without paying them for doing it.

There is another clause which the Parliamentary Secretary passed over very lightly. It is thoroughly mischievous and interferes with the efficiency of the whole midwifery service in the country. The Midwives Bill, 1918, which was passed by a foreign Parliament, but a Parliament which had a great deal more care for the health of the country than any Government so far in this country, although we hoped for much better 20 years ago, had one great advantage. We are still far behind the public health services of the neighbouring island, and one may judge from the discussions going on there now that these services will be improved enormously in the future. Here we are to have some reform. It is suggested we should have a special Minister for Health as well as a Minister for Local Government. On that proposal, I will not make any comment at present. In principle, I think it is an excellent proposal, and it is one the medical profession has been pressing on the Government for over 20 years. Its success will depend on matters other than the mere nomination of a Minister or giving some person the status and powers of a Minister. These matters will have a great deal to do with the success of the experiment, but, in principle, the proposal is an excellent one, and I think my colleagues would agree on that. I would like to go on to deal with another clause.

What is the number of the clause?

It is Section 46 of the Bill, dealing with the calling in of assistance in an emergency. That differs markedly from its predecessor in the old Act of 1918. That Act made sure that no midwife would be in professional difficulties beyond her capacity without the power and right and duty of calling in a qualified medical adviser to assist her. It is true that that is in the present Bill, but a limitation is put on it. If a midwife requisitions the assistance of a registered medical practitioner, she must limit herself to sending for the poor law doctor of the district, "if available." In many cases that will not limit her activities at all, but in others, it will limit her choice considerably. In a city like Dublin—I take it because it is most familiar to us—if an emergency occurs in a Dublin street, and the patient is a poor person, the midwife will not be permitted to call in a gentleman of special skill; she could summon only the dispensary doctor of the district. Without casting any slight on fellow practitioners in the Dublin dispensary services, I say that comparatively few have the experience or the desire to practise in regard to midwifery.

Maternity hospitals do the great bulk of work in the city, and the midwife will naturally be forced to requisition someone who is not the best to be had. I will say nothing against the skill of the other men in the work they undertake, but many would be summoned to a type of case which they would refuse in ordinary private practice, and also because they believe the attendance given and the skill provided at the maternity hospitals are probably better than they could provide in tenement houses or wherever the patient may be. It seems to me a very deplorable step that this limitation should be put on the responsibility and judgment of the person in charge of the patient at the time.

What is the reason for it? I hope I am not misrepresenting the judgment of the Department, but it would appear the reason is that another clause provides that if the medical officer of the district is called in, he is not entitled to receive any fee. It is to go in with his dispensary work, while if a much more skilled man is called in, he will not be paid any fee either. It is forbidden to call him in and the midwife's requisition has no bearing.

In the past, the Legislature which passed the 1918 Bill was anxious that there should be the best treatment available and the best conditions. The Bill related to Ireland alone and it succeeded to a very great extent in that respect. The Parliamentary Secretary's Department in this Bill intend to improve the conditions of the midwifery service, and they probably set about it very well, but at the same time they are going to limit the responsibility of the midwifery service to make sure that in many cases where a medical officer is not readily available only an inferior service—I will withdraw the word inferior and say a less perfect service—will be provided than was provided by the old Act. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will think fit to see the strength of the case I am trying to argue in support of amendments which are necessary to ensure that the poor women of Dublin who will be dependent on midwives and the conduct of midwives for their safety at the most critical periods of their lives, will be assured a little more safety under this Bill than under the foreign Bill.

The phrase "if available" is a very vague one. The midwife who thinks of sending out a requisition will consider very much what is meant by "if available". She knows that if she sends out a requisition to private practitioners to attend some of her patients she will be queried and questioned and badgered and annoyed by the local authority, who probably want to make sure that the case was a case in which she was justified. She has to send to the local authority a report of all the conditions of the case and the circumstances under which she called in extra assistance. I should like the House to ensure that the Bill which we are now passing after 26 years' experience of an older Act, the provisions of which were, in some respects, much better and more charitable, will strengthen that Act instead of weakening it, as I am afraid it is weakened by the sections I have quoted.

The Parliamentary Secretary has very graciously invited the House to improve and, if possible, to make better, a very good Bill, While I shall not offer any suggestions for its improvement, because it is obvious from the introductory statement and the criticism of Senator Dr. Rowlette, that it is largely a Bill for criticism by experts, by people who are professionally competent to deal with it, on the general aspect of the Bill I should like, as a woman, to welcome it and to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having introduced it. It means so much for the health and happiness of the women of the country, so much for the future of our race, that women when they are bringing young lives into the world, citizens of this country and citizens of Heaven, should themselves get every assistance that human science can give and that their children should get a good start in life. For that reason, we welcome this Bill and rejoice that we are in the House when it is introduced and, as we hope, passed.

The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that the Bill proposes to ensure better training and better supervision of midwives. They must have at least two years' training and pass at least two examinations, and they will be under constant supervision so as to ensure that their qualifications and the standards of skill specified are maintained. I agree with Senator Rowlette that if we ask midwives to attend special courses in the public interest, the public should bear the cost of that. There is all the more reason for that demand because of the fact that midwives as a rule are scandalously paid. On one occasion, as Senators may remember, when I raised in this House the question of pensions for nurses, I was informed that we could not have adequate pensions for midwives, because the salary was so small that, if the pension were proportionate to the salary, it would be simply infinitesimal.

I leave that but it is a most eloquent fact. It is regrettable, it is disgraceful, that we should pay our nurses, and I am sorry to say our midwives, such miserable salaries. I hope that when all this training is secured and when our midwives are trained to the standard fit to give the service that the State expects, we shall pay them adequately. I think we are all glad that the status of the midwife has been ennobled by a very remarkable happening in late years. Our late Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, sanctioned, and indeed even pressed for, the training of religious Sisterhoods in midwifery. He recognised that it is a noble avocation and that women could render no nobler service than as midwives. We should appreciate that gesture by making the conditions of service of our midwives such as to attract the very best of our girls to the profession. That is being done in England. The English people are wise enough to recognise that it is well-spent money. We should also endeavour to make this service as attractive as possible. We should not wait to follow the example of other people. The country requires it; our race requires that we should pay them. It is, of course, entirely inequitable that we should demand a long expensive training from midwives and not pay them adequately. I think the question does not arise on this Bill but the Parliamentary Secretary will have to keep this very important point in mind. I trust that this Bill will be very carefully considered by those who are qualified to speak on it and that the hope of the Parliamentary Secretary that it will emerge from this House a better Bill will be fully justified. I feel that will prove to be the case and that we could not do a better work for the country than by making this Bill as perfect as possible.

There has not been, as I anticipated, much criticism of the Bill. I think that that in itself is very eloquent testimony to the provisions of the measure. I also anticipated that, according to practice and to old-established custom in this House, Senator Dr. Rowlette would find some fault with the Bill. I am sorry he is not here now in order that I might have an opportunity of speaking to him more directly than through the medium of the reports of the debate. In fact, he has seized on one or two sections in a Bill of 65 sections and he has tried to make it appear that we have vitiated the whole intention and spirit of the Act of 1918 by reason of the provisions we have made in these sections. He suggests to the House that this Bill is lacking in almost every important respect. Why? Because we do not make provision, not only to reimburse the midwife by way of paying her substitute but actually to compensate her for her private practice while she is taking this post-graduate course. I submit to the House that that is not reasonable and people should be reasonable in their approach to a problem such as this. In the first place, the Bill does not provide, and it was not intended that it should provide, not did the Act which it is replacing provide, for such compensation.

What provision are we making? The local supervising authority is the county council in the provincial areas and the borough council in the cities. We provide in the first instance that the local supervising authority will pay the midwife's substitute when the midwife is called back to a post-graduate course; we provide that the local supervising authority will pay the salary of the midwife, that the local supervising authority will pay her travelling expenses and also that reasonable compensation by way of maintenance will be provided by the local authority. That is not a very new policy. It is not since this Bill was introduced that that policy was decided upon. On the 8th June, 1943, we circularised local authorities from my Department and in the course of that circular we said:—

"Post-Graduate Courses for Midwives.

"I am to call attention to the Department's previous circular letter pointing out that midwives in the employment of local authorities should be encouraged to attend such courses and to state that the Minister is prepared to sanction the payment of reasonable expenses to midwives of dispensary districts and travelling and subsistence in addition to the remuneration of substitutes whom it may be necessary to employ during their absence. Subsistence expenses in excess of £2 10s. 0d. in fact would be considered excessive."

I put it to the House: it is a reasonable approach to the problem to pay the midwife's substitute, to continue her salary during her absence, to pay her travelling expenses, to provide the course free of any cost to her, and, while she is in Dublin taking her post-graduate course, to give her £2 10s. per week towards maintenance? I think it is reasonable. I hope the House will agree with me that it is reasonable. If it is reasonable, Senators ought not to get up in this House and, purely for the sake of criticism, for the sake of maintaining the old tradition that we cannot do anything exactly right, adopt that line of argument.

Is what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Bill?

It is not necessary that it should be in the Bill. It was the policy before the Bill was introduced, and it was not in the Bill that Senator Rowlette so highly praised, the Bill of 1918 passed by a foreign Parliament. I shall come to that too. Because that is the only provision we are making, we are accused of exploiting the midwives. I put it to Senators who are not medical men—and you do not need to be a medical man to have a certain amount of common sense; in fact it is surprising the number of medical men who have not much of it; you can exclude me from that category——

Excluding the Parliamentary Secretary.

I excluded myself in time; I saw the twinkle in your eye. Surely it is in the interest of the midwife, apart altogether from the interest of the public, that she should be brought back from time to time to modernise her methods, to improve her standards and generally get brushed up a bit. Surely when she goes back, after her post-graduate course, she will have a better status. I think it is reasonable to assume, inasmuch as she is depending for her living—unless to a very small degree—on her private practice, that, as she raises her professional status, her private practice will improve and that we are consequently acting in her interest, apart altogether from the interest of the general community.

Senator Rowlette excels himself when he comes to Section 46, which is the "thoroughly mischievous" one, and he tells us about the excellent provision that was made in the Act of 1918, that we are now destroying. He tells the House that, under the Act of 1918, the midwife was free to call in any doctor she liked. I do not deny that. But he did convey the impression to the House that, if she called in any doctor she liked, she could secure a fee for him, even although the case was a medical charities case. That is not so.

I did not say so.

I say that the Senator conveyed to the House the impression——

I deny it.

——that the midwife was free to call in any practitioner, the best in the land, and the impression was created that that service was available for the medical charities cases. I say that, if it was available, there was no authority to pay a fee. We intend to insist that nothing in this Bill will deprive the Minister of any Ministerial power he has under the Public Assistance Act, 1939. I think that is not unreasonable. Under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, the dispensary medical officer is responsible for the maternity cases in his district, as he is for every other case, and the patient can, if she chooses summon the dispensary medical officer in the first instance in preference to summoning the midwife, and, if he is so summoned, he has got to go and take charge of the case. Under the Public Assistance Act, and the regulations that have been made in accordance with the terms of that Act, the midwife is a subordinate officer to the dispensary doctor and, when the dispensary doctor goes out to see a case, whether it is a normal or abnormal case, if his continuous attention is not required, he leaves the case in charge of the midwife. She is responsible to him, and he is responsible to the local authority and, through the local authority, to the Minister for the proper treatment of that woman in childbirth.

What does Senator Rowlette ask us to do? Senator Rowlette asked us to incorporate in this Bill a clause under which that midwife will be able to go over the head of her superior officer, call in another doctor, and hold him up to the ridicule of the district as not being a fit and proper person, as not being the best man to call in in an emergency—that in fact it is not safe to call him in at all. Those of you who have been members of local authorities, and many of you who have not, know as well as I know—and I know it from practical experience— that the dispensary doctor very often has to take fairly strong disciplinary measures with his midwife in order to see that she discharges her duties properly. Those of you who know anything about the practical side of that particular problem will realise that there are many midwives who, if they got the chance to-morrow, would be very glad to call in somebody else, if it were only to strike at somebody who perhaps had publicly to reprimand them for the manner in which they had been discharging their duties. All that we are doing in that regard, so far as Section 46 is concerned, of which Senator Rowlette is so critical, is providing that the Public Assistance Act shall continue to operate and that nothing in this Bill shall deprive the Minister of any statutory powers he has under the Public Assistance Act, 1939. Not only is that not unreasonable, but it seems to me to be absolutely fundamental.

The impression would be conveyed by Senator Rowlette that, in some way or other, we are going to deprive a woman in childbirth of the best medical assistance that can be provided. There is nothing farther from the truth. I do suggest that in 99 cases out of 100 the dispensary medical officer is the most skilled obstetrician that can be found in a sudden emergency. I would also remind the House that, when the dispensary medical officer is called in, if he finds himself up against an unusual difficulty, he has ample scope to call in another consultant, and very often does. I cannot speak with personal experience in regard to the City of Dublin, but I would say, from an intimate knowledge of the obstetrical skill of the dispensary medical officers throughout the country, that one will go a long distance before meeting a practitioner who is more skilled in the art of obstetrics than they are. I want to pay that tribute to them, as I know they are deserving of it.

It is true that, when the dispensary medical officer is called in by the midwife to a dispensary case, he is not entitled to a fee. Is there any reason why he should be? He is responsible for the maternity cases, just the same as for any other cases; and, if he is to be paid a fee for this particular type of work, we had better depart from the principle of the Public Assistance Act entirely and pay him a fee for every case where he is called in. The criticism was, I think, ill-founded and rather unfair; and I confess that I am rather surprised that Senator Rowlette should have adopted the attitude towards this particular section that he has adopted in the House.

Doctors differ—and the patient does not get any good out of that. I want to say that I welcome the Bill and that I think we have made substantial progress.

Is this a speech? The Senator will be aware that the Parliamentary Secretary has concluded the debate.

Surely, you will let Senator Rowlette defend himself?

This is not the Committee Stage.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will not be let get away with the allegations he has made?

The Parliamentary Secretary has delivered the concluding speech on the Second Reading.

I should like to ask a question. During the course of his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary made many personal attacks on me. Am I not entitled to any chance of replying to those attacks?

There will be other stages of the Bill, Senator. When I called on the Parliamentary Secretary to speak, that was the point at which Senator Foran should have intervened.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. The Bill regulates the employment of midwives in maternity homes. Section 30, sub-section (1) provides that "the board may, on removing the name of any midwife from the roll of midwives, direct that she shall not be in employment in any capacity in a maternity home". Can she be employed as a general nurse or as a cook or parlourmaid?

Under the terms of the Bill, she could not be employed in a maternity home in any capacity. That section is inserted at the express wish of the Central Midwives Board. The justification of it would be that, if a midwife were employed in any other capacity, such as a cook or a housekeeper, in a case of emergency she might be found practising midwifery. This has been inserted at the request of the Central Midwives Board and they have a good deal of experience to guide them. In fact, so far as the board and the Department are concerned, the Bill is an agreed Bill.

It is a very drastic Bill.

There will be ample opportunity to deal with all those matters on the sections in Committee.

I want to get the Parliamentary Secretary's view now.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd March.
Top
Share