This amendment is proposed as a result of representations received from the Central Midwives Board and is made on their suggestion. Although this point is cleared up in two other sections—Section 41 and Section 55, relating to the division of maternity nurses and the penal clauses—it was felt that in the definitions it would be advisable to note the fact that the nurse should be registered.
Nurses Bill, 1949—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In line 32, after "means" to insert "a person registered in the register of nurses who is."
May I raise the question, which has fairly wide implications throughout the country, as to why the term "maternity nurse" is used rather than the time honoured one of "midwife"? The term "midwife" is not used throughout the Bill at all and "maternity nurse" is now used where the ordinary person, whether lay or medical, would use "midwife". Whether that is deliberate, or whether there is some special reason, is still rather obscure; but there is a rather important implication. The body which controls this profession in other countries—in Great Britain, Scotland and Northern Ireland—still uses the term "midwife" and the controlling body of the women practising in this branch of the nursing profession is a midwives board. The dropping of the term "midwife" may have, I think, a rather unfortunate result which I may refer to later. For the moment, I would like merely to know why the term "maternity nurse" is used in preference and, in fact, in substitution for the term "midwife".
This term was considered, first of all, in consultation with the representatives of the midwives. We were anxious to change the name, as we felt it important to introduce a new name for these nurses because their duties will be enlarged and their status, we hope, will be improved. We felt that the old connotation which is associated with the word "midwife" could be improved. I do not in any way wish to take away from the tremendous work which midwives have done down through the years, but in so far as the duties are being enlarged and the responsibilities being increased we felt that a new name would be desirable.
In relation to the repercussions elsewhere, we have been pursuing that point and do not think there will be any deleterious or disadvantageous effect by the introduction of this new name for this section of the nursing profession.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:—
(d) three shall be persons whose names are included in the general part of the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act, 1919, with experience in training persons for nursing;.
This is a drafting amendment. Section 11 is intended to be operated before the date of establishment and it would not be appropriate to mention "nurses", since a nurse is defined as a person registered in the register established under the Bill.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (2), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—
(b) two shall be persons who are nurses, persons whose names are included in the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act, 1919, or persons registered under the Act of 1944.
We thought it would be desirable to have powers to appoint a maternity nurse or midwife under this section if we so wished. It is not likely to overweigh the representation of the maternity nurses on the board and we felt that there should be at least two of the nursing personnel who had maternity nurse qualifications.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Government amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), line 34, after "Board" to add "by nurses".
This is a drafting amendment. It is customary to specify in electoral cases the type of persons who are to elect.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (3), lines 49 and 50, to delete "which shall specify the different electors to elect each of the persons mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section".
This amendment is introduced in order to expand the powers of the board and to avoid too closely defining or specifying the electors to elect each person, which might restrict the practice of electing the members. Consequently, we were anxious to amend the section, to leave out the qualifying clause.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
To delete sub-section (4).
This amendment proposes to delete this sub-section, for similar reasons as in the previous amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Government amendment No. 7:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The Minister may fix the date, time and place of the first meeting of the Board.
This is merely to give powers to call the Board together once it is established.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Government amendment No 8:—
To insert at the end of the section the following "and may provide for the delegation, to a committee or committees of or under the Board, of any powers, functions or duties of the Board".
This provision is not without precedent as a similar provision was made in the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act, 1919. It is useful for the Board to be able to delegate functions or powers by rules to a committee and, in particular, to the Maternity Nurses' Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Government amendment No. 9:—
In subsection (2), line 5, after "not" to insert ",within a period specified by the Minister,".
A number of Senators raised this point on Second Reading. We have had some difficulty in trying to ensure that there would be a reasonable period between the making of an Order under this section and giving the opportunity to the Board to carry out that Order.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 24 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Government amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—
(b) two shall be—
(i) in the case of persons appointed before the establishment date, persons registered under the Act of 1944, and
(ii) in any other case, maternity nurses.
This amendment is to ensure that the nurses to be appointed by the Minister to the Maternity Nurses Committee shall be maternity nurses or, in the case of the first committee, midwives, that is, before the establishment date. This is to meet a point raised that as many as possible of the members of the committee should be midwives or maternity nurses.
Is it the intention of the Minister to appoint midwives or maternity nurses or people who are qualified both as general nurses and midwives?
Before the establishment date, in the first committee, they will be midwives. After the establishment date they will be maternity nurses.
It is not the intention to appoint nurses who would have general training as well as midwifery training?
They would not necessarily be disqualified.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 30 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 11:—
Before Section 33 to insert a new section as follows:—
The member of the committee who was appointed under paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of this Act shall be chairman of the Committee or where he ceases to be a member of the Committee the person appointed to replace him shall be chairman of the Committee.
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of Section 33. This again is a drafting amendment. The section as introduced was defective because it did not provide for the continuation in office of the chairman of the Committee for three months following the election year. During these three months the Committee will continue in office in order to give time to the Board to appoint the new Committee. The original section laid down rules as to how the chairman should be appointed and we are anxious to amend that point.
New section agreed to.
Section 33 deleted.
SECTION 34.
Government amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (2), line 4, at the beginning of the sub-section to insert "Subject to sub-section (3) of this section".
This is a drafting amendment rendered necessary by amendment No. 13.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) For any particular class of business or for any particular purpose, the Committee may fix the quorum of a meeting at a greater number than three.
This amendment is inserted as a result of representations by the Central Midwives Board, who have pointed out that for penal cases a quorum of four or five may be found desirable. Otherwise, a quorum which contained no member with specialised knowledge of maternity nursing might be found trying penal cases.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."
Under Section 36, the Minister may at any time by Order remove any member of the Committee from office. Does that mean that he may remove a member of the Committee from office without reasons stated, just arbitrarily remove him without necessarily giving any explanation for the Order?
That is the position under existing legislation, the 1944 Act. The occasions on which it would arise would be occasions of fairly serious misdemeanour in which it would be desirable that there should be removal. I am certain that it would be the normal practice to give reasons for the removal.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Government amendment No. 14:—
In line 38 after "Board" where it secondly occurs to insert "otherwise than by virtue of the termination of his period of office at the end of an election year,".
This is a drafting amendment to ensure that the old Committee can continue in office for three months after an election year in order that the new Board may have time to appoint a new Committee.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder whether the Minister would agree to make it obligatory on the Board rather than permissive that they should prepare and submit to him a pensions scheme, because merely making it permissive may mean that it may never be prepared at all. When we are undertaking to revise the status and the conditions of nurses, we should definitely from the beginning ensure that they would be entitled to pensions when they come to retire.
It is a very desirable objective with which I agree, but the Senator must understand that a number of the nurses who will be under the control and subject to the rules of this board will be nurses working in voluntary hospitals for whom it is not possible for the Oireachtas to make laws. It is possible for us to decide on the introduction of pension schemes in relation to local authority institutions, but we have no such function in relation to voluntary hospital nurses.
If the word "shall" is substituted for "may", surely provision can be made, in the drawing up of the scheme, for exceptional cases. It can be ensured by the fact that whatever scheme is put forward is subject to his approval, and, if you want to have arrangements for opting out or for leaving out certain classes, it can be done in the drafting of the scheme. Otherwise, if because there are exceptions to the rule, the rule will not be carried out, it is ridiculous to put this provision in the Bill at all.
The Senator must accept that the Board which will take on these functions will be composed of the most responsible sections of both the nursing and medical personnel in the community. There are numerous functions which are obvious and primary responsibilities which it would be possible to direct this board to undertake. I do not think it would be appropriate to use the very strong method of making it mandatory on them to introduce such a scheme. I think we should rather trust to their intelligence, their good sense and their sense of responsibility to the staff.
Did I understand the Minister to tell the House that the Legislature had no right to make provision for superannuation in the case of nurses employed in voluntary hospitals? I may have misunderstood it, but that is what I gathered from his statement. I do not accept that view at all. Local authority institutions, so far as management and control are concerned, should and would be as private to the particular local authority as the voluntary hospital is in relation to whatever board controls it. We have arrived at the stage when employers, according to what we read about our new approach to social security, are to be compelled by legislation to face up to the responsibility of providing a scheme of superannuation for their employees, and, having regard to that aspect, there is a lot in Senator O'Farrell's point that there should be a definite directive on the matter. I do not see why we should not have as much authority to make legislative provision in the matter of a superannuation scheme for people employed in voluntary hospitals as in the case of nurses employed by local authorities.
This section applies not to nurses, but to the employees and servants of the Board. Therefore, it is a question of drawing up a pension scheme for the persons whom the Board may employ, and it is not unusual to use the word "shall" in this case. I have heard it argued by Ministers—the Minister for Health did not so argue—that the word "may" is the same as "shall" in this context. It is a very old argument. What I am interested in, however—I may have missed the opportunity on Section 36— is to know whether, if there is a pension scheme for these people, as I think there should be, there is any scheme by which they are to be appointed, or will they be entirely appointed by the Board on its own initiative? Will any machinery of any kind be provided for appointing them? Will they, like persons going for positions under the Government, local bodies or semi-State corporations, get what one might call a fair chance for their qualifications? I think there should be a pension scheme, but I doubt whether the word "shall" should be inserted, and I wonder if there is anything in the Minister's mind as to what scheme should be adopted for appointing them before one starts to give them pensions.
I want to go back to "may" and "shall". I do not accept "may" as having the same mandatory force as "shall", and neither would anyone else, if it suited him not to do it, but in this case the officer or servant ought to be provided for because if the officer or servant of a dissolved board had pension rights, his or her pension rights are extinguished when the board is dissolved and goes out of existence. This section purports to provide that whatever rights they had under the dissolved or extinguished board shall be continued and maintained, and, unless you make it mandatory, the dissolved board dissolves the pension rights of the persons working for it, and they are automatically transferred here without their pension rights until such time as the Board may, in the goodness of its heart, decide that they will bring in another scheme. That is why it is essential that it should be made mandatory.
The very fact that it does not deal with nurses in general but with employees, with officers and servants, who had and have at this moment certain pension rights, rights which will be extinguished as soon as a board is dissolved, makes it necessary to provide in this measure for carrying on their pension rights and ensuring that they will be maintained.
I think that this question of "shall" and "may" can be argued until doomsday. I have never been able to find out the exact distinction in law between the two. This is not, however, a matter of theory or phraseology, but of practical politics. The provision of this section as it stands is an indication to the Board that the Oireachtas requires them to submit to the Minister a pension scheme. It is not practicable to say what that scheme is to be. It may be a ridiculous scheme of which no one could approve or an elaborate scheme which would be too expensive but it is expected that one will be submitted to the Minister. If the word "shall" were used you would not gain anything because what would happen if they do not submit it? You would need elaborate provisions to ensure that if they did not do so there would need to be some sanction. If after a reasonable time the Board did not submit a pension scheme, either because they were asleep and incompetent or because they did not approve of one, the Minister would have to be able to appoint a board that would. Senator O'Farrell said that if "shall" were not there it would automatically lapse, but there is nothing whatever to indicate that. Once a scheme is brought in, like a pension scheme of a private business or local authority, it would continue until it was specifically changed. Any obligations undertaken to the employees could not be taken away from them without a specific Act.
I dislike getting up so often, but Senator Douglas misunderstands me. If I were convinced that the section as it stands compelled the Board within any length of time, specified or unspecified, to bring in a pension scheme I would accept it without question, but I am certain that the section as drafted does not compel the board to bring in a pension scheme unless they themselves want it. If people say that "may" means the same as "shall" what is their objection to changing it? The Senator may tell me that he may eat to-morrow and that is quite different to saying that he shall eat to-morrow.
This is an old argument. Let me assure Senator O'Farrell that the difference between "may" and "shall" in legal documents is not as simple as he attempts to make out. In my time I heard a great deal about it and it is not simple. Senator Douglas was right in saying that if you put "shall" in the section you would have to add sanctions and give the Minister certain powers, while without "shall" the Minister has, in fact, those powers. The section as it is in the Bill allows Senator O'Farrell, any other Senator or member of the Dáil to question the Minister as to whether, under its provisions when the Bill is an Act, a pension scheme has been brought up. It may take time to draw up a pension scheme. For all practical purposes, unless the Minister is against a pension scheme, this is a provision for such a scheme. If the Minister is against it—I do not mean the present Minister himself, but use the word in its administrative sense— it will not take place at all, even if the word "shall" is used.
There are sanctions in sub-section (1).
Even with "shall", if the Minister were not in favour of a pension scheme you would not have one. This is, I think, sufficient and gives sufficient indication that the Minister can from time to time be asked questions about it and has in fact power to say to the Board "I want a pensions scheme or I will get another board". I do not think that would happen however. I do not think the Board would be so recalcitrant as not to have it, granting that we are in favour of having a pension scheme for its employees.
I am not impressed by the argument that there is no difference between "may" and "shall" and Senator O'Farrell has demonstrated that. We are told that at a later period a member of the Oireachtas may question the fact that a scheme has not been introduced, but may we not assume that the Minister will reply "This is not obligatory and we can do nothing". I do not mean the present Minister. We make laws to-day but in ten years it is difficult to interpret them. This is not mandatory and if we allow this permissive clause and the question is raised by a member of the Oireachtas as to why a scheme has not been introduced the Minister may reply that there is no obligation to do so and the question will be left there.
I think that all Senators are in favour of the provision of a pensions scheme. We had a similar position in the case of railways Bills which have been passed from time to time. The Bill of 1924 provided that the company may submit to the Minister a scheme of pensions covering all those not covered already. The company just did not submit one. Under a subsequent Act the word "shall" was used. The company obeyed that by introducing a scheme of such a character that it was unanimously rejected by the Railways Tribunal and by the staff concerned and there the matter ended. We must visualise whether the people comprising the Board would be the type of people themselves to object to a pension scheme. I can hardly imagine it. What would they have to gain? No financial interests of theirs are involved and one must assume that the type of person forming the Board would in the normal course be in favour of a pension scheme, particularly as many of them would be entitled to pensions from other sources. The position is that they are either in favour of it or against it. If they are in favour, it does not matter whether the word is "may" or "shall". If they are in principle opposed to it, you may put in "shall" and still gain nothing, because they might provide for pensions of £10 or £15 a year. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted about the type of pension or fixing a minimum scale. I think we can let the matter go on the sure assumption that the Board will be in favour of a pension scheme, that they will submit it to the Minister and that he, if he thinks it suitable, will pass it. On the other hand, if they are opposed to it they can obey "shall" and negative the whole thing by submitting an unacceptable scheme, and there is no provision for any action by the Minister in such circumstances. I think that the staff of the Board will be comparatively small—it cannot be big—and it will have sufficient money to finance a pension scheme. I would be surprised, therefore, if a board appointed at this time were averse to such an elementary conception as a pension scheme.
The Minister can remove anybody——
That is the Board. I am talking of the full-time officers.
How will the Board be financed? The Bill does not say anything about that except in Section 4.
Section 24, and it is also covered in another section.
That would not be enough. It is really important to know the source of the finances of the Board for without that you cannot have pensions or even pay salaries. Section 24 deals only with fees.
Section 58.
It is covered. With regard to the appointment of staff, the staff will be appointed subject to the sanction of the Minister for Health and it is within his power to withhold that sanction if he is not satisfied that reasonable precautions have been taken to see that the best qualified person is appointed, that is, by advertisement, by proper boards being set up and qualifications clearly defined.
I still believe that it would be most unlikely that we should have a board which would so neglect its responsibility as not to introduce a pensions scheme. There is practically unanimity in this House and amongst any group of people in the country concerning this question of pensions. The Board is being drawn largely from the medical and nursing profession and it is unlikely that we would get a group of men and women so unaware of their responsibility in relation to pensions.
So long as the Minister and the Oireachtas feel that a pensions scheme is desirable, serious action could be taken if the Board refused to introduce a pensions scheme. I do not think the problem is a serious one, as this is a most obvious procedure. The financial provisions are so covered that there would be no economic restriction on the Board bringing in such a superannuation scheme. I think we should leave it to the discretion of the Board and to their good sense to introduce a scheme within a reasonable period. If this does not happen, it would be up to the then Minister to take suitable action.
In relation to the point raised by Senator O'Farrell, concerning the ex-employees, we are introducing an amendment to see that they shall not suffer by any provisions of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (2), line 22, after "may" to insert ", subject to the prescribed conditions,".
This is a drafting amendment, as it was not intended that the Board should act arbitrarily in regard to registration but should be governed by rules on that matter.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 16:—
Before Section 44 to insert a new section as follows:—
The Board may by rules make provision with respect to—
(a) the issue of certificates (in this section referred to as certificates of registration) to persons registered in the register of nurses,
(b) the uniforms and badges which may be worn by nurses registered in any division of the register of nurses, and
(c) the return and cancellation of certificates of registration and certificates issued under the Act of 1944.
It was felt at the time of introduction that this matter could be covered in rules governing registration, but in view of the legal significance of certificates and especially in view of the provisions for penalties for their improper use, envisaged under Section 55, it is thought desirable to have a specific provision governing the law of badges and certificates.
What will be the position of the large number of our nurses who trained in England and in many cases are registered in England?
This section will not affect them in any way.
I think the point is covered by the preceding section, Section 43.
New section put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Government amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (1), line 31, after "nurses", to insert "or from a division or divisions of the register of nurses,".
This is to ensure that, if it is desired to remove a person from the maternity nurses division without removing her from the other divisions of the register, it will be possible to do so.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (2), line 36, to delete "the register of nurses" and substitute "a division of the register of nurses other than the maternity nurses division".
This provision is to exclude maternity nurses from the provision whereby they are to have charges investigated before the Board. The proposed amendment to Section 45 will provide that charges against maternity nurses will be investigated before the Maternity Nurses' Committee.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The rules made for the purposes of this section shall prescribe the causes for which and the conditions under which the name of a nurse may be removed from a division of the register of nurses other than the maternity nurses division, and different rules may be made under this section governing the removal of names from different divisions of the register of nurses.
Under the Bill as originally drafted, the Board, in removing the name of a nurse from the register, would have to act in accordance with the rules. From the legal point of view, in so far as the reasons for which the person is removed from the register may be the subject of appeals to the High Court, it is felt desirable to put beyond all doubt that these reasons must be specified in the rules.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Government amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (1), line 40, after "may" to insert ", in accordance with rules,".
This is a drafting amendment. It was not intended that the Committee should act arbitrarily in recommending the removal of a name from the register but that they should be governed by rules, particularly by the rule which will specify the grounds upon which a person may have her name removed from the register.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:—
To add to the section three new sub-sections as follows:—
( ) The rules made for the purposes of this section shall, in particular, provide that, before the Committee exercise their powers under sub-section (1) of this section in respect of a maternity nurse, the Committee shall afford the nurse an opportunity of answering before them the charges made against her.
( ) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the rules made for the purposes of this section shall prescribe the causes for which and the conditions under which the Committee may recommend the removal of the name of a nurse from the maternity nurses division.
( ) Where the Committee recommends the removal of a name of a maternity nurse from the maternity nurses division, they may also recommend to the Board that the Board should exercise their powers under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1944 and the board shall exercise those powers accordingly.
Under the first sub-section, where it is proposed to remove the name of a maternity nurse from the register, she shall have the charges investigated before the Committee. This was raised by some of the Senators on Second Reading and the amendment is to meet some of the objections raised. The second sub-section gives power to embody in rules the grounds upon which a person may have her name removed from the maternity nurses division of the register. It corresponds to Section 44, already discussed, which makes similar provision for persons registered in other divisions of the register.
I welcome this amendment proposed by the Minister, particularly the insertion of the first sub-section. On Second Reading I pointed out the injustice of expecting a young and inexperienced woman, subjected to a charge before the Committee, not even to have the right of audience. As the Bill was originally drafted, the Committee could presumably listen to a charge made against her and, without any defence at all, recommend to the Board that her name should be removed from the register— an obvious injustice. That has been corrected by the Minister by means of this amendment. I am very glad. I should like the Minister to go further. The young women likely to be charged for some contravention of the rules are relatively inexperienced. They are not accustomed to appearing before an apparently rather august body and being subject to serious questions. I think a young woman would be severely handicapped unless she were allowed legal aid. I therefore beg to urge on the Minister that he should go further than he has done and, in giving the nurse an opportunity of answering charges made, give her also the right to be represented by solicitor or counsel.
I would support Senator Bigger's proposal and recommend it to the Minister. I would not confine it to legal advice. The nurse should have the option of being represented by some official of her own trade union or professional body or by a legal representative, as she chooses. It is very desirable that that should be included. I am very glad the Minister has added these safeguarding clauses. As the Bill was originally drafted, a nurse could be removed without the chance of appeal or of defending herself. The Minister does not need much to persuade him to make a further amendment to the amendment, leaving it open to the nurse to meet the charges directly or to have legal or other representatives capable of speaking for her.
Many of these young people who take up the nursing profession are not as vocal as we are. I must draw the attention of Senators, particularly of Senator Hayes, to the fact that in Section 45 the word "may" and the word "shall" occur. Each has a special significance. "May" and "shall" also occur in the amendment with a specific difference in each case.
I wonder whether the actual words of the amended section do not meet Senator Bigger's and Senator O'Farrell's point, with which I have great sympathy. The words are:—
"The committee shall afford the nurse an opportunity of answering before them the charges made against her."
I take it "affording an opportunity of answering" includes the right to be represented. There may be some doubt about that and, if there is, perhaps the Minister would be able to enlighten us. The amendment does not say that she has the right to appear in person. If that were in, it would be exclusive. There is no exclusion in the section, which says—
"shall afford her an opportunity of answering".
I assume that means or, under rules made by the Board could be made to mean, the right to appear through a representative, whether a legal, a trade union or a professional representative is another question. I think the words are wide enough to include an opportunity for a nurse who is rebutting a charge to have somebody to represent her.
With regard to "may" and "shall", the longer Senator O'Farrell lives, the more he will learn.
I would like to support the point made by Senator Bigger and spoken to by Senator O'Farrell. I am not satisfied with Senator Hayes' explanation. My experience of Senator Hayes is that he can be very astute on occasions. I see nothing in the amendment as proposed that would give the right to the nurse to depute anybody to answer. She has to answer.
"Shall afford the nurse an opportunity."
Yes—the nurse. As has been pointed out, some of these people are not able to make a case for themselves, though I think it would be admitted that most women are able to make a case for themselves. At any rate, these people are inexperienced and, if they have to come before an august body, are possibly nervous and do not do themselves justice. We must remember that possibly the livelihood of the girl is at stake. She should have a reasonable opportunity and, if she is not capable of making a case for herself, she should have somebody to represent her. Personally, I do not like the legal people because my experience of them has not been of the best but I suppose we have to make the best of a bad job. I would prefer some representative of an organisation to which she may belong. If she does not belong to an organisation, possibly a member of the legal fraternity would be the next best thing.
We had a case in point yesterday on the Military Service (Pensions) Bill in connection with which the Minister pointed out that people made applications which would not get them an old age pension at 100 years of age. They do not know how to make a case for themselves. That would apply to many of these girls. Every opportunity should be given to them to have their case reasonably and adequately stated before the Board.
I am thoroughly in agreement with Senator Bigger's point. I merely rose to ask whether in fact the amendment as inserted does not give that particular right. I am in favour of the right. There is no use in Senator O'Farrell telling me what it means. I do not believe a word he says about what it means. He does not understand it. Otherwise, he is all right. What I want to know from the Minister is whether this does give the opportunity and whether in fact under rules made for the Board it might not give the nurse in question, the accused person, more rights than we could give by inserting something summarily here. I hope the Minister does intend that there shall be a right of representation.
Through negligence I omitted to call attention to this question when we were discussing Section 44. The two things hang together, whether it is a nurse or a maternity nurse that is concerned. The Minister's amendment as it stands at present gives the maternity nurse the same right of hearing as the nurse, but I would urge him to go further and to give both the maternity nurse and the nurse a chance of being represented, whether legally or otherwise. I have fairly considerable experience of people making charges against doctors, and the doctor who thinks he can defend himself is making a very great mistake. The whole aspect of the case can be very considerably altered by a good solicitor or counsel, and usually the person who thinks he can defend himself better than anyone else is quite in error in so thinking and this is obviously much more so in the case of a young woman than an experienced doctor.
I am in complete sympathy with those Senators who have spoken. Senator Hayes has pointed out that the clause affords a nurse an opportunity of answering the charges made against her before the Board. I am advised that under rules to be made the nurse will be in a position to call for legal aid or for her union representative, and the Senator can rest assured that she can be represented by a legal representative or through her organisation in the investigation of any charges against her.
I am as reluctant to doubt the Minister's word as I am at times to accept the word of Senator Hayes. If it were quite so obvious and clear that this implies that she can defend herself directly or by legal representation or through some other body, there would have been no need for us to make the proposal here, and it would not be necessary for anybody of the astuteness of Senator Hayes to ask the Minister to explain whether it was so or not. If it were so, it would have been obvious to a man of the outstanding ability of Senator Hayes; but as it stands it can be interpreted as meaning that the nurse must answer herself the charges made against her. If the Minister is in favour of allowing her greater latitude than this seems to imply, and if he agrees that the principle is good, it would take very little to make the principle clear, because it is what is in the Bill will be the law and not what the Minister says or what I think or somebody else thinks.
I have been advised that under the rules a nurse will be allowed to be represented before any body investigating any charges against her. I am in favour of the point and consequently have gone to considerable length to ensure that this provision will be included in the Bill. As I say, I am advised that she can be represented before any investigating committee. That is the legal advice given to us and I think the Senator can be satisfied that it is so.
We will be able to quote the Seanad debates of 1st December, 1949.
Irrespective of what the Minister or anybody else says, the law will be whatever it will be interpreted to be in relation to this legislation, and, having regard to all the statements made and all the time wasted on this point, I think the Minister should go a little further to meet Senator Bigger's point of view and should put in an amendment on Report Stage to clear away any doubt which may exist. Senator O'Farrell has pointed out that, even though a nurse may be represented, the provision could be interpreted as meaning that she herself must answer, and I suggest that the Minister, if it is at all possible, should go a little further to make the position clear.
I should be as anxious as any member of the House to go to any extremes to ensure that the position was completely clarified, if any further clarification were necessary. In effect, at the moment, there is a similar provision in the 1944 Midwives Act and the legal interpretation of that provision is to allow the nurse to be represented by a legal representative or by her union representative. This is the position which exists under a similar section and I have no reason to believe that the interpretation will be different in the future.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 46, 47 and 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Government amendment No. 22:—
In line 40, to delete "shall" where it secondly occurs and substitute "may".
It is considered that this need not be mandatory on the Board. If it were, they might feel bound to issue certificates for every examination passed, including the preliminary examinations.
I am justified against the professors.
I do not wish to take part in any sterile discussion on the difference between "shall" and "may", but I think it might not be inappropriate if I raised a matter which seems to me to be of the utmost and first-class importance.
On the amendment?
Yes. "May", I believe, gives wider powers than "shall" and this section deals with the powers of the Board to arrange rules for courses of training and examinations. That, I hold, and I hope you, Sir, will agree with me, implies a recognition of courses whether held internally in this country or elsewhere, and this raises a matter which I believe to be of very great importance, the question of reciprocity. This seems to me the only possible place to raise the question.
The House may not realise quite completely that the nurse, midwife or maternity nurse has certain privileges, certain duties, certain responsibilities and certain limitations. She must be properly qualified. Under the system which has obtained up to the present for a good many years, the midwife or maternity nurse trained and registered in Great Britain or Northern Ireland is free to come on the register here. In the same way, maternity nurses or midwives trained and registered here, are free to go to other countries. This reciprocity is of great importance to this country, and to midwives and maternity nurses in this country, because a number of our young women who do their training here wish to go to Great Britain or to Northern Ireland for further experience after doing their training here. Further, Dublin having a high reputation and deservedly so for midwifery, a number of women from Northern Ireland and, I am glad to say, even from England and Scotland come here for training.
They would not do so if their training was not to be recognised, and if it did not lead to their admission to the register in any of the three countries in which they decided eventually to practise. I have already expressed a welcome for this Bill but I am afraid that, although I have described it as an excellent measure, I will have to vote against it and ask the House to follow my example if it affects in any way the reciprocity which exists between this country and Northern Ireland. I do not think it should be passed by this House until we have had the most definite assurances that the principle of reciprocity is preserved and maintained. I am not talking out of turn in this. I think I can show the Seanad proof of the concern which this Bill has already aroused elsewhere.
On October 11th a letter from the Central Midwives Board of England to the secretary of the Central Midwives Board for Éire called attention to the fact that the provisions of the Nurses Bill changed the present arrangements, and the secretary was directed to call the attention of the Éire secretary to the fact after a resolution had been passed by the corresponding body in England. The Central Midwives Board for Scotland also notified the secretary of the Central Midwives Board in Éire of the passing of a formal resolution that the present arrangements would not apply to maternity nurses who were enrolled in Éire under the Nurses Bill. There was also a letter from the council in Northern Ireland saying that a formal resolution had been passed that the secretary of the Central Midwives Board in Éire be informed of the position in regard to reciprocal enrolment of nurses trained in Éire under the provisions of the Nurses Bill.
I think that those three letters show the urgency of the matter. If the Bill is carried by the two Houses and becomes an Act, unless the arrangements that have been made for reciprocity, as regards midwives at any rate, are continued, our maternity nurses will find themselves in a serious position. I should then ask the Minister to give the House an assurance that negotiations are either in progress or have been successfully conducted so that reciprocity will continue or that the Bill will be deferred to a later date, until suitable negotiations have been carried out and have reached satisfactory conclusions.
I would like to support Senator Professor Bigger in his suggestion that the Bill should be deferred until we have an assurance that arrangements for reciprocal treatment have been made. I do not think that it can be too strongly stressed that hardships and injustices will be inflicted on many people if the arrangements at present in operation are not continued. There must, in these matters, be the utmost reciprocity between this part of the country and Northern Ireland and between this part of the country and Britain, irrespective of political issues, and until this House has an assurance of a renewal of the existing reciprocal arrangements, I feel we should defer further consideration of this measure.
I had something of that nature in mind before Senator Professor Bigger spoke when I asked how this measure would affect our Irish nurses in England. Senator Bigger has quoted from some alarming documents. I was not aware of the position and most members of the House were not aware of the position indicated in the letters from those councils in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I cannot see what is in this Bill that will cause the passage of those resolutions or would prevent a continuance of reciprocity.
I would like if Senator Bigger would speak further on the matter and give the House the reasons why, in his opinion, the situation has arisen. Secondly, I would also like him to tell us how it was that these three letters arose. I am not too clear about it. I suppose it is Senator Bigger's desire for brevity that caused him to give us such a short summary, but, of course, he can say more in a short time than most other Senators. He has, however, conveyed to us a rather alarming position if this should arise, and I think he should elaborate on what he considers to be the cause of it and also the origin of the letters from the respective boards to the midwives board here.
If it is the wish of the House, I will do my best. I do think that one of the difficulties is the abandonment of the word "midwife". There is no strict border line, I think, between "midwife" and "maternity nurse", but "midwife" is taken to be a woman capable of practising without the aid of a doctor. On the other hand, the "maternity nurse" has only the responsibility of an ordinary nurse practising under the charge of a doctor —practising under a doctor as an assistant. The doctor is responsible for the care of the patient and the maternity nurse carries out his instructions. I think that is the essential underlying difference, although I cannot define it exactly.
One of the reasons for these letters is the proposed abandonment of the word "midwife" and the substitution of the word "nurse". In Britain, the word "nurse" is taken as having a definite legal meaning. If referred to without qualification, it means a registered nurse with full training. When you qualify it with "children's" nurse or "maternity" nurse the position has a different status. These three bodies are apparently afraid of misinterpretation as between midwifery and nursing. In Northern Ireland there is a joint council dealing with nursing and midwifery. I have no further information as to the reasons for those letters. As regards the letters, they were received by the Central Midwives Board of this country from the corresponding bodies in Britain, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the various councils are in fairly frequent communication by letter and by personal contacts. I see nothing in the situation that cannot be cleared up. We must consider, however, whether it is a safe step to take. I do not think that I am revealing any secret that the British Government are contemplating the introduction of a new measure regarding the medical profession, and quite properly they propose to enter into negotiations with the Government of this country regarding it, although it is a purely domestic measure, before they introduce it, because of its importance. I do urge on the Minister that the passage of this Bill should be delayed until satisfactory negotiations are carried out to ensure that the reciprocity that was maintained in the past is continued.
I see from Senator Bigger's statement which has given a lot of information that because our Legislature decides to change the name of a branch of the nursing profession our girls who are as well qualified as their sisters in Britain might be regarded as being in the same category merely as assistant nurses. I am sure that Senator Bigger and other members are aware that in England they have a register of unqualified nurses. I hope I am not casting a slur on those people by using that phrase which I use because of my ignorance of a better way to put it. This is a register of people who have gone a certain distance in the nursing profession and measured up to a certain standard and can practise under a doctor on general and maternity cases. If we elect to call our nurses "maternity nurses" rather than "midwives", these people in England seem to take the view that we are putting them in the same class as assistant nurses in England.
It may be possible. I do not know.
I incline to the view that our Minister has the right to change the name although a body outside the country governing the nursing profession says to the Legislature of this country: "Our profession will not co-operate." It would be grand if we could co-operate, but if one group of people take a firm stand and say: "We want a certain thing done," that is not co-operation. It is a good thing to discuss the matter before the Minister replies in order to give him an indication of the views of the members of this House. It is rather impertinent of that body to suggest that our Legislature in co-operation with our nurses should not have the power to legislate for themselves.
There has been no suggestion that the bodies in these three countries should legislate for this country. It is within the competence of the Oireachtas to pass the Bill and enact it, to arrange for midwives or maternity nurses and call them any name they please. No one would interfere, but this change of name may take away the right of girls trained in this country to practise midwifery in other countries. We do not presume to tell the people of England or Scotland—I will not say anything about Northern Ireland—what their standard for midwives is to be. We control ourselves completely and there can be no interference with anything that is done in this country, but we are anxious to avoid doing anything which would have unpleasant repercussions on girls going out of the country.
I understand that there is no difficulty about reciprocity regarding nurses with England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The only question is the case of maternity nurses whom they call midwives.
As far as I know.
I wonder would it be possible to prevent any misunderstanding by adjusting Section 2 where we have the definition of a maternity nurse as a nurse in attendance on women in childbirth and say "a nurse who holds qualifications in midwifery", or put it in whatever way necessary to explain that such a nurse has exactly the same qualifications as she had before the Bill was passed and as she is expected to have in Northern Ireland or England. If "maternity nurse" meant "midwife" and "midwife" meant one who got a special course of training, the ground for misunderstanding might be removed. That is one way by which we might make an adjustment to meet their complaint.
This point which is of concern to the Midwives Board arises out of such a small point that Senator Bigger said he found it difficult to define it: the difference between "maternity nurse" and "midwife". As I said in the beginning, as far as we are concerned, the difference between the one and the other is nearly indefinable, but we felt that in altering the name to "maternity nurse" we would try to convey that the status of the new nurse would be improved and that, if possible, the standard, qualifications and ability of the nurse, in so far as her experience would be enlarged, would also be heightened. The difficulty which has arisen is that there would be some confusion if our girls were to have the name "maternity nurses". We are at present negotiating with the British authorities on this point and I feel that prolonged discussion at this stage would be undesirable. It is well to remember that in a case such as this the advantages are not all on one side. As you may see every day, our nurses are very badly needed. We do not intend to reduce the standard or status of these girls but rather to improve them. We propose to have a girl with certain specific qualifications, and the fact that she has a different name should not affect the issue one iota. I can assure the House that we will pursue these negotiations and make every effort we can to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. I can also say that I am fully conscious of my responsibilities to girls who might be anxious to pursue their training outside the State.
I also feel, however, that where we are reasonably sure that we are being progressive we should not lightly abandon that progress unless conditions make it impossible to carry it out. I hope to have a decision in relation to this matter by the next stage and I can assure the House that no final action will be taken without giving the House an opportunity of hearing further on the matter. It is well to recall that the standard of nursing of our girls who go abroad is extraordinarily high. I sincerely hope that there will be no impediment to their being able to carry on, if they so wish, the high standard of service and the high name they have in other countries.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
Section 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Government amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (2), line 7, after "in" to insert "relation to".
This is a drafting amendment, to ensure that doctors as well as nurses can act as examiners.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Section 52 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Government amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (4), line 26, to delete "for Local Government".
Under existing laws, audit fees for the Central Midwives Board are paid to the Minister of Health. I fix the fee. It is considered desirable to maintain uniformity in the matter, to ensure that the Minister who fixes the fee shall also be responsible for its collection.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 58.
Government amendment No. 25.
In line 48, after "Board" to insert "on current expenditure".
The intention is that capital expenditure of the Board will be met from the Hospitals Trust Fund and that current expenditure, in so far as it cannot be met from fees, will be met from public funds. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that recoupment under this section shall be in relation to current expenditure.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) Where any doubt, dispute or question arises, or, in the opinion of the Minister, is likely to arise, as to whether any expenditure is current expenditure for the purposes of this section, such doubt, dispute or question shall be decided by the Minister and such decision shall be final.
Some doubt may arise as to what is capital and what is current expenditure and it is necessary to have some machinery to define them, so that the items can be recouped under this section.
I take it from the Minister's statement that the question asked by Senator O'Farrell on previous sections arises on this. If provision is made for a pensions scheme, that must be treated as current expenditure and must be provided for out of registration fees, rather than by a grant made from the Government or from the Hospitals Trust.
Superannuation would be current expenditure and would not be met out of the Hospitals Trust Fund.
Then we must take it that the amount of the scheme will be very limited in its extent.
This board will not be financed solely from registration fees.
Is the Minister satisfied that a practical scheme of superannuation or pensions can be met from current income?
In so far as the current expenditure would be defrayed from fees and from local authority funds or State funds, it is possible for a proper superannuation scheme to be introduced under current expenditure.
Would the Minister be able to give the House any indication as to what he has estimated would be the amount available from registration fees and from local authorities' contributions for this current expenditure and what amount would be available, after paying the running expenses of the board, for the purpose of a pensions scheme?
I am afraid I could not give any indication.
May we take it that the Minister is satisfied that a practical pensions scheme can be made out of current expenditure?
I have no doubt that that can be done.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Section 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60
Government amendment No. 27:—
In sub-section (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete "at least three months before each of their accounting periods" and substitute "within such period as the Minister shall direct."
This amendment is necessary because it will not be possible to insist on a three months' period in the case of the first and, possibly, the second accounting period. The section as it stands does not clarify how the difficulty is to be resolved if the Board fails to submit its estimates within the prescribed period.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 60, as amended, agreed to.
Section 61 agreed to.
SECTION 62
Question proposed: "That Section 62 stand part of the Bill."
This section seems to provide machinery by which a superannuation or pension fund can be paid, notwithstanding what the current income may be, as it gives the Board power to borrow temporarily by arrangement with bankers such sums as they may require for the purpose of providing for current expenditure. I think that would safeguard the point.
Provided that the Minister considered that the provision for pensions was current expenditure.
It is agreed that it is current expenditure.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 63 and 64 agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Government amendment No. 28:—
To insert at the end of the section the following: "or the training of nurses".
It may be found desirable that the Board should collect information in relation to the training of nurses of various classes as well as in relation to the organisation and practice of nursing.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 65, as amended, agreed to.
Section 66 agreed to.
SECTION 67.
Government amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1), line 12, to delete "sub-section (1)" and substitute "sub-sections (1) and (2)".
This is a drafting amendment. The Bill as introduced did not make it clear whether the Committee or the Board should exercise the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Midwives Act, 1944.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1), line 22, to delete "60" and substitute "and" and to delete "63, 64 and 65,".
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) The Minister shall not give any approval to rules made for the purposes of Section 43 of the Act of 1944 save after consultation with the Medical Registration Council constituted by the Medical Practitioners Act, 1927 (No. 25 of 1927), and it shall be the duty of the Board to communicate to the Medical Registration Council any rules proposed to be made for the purposes of that section.
This new sub-section will ensure that rules governing the practice of maternity nursing will be referred to the Medical Registration Council. Under the Midwives Act all rules were referred to the registration council, but a great many of the new rules will relate to election, finance and administration, and it was thought unnecessary that they should be referred to the council.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 67, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 68 and 69 agreed to.
SECTION 70.
Government amendment No. 32:—
To insert at the end of the section the following: "and in particular any proceedings for the removal of the name of any person from the register kept in pursuance of the Nurses Registration (Ireland) Act, 1919, or the roll of midwives kept in pursuance of the Act of 1944 which were pending immediately before the establishment date shall become and shall be continued as proceedings under this Act for the removal of the name of such person from the register of nurses".
This is a drafting amendment to ensure that all proceedings pending before the establishment date are continued.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 70, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 71, 72, 73 and 74 agreed to.
SECTION 75.
Government amendment No. 33:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:
( ) Until rules are made for the purposes of Section 45 of this Act and for the purposes of Sections 42 and 43 of this Act in so far as those sections relate to the maternity nurses division—
(a) the grounds on which the removal of the name of a nurse from the maternity nurses division may be recommended by the Committee shall be those set out at paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act of 1944 or any of them;
(b) the prescribed conditions for the purposes of Section 42 of this Act shall be those set out at paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 1944;
(c) registration under Section 43 of this Act shall be governed by the conditions set out at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 1944:
(d) the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act of 1944 shall apply to the registration of a person in the maternity nurses division; and
(e) the said paragraphs of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act of 1944 and the said sub-section of Section 24 of the Act of 1944 shall for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this section and no other purpose be deemed not to have been repealed by this Act.
The need for the introduction of this new sub-section is due to the fact that it will take some time before the rules can be made in relation to the registration of maternity nurses and removal from the register. In these circumstances, it is proposed to continue temporarily the provision of the Midwives Act in relation to these matters. No similar provisions are required for trained nurses.
I take it that this in no way alters the position at present existing and that there is the same right of appeal until the new rules are made?
There will be no change.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 76 and 77 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 34:—
Before Section 78 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order make such adaptations and modifications of any enactment or any instrument made under any enactment in force at the commencement of this Act and relating to any matter or thing dealt with or affected by this Act as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying this Act into effect or for enabling this Act to have full force and effect.
(2) Subject and without prejudice to any adaptation or modification made by the Minister under sub-section (1) of this section, the following provision shall have effect in relation to every enactment (whether relating or not relating to any matter or thing dealt with by this Act) which is in force at the commencement of this Act, that is to say:—
(a) references to the roll of midwives shall be construed as references to the maternity nurses division; and
(b) references to midwives shall be construed as references to maternity nurses.
(3) Sub-section (2) of this section shall come into force on the establishment date.
(4) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This proposed new section embodies the usual provisions relating to the adaptation especially in Bills which involve a change of nomenclature, the full extent of which might not be readily seen at the time the Bills were before the Oireachtas. Similar provisions were made in the Public Assistance Act, 1939, and in the Health Act, 1947.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 78 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Government amendment No. 35:—
To delete the reference to the Midwives Act, 1944, and insert the following:—
|
No. 10 of 1944. |
Midwives Act, 1944. |
Part II.Sections 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 60, 63, 64 and 65. |
Four obsolete sections of the Midwives Act are being added to the schedule of repeals.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Before we proceed to the Title, may I refer to amendment No. 4? Amendment No. 4 amends Section 13, sub-section (1) and makes the sub-section read like this, as moved and as carried:—
"Before the first day of December in each election year, ten persons (being nurses) shall be elected to be members of the Board by nurses."
That reads rather peculiarly and I think the intention was to insert the words "by nurses" after the word "elected" and not after the word "Board" so that the new sub-section would read:—
"Before the first day of December in each election year, ten persons (being nurses) shall be elected by nurses to be members of the board."
In order to avoid trouble on the next stage, perhaps we could alter the amendment and have it read like that, by agreement. It is merely a matter of phrasing, but it saves the printing.
Agreed.
Title agreed to.
Could we fix the next stage provisionally for next Wednesday? If the Minister is ready, we could go on and, if he is not ready, we are not obliged.
I would like to intervene at this stage with your permission. This is a very unusual procedure. This Bill has been introduced in this House and, after Committee Stage, is an entirely different Bill from that introduced. Some 35 amendments have been proposed to-day by the Minister. The Bill was first introduced prior to the summer recess. That is a long time and Senators were unable to apply themselves to it to-day. I would first ask the Minister if the amendments that he has introduced to-day were introduced as a result of consultation with, and have the approval of, the two nursing councils that exist at the present time. That would give us some guidance in our approach to the Report Stage. Can we feel that the Minister's amendments arise from consultation with the various councils and have their approval? If that is not the case, I would suggest to the Minister that a copy of the Bill as passed through Committee be made available to the various organisations or councils of the persons concerned and that we might with advantage adjourn the Report Stage to a more remote date in order that, when we pass this Bill, it will do the thing that we would like it to do and that it will meet with the approval and wishes of the persons to whom it is of greatest concern.
This Bill throughout has been drafted with the objective in view to which the Senator referred and at all times in consultation with the representative bodies of the Nursing Council and the Midwives Board. Many of the amendments were suggested by the interested parties, either the Midwives Board or the Nursing Council. There is only one important outstanding point, that is the one referred to in the first instance by Senator Professor Bigger, that is, in relation to the maternity nurses. That is the main outstanding point of difference. Otherwise the Bill is generally accepted by the organisations representing both sections of nurses. I think Senators can be content in their minds that this is substantially in accordance with the wishes of the nursing profession.
Am I to take it from the Minister's statement that the Nursing Council and the Midwives Board here are not anxious that the term "midwife" should be changed to "maternity nurse", that the Midwives Board here, the existing body, would prefer the term "midwife" to "maternity nurse"?
Their main objection would be arising out of any interference with reciprocity. That is in relation to the midwives.
I have understood the Minister to say that that is an outstanding point between himself and the Midwives Board and I have now come to the conclusion that the Midwives Board here are anxious to retain the older term.
That is an outstanding point between ourselves and the British authorities. The real objection the midwives would have, I understand, to the new term is in the event of its affecting reciprocity. They did not care, naturally enough, to change a term they had used for so many years. Their objection largely depends on the decision regarding reciprocity. The matter is still under negotiation. That is why I said it is the only important matter still outstanding.
Would the Minister tell us why the term "midwife" has been changed to "maternity nurse"? Many people believe that one term is no better than another. I would like to know why the term has been changed and at whose request.
That is back into discussion of the Bill. With regard to Senator Hawkins' point, the Minister has not pressed in any way for haste with this Bill. There have been, as Senator Hawkins said, a very considerable number of amendments carried to-day and we should all see the new draft of the Bill which will be prepared and circulated and will be available for all the interested parties also. I would suggest that we should fix the next stage for next Wednesday, provisionally, with this understanding, with which I think the Minister will be in agreement, that, if any objection is taken—the Minister himself may not want to take it; he may not have concluded his negotiations with the British in regard to reciprocity— we will not take it. Would that be agreeable?
I suggest that, in order to avoid placing the House in any false position in relation to the Bill, we should fix the Report Stage for 14th December, by which time we hope the Minister will have concluded the negotiations in which he is engaged at the moment.
I think it would be very undesirable to take the Report Stage until the negotiations have been finally terminated.
That is the Minister's view.
And even the 14th December might be too early.
We will not take it on 14th December, if the Minister does not wish us to do so.
I gave that assurance earlier, that, until we had completed the negotiations and were quite clear in our minds as to the effects of the Bill, we would try to postpone its being brought into operation. The point at issue is in relation to "maternity nurse" and "midwife". The Midwives Board are not anxious to change the name from "midwife" to "maternity nurse," but after discussion they were prepared to accept it, though not very enthusiastically, if it will not affect materially the rights of girls to reciprocity.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 7th December, 1949.