I ask the leave of the House to move the amendment in my name which has been circulated amongst Senators. The circumstances in connection with this amendment are a little unusual, as the section with which it deals has already passed through Committee. But as the matter with which the amendment deals arises really out of the Schedules, I ask the leave of the Seanad to move the amendment now.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
The Seanad went into Committee.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Strictly speaking, this amendment is late because the section to which it refers has already been passed in Committee. As the Senator has pointed out, the amendment arises in consequence of the report made by the Committee appointed by the House to deal with the Schedules, and possibly the House will give the Senator leave to move his amendment now. The granting of such permission does not, of course, commit the House in any way to the acceptance of the amendment. Is it the wish of the House that Senator Hooper should be given permission to move his amendment now?
Agreed.
I thank the House for giving me leave to move my amendment, which reads:—
New Section. Before Section 29 to insert a new section as follows:—
29.—(1) On a date not earlier than five months after the passing of this Act the Dental Board shall hold an examination at which any person being a citizen of Saorstát Eireann who attained the age of twenty-three years prior to the first of January, 1928, and who shall have been engaged in the practice of dentistry for not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act, including any period of apprenticeship which he may have served, shall be entitled to present himself, provided that he shall not have been convicted of a felony, misdemeanour or crime, or, in the opinion of the Board, been guilty in the course of his practice of conduct which, if committed by a registered dentist, would be infamous or disgraceful.
(2) The candidates declared successful at this examination shall, on making the prescribed application and paying the prescribed fees, be entitled to have their names entered on a schedule to be appended to the register and shall be entitled to engage in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery in Saorstát Eireann, but shall not be entitled to be registered on the register nor to vote nor to be elected at an election of the elected members of the Board.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit any person who notifies to the Dental Board his intention of entering for the examination prescribed in sub-section (1) of this section and accompanies his notification with a fee of £5 (such fee to be returned to him in the event of his presenting himself for the examination) from practising or representing himself or holding himself out as practising or prepared to practise dentistry or dental surgery during the period between the passing of this Act and the publication of the result of the examination.
I have put down this amendment in the hope that it may provide a way out of the difficulties that have arisen in connection with the Schedule. I would like to say that I hold no brief whatever for the quack. So far indeed from that being the case, I believe that this amendment provides a greater degree of security against the quack than the provision in the Bill does, for it proposes an examination which would be a much stiffer examination, if my views are carried out, than the examination that is proposed for the men who have secured admission to the Third Schedule. The main consideration, I think, that we ought to keep in mind in connection with this Bill is the protection of the public. Under this amendment the Dental Board itself would be in the position to secure that protection by fixing whatever standard of examination it liked for the men whom I propose to bring in under it. I would also like to make it clear that I am introducing this amendment in no spirit of criticism of the Committee that considered these schedules. I think the House is under great indebtedness to the members of that Committee. They gave a great deal of time and expended a great deal of trouble in trying to arrive at a right solution, but, of course, they were circumscribed, because they had to deal strictly with the information before them, and had also to bear in mind the spirit embodied in the Bill. What that spirit is was indicated by the fact that we were told on the last day that even some of the names that they proposed to add to the Third Schedule were objected to by the Minister.
What I fear in connection with this is, that no matter what care has been taken by the Minister and his officials or by the Committee, there is grave risk of unwarranted hardship in some cases if these schedules are allowed to stand as they are, unmodified in any way.
After all, we are dealing with the means of living of a number of men, and while we should be very strict in ensuring that any man in practice is competent, and while I believe we should be absolutely ruthless in dealing with and in excluding incompetent people, I still believe that no man who claims to be competent should be prevented from continuing to make his living without at least a chance of showing that he is competent. Some facts that have come to my knowledge in connection with some of the cases have led me to the conviction that the procedure that has been adopted is an imperfect one and a partial one. I do not use the word "partial" in the sense of being prejudiced or biased, but in the sense of incomplete procedure. I think also that there has been too great an element of chance in the way these applications were received and dealt with. Of course, we must remember that there was never, at any time, any advertisement published as to the time at which applications should be sent in. Men were allowed to learn these details from the newspaper reports of the discussions on the Bill that took place in the Dáil and in this House. It was up to the men themselves to take steps to look after their own interests.
These applicants were, in the circumstances, an unorganised body of men. Each had to fend for himself. Some seem to have fended very skilfully and very successfully, while those who were less alive to their own interests and perhaps less pushful and not such good business people did not fare so well. In some cases, applications were delayed and in other cases they were badly presented. Some men got solicitors to make their cases for them, others sent in scrappy applications, and the general impression left on my mind, from what I have learned, is that the more alert and pushful a man was the better chance he had of getting on. I fear that men have got on these Schedules merely because they presented their cases in a better way than others, and that some of them at least are inferior to some of the men who have been left off. If that is the situation, it ought to be remedied. It ought not to depend upon how a case is presented as to whether a man should be declared competent or not. There ought, I think, be some professional test, some examination by which a person's competency could be determined.
I am not interested in any particular case, but there just occurs to me one case about which I know something and which, perhaps, bears out what I have said. This was the case of a man who sent in a very brief application. He seemed perfectly confident that he was in no danger. It was only when the Bill had left the Dáil and had come before this House that he heard casually, from someone in a dental depôt, that he was not on the Schedule. In a state of alarm at the prospect of losing his livelihood for ever as a dentist, he at once mended his hand and sent in a better application. He put in evidence of a fairly substantial kind evidence that he would have put in if he were a wise man at the beginning. I do not say that he should be on the Schedule. I do not know enough about the matter to say that he should be on the Schedule. I am not qualified to judge his qualifications, but I do say that, in my opinion, if he had made his application in a better form at the beginning and if he had been more pushful in seeing that his application was kept to the front, he would, at least, have had a better chance of success than he had. I believe that kind of man ought to get a chance of proving by examination whether or not he is qualified.
Some of these men have been making quite a lot of money. I have heard some details with regard to another case. I do not know the facts myself, but some Senators are interested in the case. As a matter of fact, I was asked to join a deputation to go to the Minister in connection with it. I declined to do so, because I think these cases should not be dealt with on their individual merits, but as a class. This is the case of a man who was practising in an important southern town. According to the statements made to me by one who is an authority which I can accept, this man is making £800 a year out of his practice. That man is not included in any of the schedules. There may be a good reason for that, but at any rate he is not included. I do not know what the reason is, but apparently it can hardly be that he is an incompetent man. I know the town well in which he practises, although I do not know the man himself, and I find it very hard to believe that the people of that town would patronise an incompetent dentist to the extent to which they seem to have patronised him. It may be, of course, that it was through some fault of character that he could not get on the schedule, but that very point is covered in my amendment, because it gives the Dental Board the power to reject any man who has been guilty of conduct of an unprofessional kind. As I have said, the great thing is to protect the public. This is clearly intended to be a protective measure, and not to be a punitive measure, much less a vindictive measure, I believe that we should ensure a fair run for all these people by putting them through some examination test. My own preference would be that all these cases would be submitted to a test of that kind. I fear the Bill has gone too far to secure that now. I would like to secure, at any rate, that some of the men who have not been successful in getting on should get the chance of showing, by examination, that they are qualified.
The amendment proposes that men who have been engaged in the practice of dentistry for ten years—that carries us back three years before the British Act was passed—should be eligible to present themselves at an examination to be held by the Dental Board, which could make the examination as stiff as it liked, and that then all these men who are successful shall be put on a schedule attached to the register, but not to the register itself. That may seem illogical. It is, of course, on the face of it, but the reason I have suggested that is this: I understand that one of the difficulties regarding this register is that it should not be overloaded by names to any extent that would justify the British dental authorities in saying that we here did not keep faith with them in regard to the register. The proposal, therefore, is that these men do not go on the register, but that they are to be put in a separate schedule which will entitle them to practise within the Free State. I believe that if we adopt that suggestion we will obviate the risk of any unwarranted hardship, and that we will be giving full protection to the public, better protection than the Bill gives, and that we will be keeping faith with the other side.
I would like to know from the Senator if it is intended that this amendment should be a separate thing in itself, or that it should take the place of the schedule?
It is intended to be separate. The proposal in the amendment is to set up a schedule to be attached to the register, inclusion in which will not give the successful candidate the professional standing of an ordinary registered dentist.
I take it the idea is to allow these on the schedule to be called registered dentists and the others not?
It does not matter what they are called, so long as they are let on this schedule.
Is it the intention that there shall be two schedules, and in addition to that another class? This examination is not intended to cover those on the Third and Fourth Schedules?
No.
In my opinion, the fairest thing would be to give a reasonable time to these men to qualify —say two or three years in which to pass a professional test to be allowed to practise as dentists, and that we should do away with the schedule altogether.
I was a member of the Seanad Committee. I support the amendment. I have come to the conclusion that with the best will in the world any Committee is liable to make mistakes. I have felt all along that the Dáil and Seanad Committees had taken the responsibility without sufficiently good grounds of deciding what names should not be allowed to go on the register and depriving people of their means of livelihood. It seems to me that a number of cases have come before us where there were mere technical objections which were sufficient to keep these men's names off the Third and Fourth lists. In the case of a number of men who did not get on the register, when the next election comes you will have candidates of every Party supporting them, and the whole question will be re-opened. I think it is far better to adopt the suggestion in Senator Hooper's amendment and give those who have been making their living in the practice of dentistry for ten years a chance of passing an examination, and if they do not do so then disqualify them.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not see anything in the amendment that preserves the schedules.
It does not purport to preserve them. They are preserved in the Bill. This is a new clause.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what I thought, but you said that the effect of your amendment would be to add a Fourth Schedule to the Bill.
To the register.
CATHAOIRLEACH
But would not your amendment be wide enough to cover all cases?
I would be glad to see it done, but it seems to me that as the House passed the Bill with the schedules in principle, it would be too much to ask it to go back on that again.
There may be technical difficulties. The Minister may know reasons why an amendment on the lines proposed by Senator Hooper should not be carried into effect. I do not know how far there are those reasons, but it seems to me there is a great deal to be said for an amendment to abolish the schedule and place all the men in the same position.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is what I have in mind.
It seems to me if you allow four schedules, and you allow a certain number of men who have failed to satisfy a number of members of the Dáil and Seanad that they are competent, having passed an examination, you place those who pass such examination in a worse position than those who have not passed the examination, but who have satisfied the Committee, and you are going to have as much trouble as at present. The difficulty has arisen owing to the impossibility of a large House, or a Parliament, dealing with individual claims on their merits. If a way could be found by which a reasonable and uniform examination could be passed by persons with experience, I think it would be better than having the schedules. Perhaps the amendment could be worded differently. It is not clear who is to decide whether a man has ten years' experience or not. Presumably it would be the Dental Council, but that is only a detail. However, thirteen does seem a rather early age at which to start practising dentistry, even as an apprentice. I would not be prepared to support an addition to the Fourth Schedule, but if there is general approval, and the Minister fails to put reasons as to why that is unworkable, I would be prepared to support it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If that was the effect or intention of the amendment, of course, the provision about five months after the passing of the Act would come out. It would be a general principle.
I do not mind the period, but it would have to be a period.
It is the existence of these people that made the Bill necessary. I think the difficulty lay in the clemency of the Ministry in allowing unqualified persons to practise dentistry. It has brought us to such a condition of affairs that we are leaving a loophole to men who could not pass the scheduled qualifications to get on the list of dentists who are entitled to practise. It is only a subterfuge, and it will not keep us parallel with the practice in Great Britain, and keep good faith with England as regards the qualifications. It is not fair to ask a man five or ten years in practice to pass an examination not parallel to the practical end of his profession. For instance, if you are examining a blacksmith as to his profession there would be no occasion to ask him about the crystallisation of metals or questions like that which would be far away from horseshoes. In the same way, a dentist might be asked a question in physiology which he could not answer, but he would be quite competent to practise his profession. I do not think the amendment should be passed, for it is not keeping faith with the qualifications necessary on the other side of the Channel. It is making an effort to deal with men the existence of whose incompetence has made the Bill necessary. They are usually not natives of this country. They come in to this country to sell false teeth or to fit them loosely, and as their origin is obscure they could say they were qualified for fourteen years, and that statement could not be very well checked.
Does the amendment mean that the names of the gentlemen who are on the Fourth Schedule will be admitted under the Bill, but that anybody else who is anxious to come on the Register and licensed to practise dentistry will have to pass an examination?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Under the other clause of the Bill.
And with the exception of the men on the Fourth Schedule already named there will be no admission of the description that has taken place for the filling up of the schedules.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Not after the expiration of the period in the clause.
As I understand, the amendment means that a number of people are at present earning their livelihood as mechanical dentists or acting as dental apprentices who will be al-allowed to register as dentists, and under the provisions of this Bill, if it comes into operation, nobody except those named on the schedules will be allowed to continue to earn their livelihood at the practice of dentistry without a test, even though they have been following it for ten years. If they are to continue to earn their livelihood it will be necessary in the event of the Bill becoming law that they should go through a university course and pass an examination. We hear a good deal of talk about vested interests, but surely any man who has been earning his livelihood at dentistry from 1918 before ever there was any declared intention of passing a Dentists Act either in Great Britain or Ireland, people who were apprenticed in good faith to dental mechanics—and most mechanics hope to become qualified dentists—these people who went in good faith into that occupation at which they believed they could earn an honest livelihood should not now have their means of livelihood taken from them, as it seems to be proposed to do unless they submit to a university course and learn Greek and Latin, and so on.
These are men who cannot afford to attend a university in the day, and we are not democratic enough in this country to have night lectures in the universities in order to give an opportunity to such people. We should not deprive these people of their livelihood, and for that reason we should pass this amendment, and it should be an instruction to the Examination Board set up that they should hold an examination which would be a test of the qualifications necessary for practising dentistry, and decide whether they are fit or proper persons to practise dentistry without regard to any educational tests. I believe the mover of the amendment had in mind that a certain agreement was arrived at between this country and Great Britain with regard to the register, and in order to prevent a breach of faith it is suggested that these people should be submitted to a special test. I do not care how severe that test is as to the qualifications necessary to practise dentistry, but I think it is not fair to ask that these people should go through a university course. It is for that reason the amendment has been moved. Taking into consideration that the people this amendment will deal with are those who, in good faith, were apprenticed to, or have been engaged as dental mechanics or dentists before the 1918 Act was passed, I think that they have vested interests, and this amendment is designed to protect those interests.
I would like to appeal to Senator Farren to wipe out of his mind this idea of Latin and Greek in a university course for dentists. In the Bill as it stands there is no imposition of Latin and Greek on dentists. For the future people need not go to any university to qualify for dentistry. The greater number of qualified dentists come from the dental college and not from the university. This talk about Latin and Greek ought to be dropped at once as there is nothing in it. The only way it could come about is by the Board imposing a university test. It is not the present system, and there is no likelihood of its being the system in the future. We have been given very little reasons for the amendment, and the reasons given are to cloud the object of the whole Bill. If what Senator Hooper and Senator Dowdall said is true it cannot be said that a Committee of the Dáil or of the Seanad or the Departmental Committee have done their work properly. If mere technical reasons, as Senator Dowdall thinks, operated to put people off the register then some or all of the committees are at fault. Senator Hooper told us about a man earning £800 a year. I would not like to take that as evidence of capacity, or as evidence that men earning £800 a year at dentistry are proper dentists. Go down to the foundation of the Dentists Act of 1921. It was established as a result of a Commission set up in 1917 which found that the public health was suffering by reason of the number of unqualified persons who were practising dentistry. The Commission brought in a very damaging report about these persons. As a result of that report there came the Dentists Act of 1921. Again, might I say I have no interest in this Bill. I do not know of any Bill dealt with in a more detached way than this. I was brought into it by accident. It is not my Department's business, and to that extent, I think it is a correct statement to say that there has been less departmental interest behind this Bill than any other piece of legislation brought forward.
Even from my constituency point of view I have very little relation with dentists, by reason of the fact that there are very few dentists from the universities. This Bill was brought forward in the interests of the country. Are people to be allowed to practise dentistry who cannot safely be trusted to do so, or are illegal practitioners to be allowed? The position I have taken at the moment is as a result of very careful examination, and I think it was very careful examination as far as the two Committees with which I was connected are concerned. People have been divided into two sides. As to one there has been unanimity of opinion as between the Seanad and the Departmental Committee, but not the Dáil Committee. There has been unanimity of opinion between two out of three bodies about the people who are going on the Fourth Schedule of the Bill, people who for some slight flaw, such as by reason of their being a few days too young for the Act of 1921, did not get on the 1921 register. They are now being admitted. In addition, there is the Third Schedule. The first committee that reviewed the cases was a committee consisting of a doctor of the Department of Local Government as Chairman, two registered and qualified dentists, and one registered dentist of the unqualified type. One would have imagined that the representative of the 1921 men would look with favour on those people.
The report of the Dáil Committee was founded, with the exception of two names, upon the unanimous verdict of that Departmental Committee, having on it the main representative in this country of the unqualified men and who might have been expected to raise cases that he thought came within the view of the Dáil in regard to this legislation. There was one case in which he disagreed with the qualified dentists. Even when he disagreed with their verdict he did not say there was any technical reason advanced, but he simply said the man had been a long time in practice and has a large family, and it would have been a matter of great hardship to strike him off. It was on compassionate grounds that he disagreed with the Committee. The Dáil Committee added two other names. With these two exceptions what came up from the Dáil was the list of names that emerged from that Committee which has had a representative of the 1921 men. The Seanad Committee has sent forward recommendations that four extra men should go on the lists. With two of those names I am violently in disagreement with the Seanad Committee. With one I would give in immediately, but with the other I would give in with some reluctance, but I would warn certain of my friends against them, and I would leave it there. We have the situation as regards the Third Schedule that certain people were to be admitted to the profession after passing an examination, and now we get Senator Hooper's proposal.
We are now to have a third class of people, who, after a limited number of months, would sit for an examination after having been already a certain number of years practising dentistry, and having complied with other requirements. They are to go on the schedule to the register. They are going to be marked out as first class dentists while not fully-qualified men. The Senator seeks to avoid a breach of the agreement as between the British Dental Association and ourselves. I have got to look at how the amendment runs to see if it is in conflict with that agreement and whether the difficulty can be got over. There is a great deal to be said for having this amendment put in substitution of the schedule, particularly when people say. "Let the examination be a stiff one." If there is to be an examination in substitution, remember that at least two-thirds of the people on the Third Schedule will disappear. If an examination is to be set up as a final professional test by the Dental College, I doubt if anyone on the Third Schedule would be able to get through, especially if the examination was held after fine months.
Does the Minister wish to include in the amendment individuals who are already on the Third Schedule? I understood from the mover of the amendment that he left the schedules as they were, and in the case of new applications for registration they had to undergo examination.
The amendment does not interfere with the schedules, or with the additions that might be made by the Seanad to the Third Schedule. It simply points outside the schedule there is another class to come forward. I am urging that we should have an amendment with certain changes I should like to indicate applied to the exclusion of those of the third class, but I do not think you can exclude those of the Fourth Schedule, those who have satisfied two committees and the Departmental Committee that they could go on the register at once.
I do not think that ought to be included. I think there is a conflict as between this examination test and the Third Schedule. I would appeal to the house, if it is going to have this amendment at all, to let it apply to all and sundry, exclusive of those who are on the register and exclusive of those who are on the Fourth Schedule. If that is going to be the situation I would like to get details as to the meaning of this amendment. It states: "On a date not earlier than five months after the passing of this Act the Dental Board shall hold an examination." But the Board may not be set up within that time, and one will have to provide an alternative. That alternative is provided in the Bill in regard to this examination in connection with the Third Schedule.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Five months after the constitution of the Dental Board?
No, I object to that. It is suggested that they should continue in practice until they fail the examination, but I do not think it is right to allow people, who may fail hereafter, to be in a position that they will have been practising illegally and to do damage to the public for, say, a fifteen or seventeen months' period.
"And not later than"—"Not earlier than and not later than."
I think the five or six months period might be kept, but we must make alternative provision, in the absence of a Dental Board, for somebody to hold the examination. Secondly, we are told that the person must be "a citizen of Saorstát Eireann who attained the age of twenty-three years prior to the first of January, 1928, and who shall have been engaged in the practice of dentistry for not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act." Does "dentistry" include dental mechanics?
In the English Bill it does.
I do not think so. I am only talking about the wording. The Senator divides the people who may go on to the register into two classes. There are certain things common to both classes—that they must be of good character and be of a certain age. The distinction that was drawn between "dentistry" and the "the practice of dental mechanics" makes me believe that the phrase "practice of dentistry" does not cover a dental mechanic. I do not know if the Senator wished to bring that in.
I mean any man engaged in dentistry, from the beginning of his apprenticeship.
Does the Senator mean dental operators or mechanics?
No.
He wants at any rate to have dental mechanics ruled out?
Yes.
Then I put it to him that he had better look at the phrase "practice of dentistry."
I think a better term would probably be "engaged in dentistry."
If the principle is agreed to the proposer of the amendment and the Minister might consult together so that an agreed amendment might be brought in.
I want to make sure of the points on which we are agreed. The amendment says "for not less than ten years prior to the passing of this Act." It does not say "as his principal means of livelihood." I think that should be put in. The Senator brings in "including any period of apprenticeship which he may have served." With that I am in some disagreement. We might have the term so arranged to include the apprenticeship period, but I think there is one consideration that must be taken into account in arriving at a conclusion on this. It is definitely laid down that no student of dentistry may sit for his final examination until he is twenty-one years of age and, consequently, any student who goes through the harder course and begins to practice must not do so until he is twenty-one. I think the period we are going to limit is the number of years, as his principal means of livelihood should be the period starting on the man's 21st birthday, in other words, that the Senator should not say that a man has been engaged as his principal means of livelihood in dentistry for a number of years prior to reaching his 21st birthday. You would not say that a man was earning his livelihood at dentistry during his eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth year, and then say that he is a fully qualified man. One should, at any rate, see that this type of man is not to get easier conditions than the man who goes through the other type of course.
Would the Minister suggest a term of years after twenty-one?
I am not in a position to make a suggestion, but I think we could get a phrase that would cover the thing.
Would it do if it was a short time, provided he had gone through an apprenticeship?
I have cases on the file of people who have made application to me to become dentists, and they have sent in affidavits to this effect, that they were apprenticed to dentists at eleven years of age. Is that going to be admitted? We have people who say that they have been apprenticed at the age of thirteen. What you want set out is a minimum age.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do you not think that we will not get very far with this? Would it not be better, if the Seanad approved of the principle, that this should go back to this Committee, that we should adjourn the Committee Stage, and let them introduce an amendment, after consideration, and in conference with the Minister?
I would rather keep it away from the Committee.
Adjourn it for consideration between now and the Report Stage?
I could consult with Senator Hooper to try to get the amendment put in a better form. Is the House in agreement that, whatever amendment is brought in with regard to the examination, that the standard of the examination is to be left to the Dental Board, or to some alternative board, and that that wipes out Schedule 3?
Let us be perfectly clear as to what the Minister is asking: that the examination should be of a practical class in dentistry and not in any academic subjects. Is that it?
The phrase used by Senator Farren was "such an examination as a student in his final year would have to pass."
That might involve Latin and Greek.
There is no Latin or Greek in it.
If there is no Latin and Greek in it, there may be mythology and physiology. I think those who laugh at that would look at it very differently if they had to depend for their livelihood on this.
I take it that the position would be that the Third Schedule would be abolished, but that there would be prescribed for all who would be admitted an examination.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Including those on the Third Schedule?
Yes, the same sort of examination as it is now intended to submit the Third Schedule people to.
Oh, no, by no means.
Why?
I want to make that clear. It was definitely intended, following the 1920 Act and the examinations held under it, that the examinations which the Third Schedule people would have had imposed on them would have been of a very slight nature. They are all now to have to go through a very much more difficult process of examination under this amendment.
They will probably all disappear.
I cannot understand the logic of the Minister at all. This Bill was obviously introduced in the first place for the protection of the community, and it is a well-known principle of all law that any law devised for the benefit of the community should, as far as is practicable, not impose any hardship on individual citizens. Is not the real test in this case, so far as the community is concerned, this: Is a man claiming to be a dentist competent to perform dentistry or is he not? Is he competent to perform it in a safe and efficient manner, so that none of his clients may suffer? Is not that all that the community is concerned with? In order to arrive at that position the Bill prescribes that on the Fourth Schedule shall be inscribed the names of people who, in the opinion of the Committees of both Houses, are entitled to go on the register without any examination. Then a Third Schedule is prepared on which is inserted the names of the people who, in the opinion of the Committees, might go on the schedule after they pass a special prescribed examination.
What is the objection to allowing anybody, who has now a practice in dentistry and who claims to be a competent operative from the point of view of dentistry, to sit for this examination? I take it that this examination will be such as to ensure that any person who passes it as a competent dentist. Otherwise it is a farce and a fraud on the community. The Minister says that it is going to be a very simple examination, and he rather infers that people passing the Third Schedule examination may not be competent, because he says that if you allow anybody else to come on we will have to make this a stiff examination. I can only draw the inference that this is going to be a fake examination to allow people to get on the register. But in respect of people who are not admitted, it will have to be a very much more stiff examination. Whenever questions of property and vested interests are concerned in legislation the legislature is always extremely careful to see that these vested interests are protected, and I think that the same principle is invariably extended in cases where the rights of labour are involved, provided that no injustice is inflicted on the community. But in safeguarding the interests of the men here whose livelihood is involved you amply safeguard the interests of the community by submitting these men to a test such as that proposed for the Third Schedule people.
There will be no Third Schedule if we adopt this.
In other words, wipe out the Third Schedule, and submit all the people to the same test as the Minister proposes enforcing on the Third Schedule men.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is there not a little confusion? The effect of the Minister's suggestion, if adopted by the House, would be that the Third Schedule would be done away with and that those at present on the Third Schedule would have, like all the others who are not on the schedule, but who want to go on, to undergo some examination.
But it is going to be a more difficult examination than was intended. I say that we should leave the examination as it was intended before throwing it open to a wider circle. I challenge any member of this House to say what have been the qualifications that have been insisted upon in order that a man might get on the Third Schedule. Outside of the four members of the Committee—and I doubt if you could except them—I challenge any member of the Seanad to say whether some of the people who applied for admission to the Third Schedule should have been banned or not. We do not know the qualifications for the Third Schedule and we are asked to shut out men who are earning a living at dentistry on the ground that we must assume that they should not have the right to sit for the examination. I think the position is preposterous, apart from this injustice. The Committee that did decide the qualifications that have not been disclosed to the Oireachtas is composed of dentists, one of whom we are told is an unqualified dentist, one of those who, we may safely assume, felt pretty sure of getting on the Third Schedule.
No, that man was qualified. He was a 1921 man.
In other words, you have a number of people who are competing, and who will be competitors in the future with those men who are seeking to get on the register, laying down the qualifications on which they may be admitted. I do not think that that is fair. You have one set of competitors deciding the fate of the other set. I would suggest to Senator Hooper that he should ask leave to withdraw this amendment and bring in another amendment on the Report Stage that would seek to preserve the examination as now laid down, but that there would be admitted to it the people covered in this amendment of his, together with those on the Third Schedule at present. I do not think that it is fair or that it will work out equitably to stipulate that anyone must be for a particular period in actual dental practice. That might work out very inequitably, and it might be better to leave it out altogether, or at least to shorten it to something less than ten years. But at all events I think it would be a very much better procedure to wipe out the Third Schedule altogether and apply the examination that was intended to be applied for the present Third Schedule men to all. We would thereby not only safeguard the interests of the community but we would avoid, as far as humanly possible, inflicting a hardship on men now earning their living at dentistry, and who would continue to do so if this Bill were not passed.
As to the examination, I said that there would have to be a stiffer test. Obviously there must be, because previously it was only intended for a group of people whose qualifications show that they were pretty well entitled to go on the Third Schedule. Now we are throwing open this to a larger group, people of whom we know nothing and people of whose qualifications there has been no examination at all, and naturally there must be a stiffer test.
I think the proper course would be either for the Minister or for Senator Hooper to bring in an amendment on the Report Stage. If that amendment is passed it is understood that the Third Schedule will disappear. If it is not passed, presumably the Schedules will stand as they are.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Schedules will stand as they are, subject to the adoption of the amendment by the House.
Yes. It would be possible for us to have an amendment which the Minister would accept and into which we then could decide on having safeguards inserted. I think we will not get any further in a discussion on the relative merits of the examination. I had some conversation in connection with this Bill with a leading member of the Dental Association. He said that the present qualified dentists want to have as few people with a grievance as possible, and that if they are setting the examination their concern will be to see that they are satisfied that the men are fit to continue practising. They do not want to place insuperable difficulties in the way. If you have Schedule No. 3, probably the examination will be somewhat different from what it would be if you had a wider number. I do not say that it would be harder, but I think it would be more complete, and probably it would be in the interests of the public that it should be. But it seems to me that no amendment could set down the exact standard of the examination, which would have to be left largely to the good faith of the Dental Board, and I am satisfied that they do not want to have a large number of men, who have been practising dentistry and who could be safely allowed to continue practising, going about the streets idle. They do not consider that that would be in the public interest.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Hooper, are you satisfied that your amendment be adjourned until the Report Stage, so that you may in the meantime communicate with the Minister and see how far you can agree on a substituted amendment?
I agree to that. One point has been raised as to the character of the examination——
CATHAOIRLEACH
Would it not be wiser to leave that? That could be fully discussed, if necessary, on the Report Stage. Is it wise to go into that now?
I only want to say a word. In recommending this amendment I stipulated for a stiffer examination. If I were to accept Senator O'Farrell's suggestion now I should be going back on that. I do not think that that would be right in the circumstances, particularly as the character of the examination that is being held by the British Board, and which the Minister appears to contemplate for the Third Schedule men, is really a farce. When this Bill was before the Dáil Committee, Deputy Myles Keogh, who knows a good deal about the dental profession, made the statement that there were men passing the British examination who could not sign their names in the ordinary way, men who, when they had to affix their signatures, did so in block letters. He said that, as a matter of fact, no man has ever failed in the examination, that they have failed once, but when they went up again they passed, and that every man who presented himself passed.
That is not an examination which I have confidence in, and I do not think that in the position that this matter has now reached we should approve of that. I think we should have a stiffer examination, and one that would be a practical test of competency.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Further consideration of this amendment is adjourned to the Report Stage, and the Senator interested in it will consult with the Minister to see how far they can agree on the form of the amendment.
In case that the House disagrees with what the Minister will bring forward, I presume that Senator Sir Edward Bigger's amendments on the sheet can be moved?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Oh, yes. In the event of the amendment suggested by Senator Hooper not being acceptable to the House the whole matter will then be open, and we can take up where we were originally.
Committee Stage concluded; Bill ordered for Report.