Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 5

DENTISTS BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

"That the Dentists Bill, 1927, be read a Second Time."

This Bill had gone through its second stage prior to the dissolution of the last Dáil. To get the full effect of the proposals now being brought forward, the Bill has to be read in conjunction with the Medical Act, the international side of the proposals there being very much in line with the proposals here. Inasmuch as there is a reaction between the General Medical Council and the Dentists' Council in England, it is proposed to have the same sort of relations established between the Free State Council and the Free State Dentists' Board, and there is necessity to have understood what the Board is, and what the practice heretofore governing the methods of the two bodies has been. Although there are likenesses and similarities between the two pieces of legislation, there are certain differences which should be adverted to at the start. They can be very easily summarised. In the first place, in regard to a person who is unregistered, and who practises dentistry, or dental surgery, and who commits an offence, the same thing does not hold as in the case of medicine. A person who is not a registered medical practitioner, and who continues to practise medicine in this country, does not commit an offence, but is subject to certain disadvantages in the matter of securing fees, but there is no such thing as an offence. Offences for the first time were established in the Dentists Act of 1921, and that particular situation is being continued by the proposals here.

Arising from that difference, there is a difference with regard to the register and with regard to the payments for the compilation of the register. A medical man pays one fee for entrance on the register and thereafter pays nothing for the continuance of his name on it. Dentists, on the other hand, in return for the definite setting up of practice by unregistered persons, pay yearly for the keeping of that register. Consequently, those who are registered may practise dentistry without committing an offence. When the 1921 Act first set up, or rather continued, the separation of the dental profession from the medical profession, it made that change with regard to offences that might be committed. It was recognised that there were actually practising in the late United Kingdom a great number of people who could not be described under the terms of the new legislation as qualified persons, but they acquired a right by the fact that they had practised for a certain period. and had been allowed to practise, and had also been allowed to go through a period of training with a view to securing a certain status in the country which, at that time, entitled them to practise.

Consequently, provision was made by which people, ordinarily referred to as "1921 men," people who were in a particular state with regard to the practice of dentistry, or dental surgery, in 1921, were permitted to continue, but any new recruits to that class were definitely precluded in the future. We have to view that situation here, and although demand has been made that inasmuch as our legislation is introduced in 1927 we should not have a 1921 class, but a 1927 class, and that we should admit to certain rights, in regard to the practice of dentistry, people who had been not merely registered in 1921, but who may have entered the ranks of the unregistered since 1921, and also that we should guarantee them the same rights as those guaranteed to the 1921 people in England.

It is not proposed to do that for two reasons. One reason is that the intention of the Act of 1921 would have applied here. I do not mean that there were legal doubts as to whether that Act did apply here, but those concerned with the interests of the two professions had an idea that whatever enlargement was made in the 1921 Act by the inclusion of the 1921 men in England, there should be no further enlargement, and sufficient notice was given to those intending to enter the profession that the 1921 class was going to be confined to those who entered that class prior to 1921. It is proposed here to limit, I do not like to say the completely unqualified men, as they have some titles to qualification, but those who have not the particular type of qualification necessary for admission to the profession of dentistry. It is proposed to limit them to those in practice prior to 1921. There is a further reaction from that on the position of the Council.

The composition of the Council or Dental Board is to be of nine members, of whom one is to be a representative of those 1921 dentists, and four who are to be representative of the profession other than the 1921 men. It is clear that these 1921, more or less unregistered, people will be a diminishing class, and that, whatever their importance is at the moment, an importance which entitles them to one representative on the Board, it will become less and less. It is considered as being absolutely essential that some time hereafter there will have to be a readjustment of the Dental Board to meet the new situation, and that, without any great doubt, the nominee of the 1921 men will sooner or later disappear from the Board. At the same time, these people are rather numerous in the ranks of dentists at the moment, and their numerical strength entitles them to representation, that is, if the Dáil proposes to admit the contention that the 1921 men should be given the right to practise dentistry in this country at all.

The duties of the Board are to a great extent lessened from what those of the Medical Council set up under the Medical Act will be. The Council functioning under the Medical Act has to attend to everything in relation to the practice of medicine in this country—to medical education, to the entry of people on the register, to the keeping of that register, and to the discipline and control of the profession, leading in the last resort to expulsion from the register. The same does not hold with regard to the Dental Board, which will have nothing to do with education. As far as discipline is concerned, it will have a certain control and is enabled to institute inquiries into the conduct of people practising dentistry in the country where anything requiring attention is brought before it. The Board, of course, will have the duty and the right to keep the register, but when it comes to the determination as to what course must be set out so as to lead to a licence to practise dentistry, and when it comes to a final determination as to whether his conduct is sufficient to warrant the then qualified dentist being struck off, in that respect there has to be the same relationship between the Irish Council and the Medical Board as under the 1921 Act exists between the Dental Council and the Medical Board in England. When dental legislation in regard to education or penal cases in England is before the Medical Council there has to be associated with the Council a certain number of representatives of the dentists, and that will hold here.

The Medical Council in Ireland will have supervision of dental as well as medical education, and will have pretty well a decisive say in striking people off the Dental Register. Those are the main differences, as well as some of the similarities, existing between the proposal with regard to dentistry and the proposal with regard to medicine. The Bill in its numerous sections deals largely with the position of the Council, how the appointments are to be made and what happens when resignations from the Board take place or occur in any other way, and also makes the usual arrangements the House will be familiar with from the other Act. Regarding the meeting of the expenses of the establishment of the first register, and as to how the expenses of all further registration have to be met, there are two schedules. One is the international agreement. In so far as it is to govern the relationship between the Dental Board in England and the Irish Dental Board it follows the same lines as the medical agreement. I will stress only one point, inasmuch as it has been misunderstood. I have noticed a remark referring to a similar agreement with regard to the medical proposals, that the old powers of the General Medical Council have been and are at this moment continued in force by that Act, and that as far as the General Medical Council is concerned there has been no change between 1909 and the present year. I would like to call attention to a phrase in the Dentists Bill similar to that used in the medical agreement. Clause 3 of the First Schedule refers to powers and jurisdiction continuing as heretofore and is limited by one phrase, the preparation and keeping of the Dentists Register, and any other purpose.

If that is understood, the full meaning of the agreement will be understood in so far as any domestic change affecting dentists is concerned. There is the fullest control and authority vested in the Dental Council of the Free State, or the Irish Medical Council, to act jointly so far as the control of people who have got their licence to practise in this country, either in dentistry or medicine, and who are in practice in this country, and whose conduct while in practice comes under review. The sole control as far as these people are concerned with regard to practice in this country lies with the Dental Board. The Medical Council and the Dental Board in England are completely precluded from jurisdiction, so far as matters of that domestic type are concerned. I will direct attention to another point. If the Dentists' Board had been continued with full control and authority as previously, this case might have occurred: that if a dentist qualified to practise here, and also has his name entered on the register in England, and his conduct has called for criticism by both these controlling bodies, it might happen that the Irish Dental Board, or the Irish Medical Council would consider his conduct sufficiently grave to warrant him being struck off the Dentists' Register here. The corresponding council in England, examining the man's conduct from the point of view of the man being on the register in England, might consider his conduct not sufficient to warrant deprivation of his licence, and might allow him to continue in practice. There would then be a conflict between the two Boards, and if the old state of affairs continued the over-riding authority would be the English Board, whose decision would be decisive, and the prohibition of the Irish Board would not be of avail. That is definitely precluded by Section 4 of the First Schedule, which ensures that where there is any conflict of the sort, that where what has to be determined is the right to practise in this country, it is what the Irish Board says, and not what the English Board says that holds.

The Second Schedule deals with a list of 12 names to which reference is made in an earlier section of the Bill. Section 24 says:—"The several persons named in the Second Schedule to this Act shall on passing an examination in dentistry prescribed and held by the Board for the purpose within seven years after the passing of this Act and on making the prescribed application and paying the prescribed fees be entitled to be registered in the Register." These 12 individuals are people who did not come in under the 1921 Act, as it was drafted and passed in England, and who, if we simply applied the 1921 conditions to them, would not be entitled, even on passing an examination within seven years, to practise dentistry in this country. Their cases are considered to involve sufficient hardship to warrant this particular exception being made in their favour. They are not actually qualified at the moment and are not entitled to practise, but if and when they pass within a seven year period an examination which shall be prescribed for them by the Dental Board, then and only then can they practise dentistry in this country. The reasons why these 12 people have been segregated cannot be detailed here at the moment, but if there is any desire to know when we reach the Committee Stage why one more than another has been put on, or why these 12 have been put on when certain others might have been put on who have not been admitted to the same type of favour or exception, we can discuss that in Committee of the Whole House or possibly better still, at a Special Committee. We can see whether these 12 people are better entitled to this exception being made in their favour than others whose cases may be raised. We can also see whether any addition should be made to the list, because each case hangs by itself. They are simply individual cases, and not all ruled by the same consideration. These are 12 people whose cases have been examined by a variety of authorities, and the consensus of opinion is that their cases warrant an exception being made in their favour. It will be for the Committee to consider whether the list should be cut down or enlarged or left as it is. I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I expressed my approval of this measure in the last Dáil, and it is therefore not necessary that I should say very much on the present occasion. I want to say, however, that there is no direction in which legislation is more urgently required than in that indicated by the present Bill. For the last two or three years there has been absolute chaos as regards dentistry in this country. The Free State has been a happy hunting-ground for all sorts of quacks, and there has been no registration and no control, and nothing to prevent the public from being humbugged. This measure is an attempt to protect two classes of people. It is an attempt to protect dentists from these quacks and to protect the public, and the only thing that we must take care of, is not to rush too far from one direction to the other. While protecting the dentists we should take care that we do not deprive the public of any means by which they can get relief. That is one of the most important points that I want to lay stress upon. The only other thing I have to say is that any changes that may seem necessary here can be carried out on the Committee Stage. There is just one word I would like to say in connection with the 1921 men. They have one representative on the Dental Board. As the Minister has pointed out, the number, which will probably be about 300, will begin to diminish almost from the time that the Act comes into force, and if a change is not made eventually, then the last man will be electing himself to represent himself on the Board. I think for that reason there should be a time limit placed to the function of this particular class in the Act. That is to say, we should fix 15 or 20 years, probably 15 years, in which this particular representation should cease, or at all events that the matter should be reconsidered at that time. I give my very hearty approval to the measure, and I am very glad that the Minister is pressing it on, so that the country may not be kept any longer without what they so urgently need.

Mr. McMENAMIN

I rise for the purpose of getting a statement from the Minister with regard to Sections 24 and 25. Apparently the Minister, under Section 24,is prepared to admit an addition to the names already set forth in the Second Schedule. I take it that will be a matter for consideration for any particular case put before him in Committee. Section 25 seems to deal with people of the same character, and seems to me to be somewhat ambiguous. I do not understand whom they are to admit to the Dental Register on special terms. Does it cover people of the same kind, or is it intended to apply to people who, when almost qualified to get in under the British Act, were not fully qualified?

Professor THRIFT

I do not think there is very much to be said on this Bill. Like Deputy Sir James Craig, I am strongly in favour of it, and I think it should get a Second Reading. I just want to add what I said on the last occasion, that there are some points, and not without importance, too, which will be referred to on the Committee Stage, but it seems to me unnecessary to go into them now.

Mr. JOHNSON

I was rather expecting that we should have a speech from Deputy Gorey or his successor in the Farmers' Party as to the general merits of the Bill. It is well, inasmuch as the Minister has not given the House any information to point out that the purpose of the Bill is to give legal authority to control the profession and occupation, if one may say so, of dentistry to a body which might be designated the Amalgamated Society of Dentists, Irish Section, and to give that society statutory authority enabling them to blackball any other person who attempts to practise this trade or profession without having paid his contribution to the society, without having passed the examination the society fixes and giving the society this disciplinary authority backed by law.

I wonder if Deputies would be prepared to extend that principle. I think, for instance, there is not a very considerable stretch between a person who is engaging in fitting a denture to a toothless gum and a person fitting a pair of boots. I wonder would Deputies agree to establish a society of boot operatives, with power to fix conditions of entry into the trade, and to make it a penal offence for anyone to practise bootmaking in respect of any person who is not a member of the trade union. That is quite a close analogy, and Deputies should understand what they are doing when voting for the Second Reading of this Bill. I say it is a fair and close analogy, and that is particularly the case when you reckon that it is not merely the dentist proper, the dental surgeon, that is referred to, but the person who makes a pair of artificial teeth and attempts to fit them. I cannot, for the life of me, see why that particular operation requires the qualification that the practice of surgery involves or quite reasonably requires.

I have a suspicion that in this Bill, probably following the 1921 Act, the dentists' profession is really taking to itself a good deal more than is necessary. Deputy Sir James Craig has, quite rightly and fairly, pointed out that there are two interests affected by this Bill, the dentists who are seeking to protect their monopoly, and there is also the public. I would like a little more information as to what is expected, or claimed, to be the benefit to the public from the passing of this Bill. It may be said, and I am sure it will be, by physicians and doctors when they speak, that it is intended to protect the public against the practice of dentistry by unqualified people and the dangers that may accrue to the public from them. But I think that part of the work of the dentist as defined by this Bill is rather the work of the craftsman than the physician or surgeon—the making and fitting a denture or the giving of any treatment, advice or attendance to any person preparatory to or for the purpose of or in connection with the fitting, insertion or fixing of artificial teeth. It seems to me that is going a considerable distance beyond what is necessary for the protection of the art of dentistry. I would like a good deal more of enlightenment and argument on this matter before I am satisfied that all that is in this Bill is needed for the protection of the public.

Touching the question of the protection of the public the Minister for Industry and Commerce has said, perhaps frequently—the President certainly has said frequently—quite good things about the value of advertising and how, the public benefit by advertising. One of the results of this Bill, I am informed, is going to be prohibition of advertising. The dentist who is able to make and fit artificial teeth to toothless gums, and who would do it cheaply because he has a big practice, is going to be prohibited from extending that practice, and the inevitable consequence will be a rise in the fees for dentistry and increased charges upon the public. I do not know whether it is possible within the scope of this Bill to make provision for qualification and to ensure that only qualified people shall practise on the body of the patient.

While that should be done, I am not inclined to agree offhand with the prohibition, or, rather, with giving the power to a Board of this kind to prohibit what is deemed in other directions to be a most admirable development of modern publicity. If there is anything at all to be said for advertisement, if the public ever benefit by advertisement, then surely they may benefit by a dentist advertising his qualifications and powers to sell artificial teeth at a lower price than his neighbours. That is an aspect of the Bill that the House should be warned against, because what you are really asking now is that the Dáil should legislate in such a fashion as would prohibit a dentist who has peculiar ability from advertising that peculiar ability, and serving the public by such advertisement.

The Minister has removed the obligation that rests upon me to deal with certain characteristic cases where I think hardship would seem to be involved in the Bill by saying that it might be discussed in Committee. I think the Committee Stage suggested by the Minister, that of a Special Committee rather than a Committee of the Whole House, is quite a desirable thing in the case of this Bill, because the Bill, apparently, precludes from ever being on the Register, unless by special grace of the Board, persons who have been practising for quite a long time. I have, for instance, a case where a man was refused entry into the 1921 Register because he was three months short of the statutory age. He has been practising ever since. This Bill, as it is at present framed, would prevent that man coming upon the Register although he has had six years' experience, and was then qualified except in the matter of age. There is another case of where a man was actually engaged by the National Army in attendance on hundreds, almost thousands, of soldiers and prisoners, and who in every respect appears to have been qualified to practise his art, but he would be prohibited under this Bill. These are instances that seem to show the necessity for a thorough overhauling once the principle has been accepted.

I am not going to vote against the Second Reading, but I do feel it is desirable that there should be a much more convincing case made for this Bill in its present form than has been made. As I say, I think it is very desirable that there should be qualifications required, but I am not so sure that the prohibitions that are involved in it in regard to the methods of extending one's practice are justified at this stage. I think it is not reasonable to compare the dentists to the medical profession. One can foresee that the cost of dentistry to the public is going to be increased, and a considerable increase is going to place it beyond the power of the average man or woman to meet. It is already beyond the power of very many thousands who would need the attention of dentists, and I hope it shall not be long before we have a universal system of school inspection and examination of the teeth of the children, so that when that is well established there will be no dentist required to attend to the adults. I have not heard very much of the advocacy from the dental side of preventive measures, but I have a suspicion that Deputy Sir James Craig could give advice which, if followed, would pretty well ensure that the dentists of the next generation would have nothing to do. But I suppose, strictly, many of the dentists who will come on the Register under this new scheme will have no need to understand anything at all about the constituents that go to make a human tooth or the method whereby food once taken eventually finds its shape in a human tooth. But I say that the position of the dentist does not seem to be at all comparable with that of the medical man, and we are now on the way to establish this register monopoly—this Vocational Council—having authority which may be justified, but which I think ought to be coupled with representation on the Council of the public as well as the profession.

I think that the patients, the people who are eventually to be operated upon by the professional man, ought to have some representation on the Board which is going to control this Vocational Council. We have had, as some Deputies will have remembered, already an application for an extension of this scheme to the optician. It seems to me that whatever justification there is for dentistry, it is, at least, equally strong in regard to the optician. When we go a little further and when Deputies become thoroughly acclimatised, we from these benches may bring forward proposals in regard to other professions, other trades, other occupations, so that the country will be thoroughly honeycombed, if I may say so, with a system of Vocational Councils governing the operations of industry, trade, and commerce, and thereby perhaps reconstituting the social system. That is where we are going by this Bill, and it is well that Deputies should realise it.

I hope the Minister will tell us that it is his intention to move for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, so that the Bill can be examined more thoroughly than it could be by a full Committee of the House. That was done, I find, in regard to the 1921 Act in the British Parliament, and because of that fact we are not able to look up the report of the discussions in the British House. I think it is necessary that there should be a pretty full opportunity of discussing the merits of this schedule and every case or class of case that ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I am led to believe by the latter portion of the Minister's speech that he is aware that some injustice is likely to be inflicted on certain parties if the Bill is passed in its present form. He practically gave an invitation to the House to set up a Special Committee. I heartily approve of that suggestion. That would give an opportunity to some parties, whose cases I am aware of in the City of Dublin, to come before the Committee, state their case, and give reasons as to why they should be admitted and allowed to practise as they have been practising for the past 25 years. I believe that if the Bill becomes law in its present form Deputies from many parts of the country will discover that they have deprived many deserving citizens of their means of living.

With a view of giving these men an opportunity of being heard by the Special Committee, I think the House would be well advised in accepting the invitation of the Minister to set up a Special Committee. I have in my hand particulars of the case of a man who has been practising dentistry for the last 25 years. He has been doing his work well, and satisfying his patients. If this Bill is passed in its present form, that man will not be able to follow his profession. Therefore, knowing, as I do, that there are many cases similar to his in the Free State, I ask the House to accept the invitation of the Minister to refer the matter to a Special Committee before whom these people may be heard.

Mr. G. WOLFE

I think the unregistered dentists should be very grateful to Deputy Johnson for his advocacy of their claims. They will be more grateful to him, I think, than the outside public will, because it is a well-known fact that there is a large number of so-called dentists going about the country who are not qualified at all. These men are not only putting in false teeth, which is not such a very dangerous operation, but they are practising methods that are extremely critical, and that sometimes have very disastrous results, that one does not hear very much about except in certain cases. I think in these days the public have a right to be protected against anybody practising any species of medicine—and this is a species of medicine—without proper training and qualifications. One might think that we are getting back to the days when the village blacksmith extracted teeth by putting his patient on the floor with a chair on top of him and extracting the teeth with one of his implements. I think that in the 20th century it is time that people who undertake to cure the ills of mankind should have some proper qualifications. The public, I think, if they thoroughly realised, as a great many of them do not, that a number of these persons have no qualifications at all, would be exceedingly alarmed and would insist, as this Bill will insist, on their qualifications being of a proper standard. For my part, I am certain the majority of people outside will have the same view of this Bill as the majority here have, that the sooner it is passed and stringent regulations made and carried into effect to control this profession the better it will be for everybody concerned.

Mr. JINKS

I have a case in mind of thirty years' standing, and I intend to move an amendment in the Committee Stage to allow this man to continue practising. It would be too bad to prevent this man of thirty years' standing from being registered. He would have qualified under the other Act were it not for the fact that the man with whom he served his time thought he might start in opposition to him, and he refused to recommend him. I would ask the House to take the claims of this man into consideration in this Bill, and I intend to move an amendment to that effect.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister say whether, in fact, the 1921 Bill has been applicable in the Free State?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would not dare to answer that question. Deputy McMenamin referred to Sections 24 and 25. Section 24 deals with the Second Schedule, and it is the only section dealing with the Second Schedule. The names there are the names of people who are dental mechanics. After investigation by the old Dental Board, those people were allowed a period of ten years in which to pass a modified examination. They are dealt with in the English 1921 Act. What we are doing here is simply taking over the twelve cases about which there was agreement that there would be hardship if the persons concerned were prevented from obtaining a qualification which could be registered and which would entitle them to practise. These are the names of the twelve persons whose cases were previously considered, and they are the only persons whose cases seem to warrant this exceptional treatment.

Section 25 deals with an entirely different thing. It provides that the Board, by its own special direction, may, on account of special circumstances, register any person who, in their opinion, has received training and possesses qualifications not inferior to the standard of training and qualifications required under this Act. The object of that is to allow people who might be qualified in some other country and whose diploma seemed to be sufficient and satisfactory, but where agreement had not been made with us by the country concerned for reciprocal recognition, to be registered. The two sections are distinct. Section 25 has no reference to the schedule. Section 24 has reference only to the schedule.

I have not invited any additions to the list. I have seen a lot of cases, and I am convinced that no injustice is being done to anybody. As to the claim that it is putting a man out of employment, the same plea might be made on behalf of a coiner. But nobody would allow the coiner to continue his operations simply because you would be depriving him of lucrative employment.

I have seen cases of individuals and, so far as my examination went, I was not impressed. There was no hardship, and I was definitely convinced that if one or two of those cases were allowed in, the door would be flung open for such a tremendous number that the public and the public health would be jeopardised by the admission. That was the special matter on which I thought this Bill might be referred to a Special Committee—not the Bill itself but the Second Schedule. Section 24 of the Bill can be amended here in the House if it is thought that there should be any better exception made in favour of a certain number of people; or it can be narrowed by amendment in the House in respect of the people to whom in refers.

I do not think it is desirable that we should have individual cases talked of openly here. It is not desirable, I think, that Deputies should bring forward here individual cases for discussion. I should prefer to have those discussed by Special Committee, and the House could discuss the terms on which certain people, like those twelve dental mechanics, should be admitted. Additions to the list might then be made on report from the Special Committee to the House. I do not mention that by way of inviting additions to the list. I am convinced there should be no additions to it. I cannot say, of course, that I have had all the cases put before me. I do not make any such claim. But once the Special Committee has examined privately the cases brought before it, on report from that Committee to this House, there may be fitted in an enlarged or diminished schedule in the Bill. But I think we should have the discussion on the whole scheme of the Bill in the ordinary way here.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister desire that only individual cases shall be dealt with by the Committee, or is he prepared to agree that the classes of persons that should come on the Register might be discussed by the Committee, apart from the general plan of the Bill? I refer to the elements that might go to make up the Register.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy could, of course, enlarge on my proposal. My proposal was going to be that the Second Schedule be referred to a Special Committee for examination, with a view to seeing whether any additions should be made to the list, whether the names should be left as they are, or whether there should be any subtractions from the list. The rest of the Bill would, according to my proposal, be discussed in the ordinary way in Committee here. When we come to the Committee, Stage, it will be for Deputy Johnson to see if he can get any amendment to the definition section dealing with the "practice of dentistry or dental surgery." The section may be too widely drafted, or it may unnecessarily limit the operations of people who, hereafter, will not be registered dental practitioners. If he can persuade the House that, in the interests of the public, it is better to allow them a cheap service, which may be dangerous, in preference to the possibility of there being a dear service which will be definitely and clearly safe, that is his option. But that should be argued in the House here, and not before some small committee.

The point as to fees and advertising are also matters which Deputy Johnson can argue. Personally, I should prefer to hear Deputy Johnson argue in this House that it should not be a matter for the House to frown upon— this matter of not allowing people to sell their wares or their labour unless they do it under certain trades union regulations. The Deputy might like to hear here the arguments put forward against his view.

I think the feeling of the House is obviously that a Bill to make provision for the registration and control of persons practising dentistry or dental surgery is necessary. The Second Reading has not been objected to by anybody. We then come to the details. I ask the House to consider the details in the usual way on Committee Stage, which I would move ordinarily to have fixed for Friday. The second portion of the Bill—that is the Second Schedule—I ask should be referred to a Special Committee.

Mr. McMENAMIN

Would the Minister think of adopting the principle of defining the qualifications of exceptional persons who should be admitted instead of putting their names on the schedule? By the present method the House may do a grave injustice to individuals in the country who have the same qualifications as the persons whose names are in the schedule but whose names are not before us. I think that would be a better principle than the setting out in a schedule of particular names. It would be better procedure for the House, because it might well be said otherwise that the House was partial to these particular named men. It would be better on the whole, I think, to adopt a definition of the persons concerned instead of setting out their names in a schedule.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If I might answer Deputy McMenamin——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy can be answered in Committee. The point raised was a Committee point.

Mr. JOHNSON

Might I ask your guidance, A Chinn Comhairle, as to whether it is practicable to take the Committee Stage up to a point and then refer special provisions to a Select Committee?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is practicable. Standing Order 84 deals with the point. The latter portion of that Standing Order states:—

"Provided that the Dáil may, on motion made by the Deputy in charge of the Bill, commit the Bill to a Special Committee in respect of some of its provisions and to a Committee of the Whole Dáil in respect of other provisions...."

I must put the motion for the Second Stage first, and we can then have this matter discussed afterwards.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I ask that the Committee Stage be fixed for Friday, giving notice at the same time that it is my intention to move that the Second Schedule be referred to a Special Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to ask the Minister if he would not agree to referring those sections which deal with the composition of the Register and those which deal with the people entitled to be on the Register to a Special Committee.—Sections 23, 24, and 25.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The difficulty about that is that by referring Section 23 to a Special Committee one might as well refer the First Schedule as well as the second, because the international agreement—the First Schedule—governs Section 23 almost completely.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to understand that every person is to be excluded except those named in the schedule? For instance, would it exclude the case of the person I referred to, who had been serving and who was only three months by birth precluded from being on the register? I do not want to refer to special cases, except in so far as they refer to a class of cases which we may not know of.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

To refer Section 23 would be, I think, referring the whole international agreement to a Special Committee, because Section 23 and the international agreement are closely bound up. There is also a close relationship between the agreement and Section 24, but I am not prepared to say that the agreement would be broken by the addition of names to the Second Schedule. But any big change in Section 23, if it were enlarging the number who might go on, would definitely be a breach of the agreement.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When the Bill is taken in Committee of the Whole Dáil, Sections 23, 24 and 25 will be discussed. The Second Schedule could then, after that general Committee has been concluded, be referred to a Special Committee, and the Fourth Stage cannot be taken until the Special Committee, which is to discuss the Second Schedule in particular, has reported. Therefore, the result of the Committee discussions on Sections 23, 24 and 25 and the Second Schedule will be before the House before the motion for the Fourth Stage can be taken.

Professor THRIFT

I should like, sir, to have your ruling on a point of order. In view of Standing Order 84, I should like to know whether it must be at the time when the Bill is referred to Committee that the motion to refer a special section to a Special Committee should be made, or whether a motion like that may be made at any time during the Committee Stage. It would appear from the first few lines of Standing Order 84 as if the two motions should be concurrent, and I should like to have your ruling.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I find nothing in the Standing Order to compel me to take the view that both motions must be taken together. Therefore, I shall allow the motion for the Special Committee for a part of the Bill to be moved later on. It would also seem to be more convenient, because the House when considering a Bill in Committee might at any time come to the conclusion that a particular part of the Bill ought to be referred to a Special Committee. Any other reading of the Standing Orders would be very inconvenient in those circumstances.

Professor THRIFT

I am very glad your ruling is as it is, because I agree that it would be the most convenient way, and that is why I thought it necessary to draw your attention to the matter.

Committee Stage fixed for Friday, 8th July.