Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1928

Vol. 25 No. 2

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1928—FROM THE SEANAD.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I beg to move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:

1. Before Section 28 a new section as follows:—

(1) This section shall apply to any person who before the establishment of the Board satisfies the Minister or after the establishment of the Board satisfies the Board that he fulfils the following conditions, that is to say—

(a) that he was a citizen of Saorstát Eireann on the 1st day of January, 1928; and

(b) that he was on the 31st day of December, 1921, not less than twenty-one years of age; and

(c) that his principal means of livelihood during the whole period of seven years immediately preceding the passing of this Act was the practice of dentistry in Saorstát Eireann; and

(d) that he was not guilty at any time of any crime or conduct which, if he had at that time been a registered dentist, would have caused his removal from the register.

(2) For the purposes of the application of this section to a person who was a dental mechanic before the passing of the Dentists Act, 1921, the expression "practice of dentistry" in the foregoing sub-section shall be deemed to include the work usually performed by a dental mechanic.

(3) Every person to whom this section applies shall on passing either of the examinations in dentistry to be prescribed and held under this section and on making the prescribed application and paying the prescribed fees be entitled to be registered in the register.

(4) Two examinations shall be prescribed and held under this section, the first of which shall be held after the expiration of five months and before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, and the second of which shall be held after the expiration of eleven months and before the expiration of twelve months from the passing of this Act.

(5) An examination prescribed and held under this section shall if held before the establishment of the Board be prescribed and held by the Minister, and if held after the establishment of the Board shall be prescribed and held by the Board.

(6) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit any person to whom this section applies 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 results of the second examination held under this section.

(7) Every person to whom this section applies who is registered in the register under this section and is resident in Saorstát Eireann shall so long as he is so registered and resident be entitled to vote and be elected at an election of the elected members of the Board held after he is so registered as if he were registered in the register by virtue of a previous registration in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921.

2. Section 28. Sub-sections (1) to (8) inclusive deleted.

3. Section 28, sub-section (9). The word "Fourth" deleted in line 14 and the word "Third" substituted therefor.

4. Third Schedule. The Schedule deleted.

5. Fourth Schedule. In the title of the Schedule the word "Fourth" deleted and the word "Third" substituted therefor.

6. Fourth Schedule. The words: "Dillon, John Patrick, 85 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin," inserted in the appropriate place.

7. Fourth Schedule. The words: "Hanrahan, Michael Francis, Francis Street, Kilrush," inserted in the appropriate place.

8. Fourth Schedule. The words: "Reid, John, 144 North Strand Road, Dublin," inserted in the appropriate place.

Mr. BRISCOE

I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1) (a) of the proposed new section to delete the word "was" and substitute the word "is" and to delete the words "on the 1st day of January, 1928."

I hope we will have the same accord on these amendments as we have just had on the Betting Bill. It will save the House a lot of time and everybody will be happy. The first amendment here was put in by me, because I could not quite understand what the Minister meant in the amendment that has been sent back to us from the Seanad: "(a) that he was a citizen of Saorstát Eireann on the 1st day of January, 1928." I have studied Article 3 of the Constitution and I cannot see why the Minister should think it necessary to introduce this particular phrase in the Bill. I thought it well to have some information from him on the subject. Perhaps he might agree to my amendment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has failed to give any reasons for his amendment.

Mr. BRISCOE

The reason I gave was——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That you do not understand what is here.

Mr. BRISCOE

There is something there which is not in accordance with the Constitution. I do not believe that is correct.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I stand for the amendment from the Seanad as being correct, and as meaning what it says. We are insisting on citizenship. I agree with the Deputy's reading of Article 3 of the Constitution and I maintain that this is a proper phrase. There are two dates in question, some day in July, 1928, and the 1st January, 1928. What is the difference?

Mr. BRISCOE

It might be put to the ruling of the Chair to say which of the two statements would be the more correct in accordance with Article 3.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am afraid I could not accept the ruling of the Chair.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Chair would not be prepared to rule on that.

Mr. LITTLE

Does not the word "is" carry sufficient meaning?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

And does not the phrase here carry sufficient meaning?

Mr. LITTLE

It does, something more. It suggests that there is machinery for naturalisation which does not exist.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You cannot argue that about any such phrase.

Mr. BRISCOE

In view of the attitude of the Minister I do not propose to press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BRISCOE

I desire to move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1) (b) of the proposed new section to delete all words after the word "that" and substitute the words "he be not less than twenty-five years of age at the date of the passing of this Act and ".

Perhaps the Minister is not prepared to accept this either.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

Oh, do not suggest that.

Mr. BRISCOE

I contend that sub-section (b) of the new section "that he was on the 31st day of December, 1921, not less than twenty-one years of age," does not fulfil what the Deputies in this House had in mind or what the Minister himself purposed to do when discussing this Dental Bill during its various stages in this House and also in the Seanad. The Minister said on the 4th July in the Seanad as reported on column 867 of the Official Debates:—"I think we should demand, as a consideration in return for that, that there should be a fairly lengthy period of practice." Well, now in the Minister's new insertion here it means this—and I want to be as logical and clear as I can on this to show the Minister the effect it will have—in 1921 when the British Act was passed it stipulated that anybody under the age of 23 who applied for registration besides other qualifications necessary, was to sit for an examination. Seven years will have passed from the passing of that Act up to the time that this Act comes into being and yet any man who was over 23 years of age in 1921 and who was not in any way engaged in dental practice is in a better position than the other. I think in general that meant that men engaged in it should be considered. But the man over 21 years of age in 1921 could immediately after the passing of the British Act have started here, knowing that he had no possible chance of getting on any register. They did so. If that man is 28 years of age to-day he gets a chance of sitting for an examination to be put on the Dental Register that is to be brought into being. I contend as against that that there was a number of men who were too young to apply for registration under the British Act but who may have had a number of years' practice. There were men who had, before the passing of the British Act and who were too young to apply to be put on the register according to the British Act and who by virtue of this reading are still too young. Take the case of a youth of 14 years of age apprenticed in 1917 to the Dental business or profession. That was eleven years ago. He is 25 years of age to-day. He would have 11 years' apprenticeship at the dentistry but he would be too young to be considered for this examination. Then as against that we have a man who was over the age of 21 and who started to practise much later in life. I want to lay emphasis on the fact about the time. After the time the British Act was passed he is protected by this Bill. The Bill protects him provided he is over 28 years of age now. But the man who has eleven years' apprenticeship is precluded under this Act. I submit that that is not the Minister's intention at all. His intention was to get consideration for those people who could prove that for a considerable number of years they were engaged in the practice of dentistry and that they were not quacks who had come over from the other side to try to get a status here which they could not get in Britain. When this Bill was going through this House here several points of view were put up. Apart from the Departmental Dental Committee which was set up, the Minister set up from this House a Dáil Dental Committee. This Dáil Committee in conjunction with the Departmental Committee issued an advertisement to those people who were concerned also who are affected by this Bill.

Those people in compliance with that request sent in applications accompanied by affidavits. They went to a lot of trouble and expense to put their cases before the committee for consideration. These applications were considered. A certain number were turned down and a certain number were passed on. The Dáil Dental Committee put on to the Bill this third Schedule which embodied a certain number of men who had complied in that way. Subsequently the Bill went to the Seanad. In the Seanad representations were made on behalf of others and these were accepted and the Seanad set up a Seanad Dental Committee to consider the applications of those not put up by the Dáil Dental Committee. The Minister himself accepted from the Seanad Committee the names of two individuals who were put up by the Seanad. Now it appears that all these men are wiped out, irrespective of the fact that Deputies in this House who had some knowledge of the matter and who considered that they were suitable to be included in this Third Schedule, agreed to permit them to stand for examination. They are all wiped out now. Although some of those may have a chance of sitting for an examination by virtue of age there are some who are not of age and who will be disqualified for all time. That is the injustice which I am sure it is not intended by this House should be inflicted on those people.

In my amendment here I set out that the age should be reduced from 28 years to 25 years, and I do that for this reason, that I figure out that as the average age of the youth who is being apprenticed to that particular trade or profession. These started at the age between 15 and 16. That gives them a certain number of years' practice. These men should be considered if they have a certain number of years. I do not say that the Bill should consider those less than 25 years of age for the simple reason that I am inclined to agree that the number of years in practice should be extended from 7 to 10; and that is why I say that a young man starting at 15 years of age and who had served his time and embodied in all ten years' practice should be facilitated. I have tried to show that the Bill as it stands now with the amendments from the Seanad makes it possible for men who started to practise after the day the Dental Register was brought in and after the idea of quack dentists being stopped, that these men who started after 21 years of age should have consideration; and on the other hand you have boys apprenticed to the trade before the passing of the British Act who are not getting any consideration at all. I appeal to the Minister to accept it down to the age of

Mr. McGILLIGAN

In order to reply to this proposed amendment I will have to go back over the history of the 25, and that, in accepting that he would extend the number of years in dental practice from 7 to 10 years. past. This Bill has suffered badly in its passage through both Houses so far as the main idea entitling men not properly qualified to get a status and qualify now. Originally when this Bill was brought in—it was introduced in the Dáil three times and on each Second Reading there was this statement made, and I think it represented the facts—that it was always intended in this country to have dental legislation and to found dental legislation strictly and rigidly upon the Act of 1921. There is some doubt as to whether the Act of 1921 runs in this country. I believe it does, but there has been some hesitation in enforcing it. But in the Bill founded on that principle, the 1921 Act, in so far as the period of professional practice was going to count in lieu of examination, we always made the statement that we were not going to have a 1927 class. We have worked to remain strictly up to the 1921 class. That may not be in accordance with the views of the people here, but that was our intention.

We did find ourselves in the 1921 Act, and Deputy Briscoe has not comprehensively stated what the effects of the clause were. There are two things we will leave out of consideration because there is a similar clause to this here. There is one question of good character and afterwards of professional character; there were two points: one, the age limit and, secondly, the number of years in practice. If we were going to carry forward the 1921 Act we would have it that the person who at the particular date before the commencement of the 1921 Act was 23 years of age, but in addition he had to let us get to the examination class. He will have the other clause under which he had to have been for five of the seven years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act engaged in dental practice.

Mr. BRISCOE

This Act.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The 1921 Act, and nobody could come forward if he could show even 15 years' practice in the years allowed after 1921, if he could not have shown them five out of the seven years prior to the 1921 Act he had no chance of succeeding. That is the 1921 Act on which we were basing ourselves, so the Deputy in giving an explanation of my enlargement of the period of years left out altogether the other side of the question which was that a period of practice had to be limited to the five years period making up the seven years prior to 1921. What do we do now? We came in here. We are not going to have the 1927 clause, in other words we are not going to recognise people who set up here in my opinion illegally in practice and count what was the period of illegal practice from the date of passing this Bill backwards for a period of years. We have been driven to that, and the principle of the 1921 Act was abandoned. It was eaten into in the beginning. Some people were under 23 years. They were 23 all but 3 days. Naturally those were admitted. Then we got a case where three months was the point of time. Where a man was short by that period we allowed him on. Next we found men who had only four of the seven years, and then we got a big rush of the people who prior to the 1927 Act had nine years' practice, if one counts the period of apprenticeship which shows even twelve. The Bill went through this House as Deputies know with the Third Schedule setting out the names, and Deputy Briscoe again makes the statement that those names have disappeared. The names as names have disappeared but I am not so sure that very many—I think about two will not even qualify for the examination—will not be able to present themselves for the examination and so again qualify. The big majority of the people named will be able to go for the examination and are in no worse position though their names have disappeared by reason of the substitution of this general clause. The clause was substituted in the Seanad. At a very late stage a clause was brought in more indicating certain points than actually having them drafted and in the Seanad I found them agreed on several things. First of all there was an insistence on apprenticeship, then on age, then on the period of practice, and then on good professional conduct even in the irregular dental practice period. I asked the Seanad to agree with me in one proposition. I got their assent. The proposition was this. Inasmuch as a man who goes through dentisry through the avenue of examination is not allowed to sit for his professional examination until he is 21 years of age, that we should be at least as hard in that respect on the people making their approach to dentistry through experience and not through examination, and that we should not count any years except years after 21. Originally this clause as it appeared in the Seanad insisted on 10 years professional practice prior to the date of the passing of this legislation, and naturally and automatically it was felt that a person ought to be of such an age as would make it necessary that no single one of these ten years would have been prior to his attaining his majority. In the discussion in the Seanad the ten years' period was weakened to seven and that brought down the age period, and the age period in paragraph B. and C. go together.

Deputy Briscoe has made a suggestion here to-night which I, personally, would be glad to adopt, but I do not know how it would appeal to the Seanad. They rather rejected it in advance. The suggestion was to leave the period of age almost entirely out of your calculations and say ten years' practice. The Deputy had better watch the phrase used because I asked the Seanad to let me change paragraph (c) in another way. Paragraph (c) as drafted so read that it was his principal occupation during the whole of the ten years. I agreed to reduce ten years to seven if I got a change in the word "occupation" into "principal means of livelihood." I did not mean that "principal means of livelihood" taken in conjunction with the phrase "practice of dentistry" covers any period of apprenticeship. It is definite professional practice, not apprenticeship. If the Deputy wants this moulded in another way there is a danger of having it interpreted in another way.

Mr. BRISCOE

It is easy to explain it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not sure people can complain that there is any hardship by the insistence on the clause as it stands. We do insist that a man should be 21 years of age on the 31st of December, 1921, and has been seven years in practice in the country. We have got away from the basis of the 1921 Act and are not regarding it as so many years prior to 1921. We are definitely regularising illegal practice since 1921.

Mr. BRISCOE

Definitely illegal practice.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Practice no one ever thought should be legalised in the country because, remember the 1921 Act was passed on the report of a Committee for the United Kingdom, which reported in 1919 but was established in 1917. The report was of such a serious character that it was seen immediately that the unregistered practitioner was going to be done away with to a great extent. Notwithstanding the 1917 Committee, their report in 1919 and the 1921 legislation which followed, a very big number of people continued in practice in this country, simply meaning that they were going to get the best out of a bad situation and to continue in practice until they were pulled up. They now find themselves in the happy position of being regularised. I think that in those circumstances a period of seven years prior to the passing of this Act is not too much to insist on. I would prefer to have ten years. I would go this length: I would prefer, although I would not insist on it, that sub-section (b) would go back to the way in which it was originally drafted—"on the 31st day of December, 1918, was not less than 21 years of age." That is to be in accord with this next paragraph if the ten years is to be insisted on. However, it is for the House to decide. A period of ten years is not so important as the insistence on the number of years in professional practice. I do think that one ought to bear in mind the fact that I announced to the Seanad, and quoted here that the man who does dentistry by the avenue of examination cannot sit for his final examination until he is 21 years of age. We should not, therefore, count any period of practice whatever that started before a man attained his majority.

Mr. BRISCOE

The Minister in his reply bore out what I said, that illegal practitioners are being protected by this, and are being given an opportunity here of becoming dentists to the exclusion of men who cannot be classed as illegal, men who have served their time in this country. I would like to impress on the Minister and on the House, if sub-section (b) is left as it is now, that opportunity is being given to those who are definitely illegal from the point of view of practising dentistry to the exclusion of those who should be given consideration or chance. I am not asking that they should be put on the register; I am asking that those of 25 years of age be allowed to stand for the examination, and if the examination is severe enough only men who are as capable as can be in the circumstances will pass. There is no great hardship on the community in putting a man of 25 years of age on the register provided he satisfies an examining body as to his qualification. There is no greater hardship in putting him on the register than there would be in putting a man who would scrape through after seven years of practice. It might be considered as unfair that a man who is now 25 years of age, who has been engaged for the last ten years in dentistry and who is prepared to stand for an examination, should be excluded. Those who started later in life are being given an opportunity against those who are, in my opinion, more deserving of it.

Professor THRIFT

I was rather sorry to hear the Minister say that the effect of this amendment would be to exclude from the possibility of siting for this examination two of those who had been recommended for examination by the Committee which the Dáil appointed. The Committee went into the case exceedingly carefully. I happened to be one of the Committee and, as far as my judgment would go, I do not think anybody was sent forward by that Committee who did not establish a reasonable claim to this concession, namely, that his qualifications, knowledge and experience should be tested by examination. Reading down these provisions, it seems to me that their effect would be rather to allow the possibility of one, or two additional ones to those whom the Dáil recommended than to exclude anyone whom the Dáil recommended. I was wondering if the Minister would say which of the provisions had the effect of limiting the number recommended by the Dáil.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I said I thought there were two cases. I cannot say definitely that there are two, but one man to whom I referred would be excluded by (b), by the age limit.

Mr. BRISCOE

According to my information there are two.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I heard there were two, both under age.

Professor THRIFT

Personally, as I said on the Committee Stage in the Dáil long ago, I thought the period of actual practice at dentistry, to the approval of the Board and recognised by the Board as satisfactory, is a much better kind of limit to establish than these arbitrary distinctions that are put down here.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Thrift has spoken of what he believes to be a hardship.

Professor THRIFT

A restriction.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That these men will not be allowed to sit for the examination. If it is thought a material point I could get the schedule examined.

Professor THRIFT

The point that weighs with me is the fact that the Dáil Committee carefully went into this matter and said that a certain number of people whom I do not happen to know were eligible to be put on this list and be qualified if they passed an examination and they are now rejected. I think it is rather important.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I need not say that I am fairly sick of this Bill. As the Minister said, it came before us on three different occasions and received three Second Readings. Some of us gave a considerable amount of time to discussion of this matter, and it does seem rather strange to us who spent many hours in connection with this to find that there are names that we consider should be placed upon the list as possible to sit for examination now being excluded. I feel pretty sore about that matter after the amount of trouble we have taken. I think I see a point in what Deputy Briscoe has stated. I am not inclined to press the matter very far, but I think he has made a case that we will, by this amendment of the Seanad, be giving a better chance to men who took up dentistry after it seemed quite impossible for them to be able to get on the Register, and we are going to exclude men who had been serving their time as apprentices before the 1921 Act came in. I would be inclined, if Deputy Briscoe is going to divide the House, to support him in that matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I doubt very much that it can be shown that this Bill excludes anyone who had started dentistry as apprentices prior to the passing of the 1921 Act and allows anyone who took up dentistry after that date to go on the Register.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

If the Minister could clear up that——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think it is possible.

Professor THRIFT

I do not think it is possible, because it says his sole means of livelihood right through the whole period must be through dentistry.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it suggested that there are certain things that would require to be examined before the amendment would be put?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I put that to Deputy Thrift.

Professor THRIFT

I would like very much that the Minister would be able to give me a definite statement that these recommendations coming down to us now from the Seanad do not operate in excluding any of those whom the Dáil Committee reported as fit to be submitted to this examination.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move to report progress. The Dáil went out of Committee. Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-morrow.