asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he has any information as to the marks obtained by candidates who passed, and also those who failed the first examination prescribed and held by the Dental Board under Section 28 (5) of the Dentists Act, 1928.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dental Board Examinations.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he has any information as to (a) the total number of applications received for permission to sit for the examination prescribed under Section 28 (5) of the Dentists Act, 1928; (b) the total number admitted to the examination, and (c) the number who passed and who are as a result entitled to be registered in the Dental Register.
I have not the information asked for. Any inquiry on these matters should be addressed by the Deputy to the Dental Board.
asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he has any information as to how many of the applicants who applied for permission to sit for the examination prescribed by the Dental Board were refused permission on the grounds that they had under 10 years "livelihood" at dentistry; whether years of apprenticeship were reckoned in determining the number of years "livelihood" specified, and, if not, if he has any information as to the number of applicants who were excluded from the examination by reason of the years of apprenticeship not being admitted.
I have not the information asked for. Under Section 28 (1) of the Dentists Act, 1927, it was provided that persons would be allowed to sit for examination provided that before the establishment of the Board they satisfied the Minister, or after the establishment of the Board they satisfied the Board, that they possessed the qualifications set out in the sub-section. The Board was set up on 14th November, 1928. Up to that time the Minister had not exercised in any case the functions assigned to him by this sub-section. The matter is therefore, under the sub-section, entirely one for the Board, to which any inquiry on these matters should be addressed by the Deputy.
I would like to point out to the Minister that the position is this: Inquiries have been made of the civil servant who is acting as Secretary to the Board, and I have a letter written by that gentleman to an applicant who was specifically turned down because of the fact that the ten years included a number of years' apprenticeship. The position now is that the Dental Board, guided by that Secretary, cannot interpret the Act in any but the legal way, while we had here in the House an assurance from the Minister that apprenticeship would be counted as part of the ten years. I would like to point out that in this particular case the apprentice earned in the first four years 10/- a week. If that is not to be taken as earning a livelihood, how are we to agree on the other hand that 10/- a week, paid to an old age pensioner, provides him with a livelihood? There must be some means of using common sense. Might I ask the Minister what can be done? This is a definite case of a man turned down because the Board could not calculate years of apprenticeship. On the other hand, how can we get the matter settled when the Minister, piloting the Bill through the House, said that years of apprenticeship would be included in the calculation?
The fact that because of certain provisions the Secretary of the Board happens to be a civil servant does not change my position with regard to the Board, and does not change the Board's attitude with regard to its position under this Act. It cannot be said, in so far as the Board have responsibilities or duties under the Act, that they are guided by a civil servant. The civil servant at the present moment discharges no function or carries out no work for the Board except work that normally would be discharged by the Secretary of the Board. The interpretation of the clause in question is a matter entirely for the Board. If the Board consider the question and decide that a certain class of apprenticeship did not involve livelihood, then, as far as I know, the matter is entirely one for the Board, and there is no way in which the Minister can interfere in the matter, nor is there any appeal that the person in question can pursue.