The question is: "That the Dentists Bill, 1927, be now read a Second Time."
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not propose to object to the Second Reading of this Bill, which, I admit, has been framed in the best interests of the dental profession. I was hoping that the Minister would have been here so that we might get an assurance from him in regard to certain matters arising under Schedules 3 and 4. It appears that there has been some misunderstanding as to names included in these Schedules and it is desirable, when the Committee Stage is reached, to have these matters considered and to have the Minister state his views upon them. I understand that in one case there is a dentist who is 42 years of age and who has been 25 years in practice, and I think it would be a hardship to ask a gentleman like him to submit himself to examination in dentistry before his name is allowed on the register. I agree that these are not matters which should be considered at this stage, but I hope when the Bill reaches the Committee Stage that they will be sympathetically considered by the Minister and that some names now appearing on the Third Schedule will be transferred to the Fourth.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am sure if there is any mistake the Minister will be glad to rectify it. I should explain to Senator Sir Coey Bigger that, so far as I can see, the House will not be required to meet again, at least, before this day fortnight, and by that time I think it is possible that we will have one or two more Bills to consider. In any event we will have the Committee Stage of this Bill to dispose of, so that the probability is that we will meet this day fortnight. I put it that way because if anything occurs to disappoint my expectations and there was no indication that there was any substantial business to be done, it may not be necessary to convene the Senate until the following week. Subject to that, I want the House to understand that this Bill will probably be taken in Committee on this day fortnight.
There is one matter to which I would like to call attention to in the Bill, namely, Section 21. I think a most important regulation has been omitted from that section. It is usual to confer on registration authorities power to frame rules regulating the course of training and the conduct of examinations for admission to the register, but such has not been done here.
CATHAOIRLEACH
This is a Committee point which can be remedied on the next stage. It does not affect the principle of the Bill. We are on the principle of the Bill now, and any suggestions of the kind you are making will be welcome on the Committee Stage. It will be your duty to give notice of such amendment, and it will be considered then.
I was hoping that the Minister would have been here and would have given some reason why this matter has been omitted.
It has transpired since we came here to-day that there is a dentist who is 42 years of age and who has been pulling teeth since he was 17 years old. I think that that shows the necessity of having a Bill like this regularised, and that steps should be taken to prevent a young person of 17 years of age pulling teeth.
I agree that it is necessary that regulations should be made to protect the public against persons who are called "quacks" in the dental or other faculties dealing with public health. I am afraid that the passing of this Bill would mean that in future the poor man's son would have no chance of becoming a dentist. The story with regard to the register is an old one, and has been much debated in this country, in regard to the steps to be taken to form a proper register for the purpose of preventing "quacks" from practising dentistry and leaving the public liable to be operated upon by persons who have not the necessary qualifications to perform such operations. We know that in 1921 steps were taken by the British Government to try and regularise the position in regard to persons practising dentistry, and that a register was then compiled of persons then termed "non-qualified," or persons who had not got the necessary degrees and who had not passed an examination in a university or recognised college for dentistry.
Every person who could prove that for a number of years he had been engaged in the practice of dentistry was admitted to the register. Such persons were entitled, because of their qualifications through the practice of dentistry, although they had not the necessary degrees, to go on the register in 1921. This Bill proposes to regularise that position and makes provision for all persons who became registered in 1921 so that their standing would be secured. It also makes provision that certain persons, who at present are practising but are not qualified, will automatically, after passing an examination, be entitled to practise, but it goes further and says that, when such persons are provided for, any person for the future who may have qualifications by having served his time as a dental mechanic will be shut out because he or his parents may not be in a position to pay fees to give him the necessary qualifications now prescribed.
What about scholarships?
The least said about scholarships the better. In my experience it is not generally the poor man's son who gets a scholarship, because when you take into account the fees that have to be paid and the fact that young men have to be fed and clothed until they are 21 years of age while attending a university you will realise that the sons of poor parents cannot take scholarships. I know that there is a provision in the Bill that when the register and the board are set up examinations will be held in the colleges enabling persons to get degrees in dental surgery. I am not, however, quite satisfied that the dental mechanic, who may have all the necessary qualifications from the point of view of practice, will be able to enter for these examinations and get a degree, because the colleges may insist that he must know Latin. What Latin has got to do with the pulling of teeth I do not know, but the colleges may insist on that. I do not want it to be understood that I am in favour of any person being allowed to practise dentistry, or any other profession, who has not the necessary qualifications, but I am anxious that want of money will not debar a person from getting permission to sit for an examination, if he has the necessary qualifications to do so.
I am afraid that, if the Board is allowed to decide what form such examinations are to take, the poor man's son will be shut out and cannot enter the profession of dentistry. All my life I have been in favour of competitive examinations for all positions, and I admit that persons should not be allowed to practise in any profession if they have not the necessary qualifications. I know, however, and it can be proved beyond doubt, that there are several men practising dentistry in Dublin who never spent a day in college but who are as capable of doing their work as men who did. For that reason I hope that when steps are being taken in connection with these examinations insuperable barriers will not be put up against persons with the necessary qualifications, and that it will be made possible for them to sit for such examinations and succeed in passing them. In one of the Schedules I notice that it is provided that chemists shall be entitled to extract teeth under this Bill, if it becomes law. I do not know that the ordinary chemist would have more qualifications than a dental mechanic. The dental mechanic has served an apprenticeship and may have as much qualifications to extract teeth as a dentist. I am told and believe that the whole danger lies in the extraction of the teeth and not in the making or fitting of them. If that is so, why is it provided in the Bill that a chemist who does not pass the necessary examination is allowed to perform extractions?
CATHAOIRLEACH
He is allowed only, as I understand it, in urgent cases and where a registered dentist or a registered medical practitioner is not available at the moment. He has not an unlimited right. It is only in cases of urgency and in the absence of qualified men.
Urgency does not alter the fact that a person who has not the necessary qualifications to do the job may not do it successfully. These are the only objections I have to the Bill. I am in favour of having dentistry properly regularised and of steps being taken to prevent quacks from practising it, as they have been doing. I am speaking on behalf of the poor man's son, who may have all the necessary qualifications but is not financially in the position to attend a college and take out a degree. I want to see that he is not debarred in the future. 319 out of 320 who have not been to the colleges have been admitted to the register since 1921. That is an admission they are qualified to practise dentistry. Equally so in the future there may be men who have served as dental mechanics and who, through their industry, energy and brains have fitted themselves to advance a step further and become recognised dentists. No unnecessary barrier should be put in their way.
I think it is necessary there should be some regulation whereby the employment of dentists by a person who is not a dentist should be prevented. There have been instances of farming dentists, that is the employment of registered dentists in a sort of company. As regards Senator Farren's objection, that could be met by forbidding any person not a qualified dentist from administering an anæsthetic.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is provided for in Section 44. An unqualified person cannot apply either a local or general anæsthetic.
That is quite satisfactory.
I support the Bill in principle. Certain matters, I think, require some elucidation. The procedure with regard to establishing a register is somewhat baffling. Section 27 sets out the people who shall have the right to go on the register without examination, and Schedule 4 also sets out by name a number of people who shall go on the register without passing an examination. Schedule 3 purports to comprise a list, which I understand is claimed to be a list covering the whole of the State, of people who may go on the register only after passing an examination. I fail to see the necessity for this Third Schedule. A certain standard will be set up by the new Council, and an examination will have to be passed as prescribed by them before anybody can go on the register. The only genuine and necessary protection is that nobody shall be allowed to practise after a certain date who has not passed this examination, or has not by one or other of the methods prescribed got on the general register.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the object of Schedule 3 is plain, that there is a certain number of persons in practice who do not fulfil the necessary qualification, and some consideration apparently is extended to them, so that they should be qualified by passing a certain examination.
Some men have been exempted and some have been turned down. People have made applications to be placed on the Third Schedule, and they have been turned down without being given the opportunity of appearing before the people who turned them down. An application has been made in each case, certain information has to be supplied, and on the strength of that alone persons practising dentistry have been turned down, and their names have not been placed on the Third Schedule. For that reason they will not be allowed to sit for any of these examinations. Cases have been brought to my notice of people whose names are not allowed to go on the Third Schedule, and where one of the officials of the Committee responsible admitted that a mistake was made, and that these people should be on the register. My suggestion is that any person who makes an application to sit for an examination should have his name put on the Schedule, on the condition that he will not be recognised as a dentist until he passes whatever examination is set. Surely if he is, or claims to be, a practising dentist, he should be allowed to submit himself for an examination. If any names are being prepared for a Schedule the names of those claiming to sit for an examination should be allowed to go on. I know there will be some grotesque cases. I understand the Minister said he had an application from a hardware merchant to get on the panel, and a Deputy told me he had an application from a blacksmith who pulls teeth in his spare time. I suppose he pulled teeth with the same instruments that he pulled nails from the horses' shoes.
The people on whose behalf I speak would have to pass an examination before they became regular dentists. In a couple of instances people have been placed in the Third instead of the Fourth Schedule. One of them has been referred to by Senator Brady, that is the case of a man 42 years of age who has been practising for 25 years. He should by right go on the Fourth Schedule. I suggest that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, because under that procedure the House would not have to be discussing in Committee the merits or demerits of aspiring dentists. I do not think it would be desirable in the interests of the profession or the public that such a discussion should take place in Committee of the whole House. A long discussion took place in the other House regarding the rights of doctors in the future to practising dentistry, and I find that the Minister was heavily defeated in this matter, and that the doctors in addition to being doctors now also claim to be practising dentists. I am not in favour of that. I do not imagine that a doctor would go to another doctor to have his teeth attended to. He would generally go to a dentist. If that is the case I do not think he should be allowed, except to the extent of his duties as a doctor, to practise dentistry. Old people in the country have generally two things they remember distinctly; one is the big wind, and the other is the day the doctor extracted a tooth, because of the terrible agony they suffered as a result. I think doctors should keep to their own profession, and although it may to a certain extent embrace dentistry, they should not be looked upon as practising dentists. That is a matter that perhaps this House would have something to say in regard to. At all events there will be a number of amendments necessary, particularly in regard to the Schedules, and I think that Senator Sir Edward Coey Biggar has some important questions to raise, and for that reason I think that when the Bill has passed its Second Reading it would be advisable to send it to a Select Committee of the House.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Might I say this in reference to the setting up of a Select Committee. I quite understand that you and the House might think it desirable to define the position and status of the various parties who would be entitled to go on these Schedules, and to lay down a principle, if you like, different from what is in the Bill, but I do not think any Select Committee, or other Committee of this House, could ever be called upon to examine into and investigate the merits of particular individuals claiming to go on the Third or Fourth Schedule. That will be left, I think, to the Council. There is, I understand, a case where the Government admit a mistake has been made. That could be easily corrected in Committee. As regards going into the merits of particular individuals— a blacksmith, a draper, or things of that kind—no Select Committee could possibly undertake that task.
But supposing the Minister, for instance, objects to putting somebody on the Third or Fourth Schedule? When you form the Schedule you must make it up of individuals, and somebody has to be responsible for it, and it is the Oireachtas that has made itself responsible.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Then you should have a provision that the Schedule should provide that any other person who may satisfy the Council that he is entitled shall be put on the Third Schedule. An amendment of that kind would avoid the unpleasant task of the Select Committee having to canvass the merits of individuals. I want to carry out your views. I think you will find that that would be a much better way to do it. If you can get the Committee to agree with you that anybody can apply at any time to this Council to be put on either the Third or the Fourth Schedule the Council could decide that.
I would prefer, of course, to have no discussion of individual cases at all, and for that reason I think the procedure is rather an unwise one. We are making ourselves responsible for these Schedules.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I am not quarrelling with your object. I am only suggesting how you might meet it better.
One of the Senator's objections is founded on a misapprehension, and that is this: A doctor is not allowed to hold himself out as a dentist, but he is allowed to do dental work, and that is very evident, because if he were removing the upper jaw for a malignant disease it would not do for him to be accused of a breach of the Dentists Act. He is not allowed to describe himself as a dentist, but evidently it is quite necessary in the course of doctoring that dental work should come in.
The Minister may clear up these little difficulties which have been stated by Senator O'Farrell regarding the Third and Fourth Schedules. I understand, and I say it with some deference, that perhaps the Committee in the other House dealing with this matter had not an ample opportunity of considering the names as they might have done, through no fault of their own, and if we could get an assurance from the Minister that when the Bill reaches the Committee Stage these names will be considered, both as regards the Third and Fourth Schedules, I think it would be very desirable, because it is common cause, I believe, that mistakes have occurred, and it would be very desirable to have these mistakes rectified in Committee. I am in complete agreement with the first point raised by Senator Farren. I would not like to think that he has a monopoly of the poor man's son. I think everybody in this House would be very glad to be satisfied, before the Bill becomes law, that if a man is qualified by experience, whether as a mechanic or otherwise, to be placed on the Register, he should be placed on it. There is an analogy that can be drawn from my own profession, of which I need not remind you, sir. It is a well known fact, a fact of which the solicitors' profession is very proud, that some of the ablest and most experienced solicitors in the profession have entered it, not through the channel of rigorous competitive examination, involving an intimate knowledge of Latin, Greek, and so on, but from the fact that they enjoyed or availed of an intimate experience of the solicitor's business for seven years, I think. You have much more experience of it, but my recollection is that if a solicitor's clerk can prove that he managed his master's business bona fide for a period of seven years he can become a member of the profession by passing an examination in law, the same examination as the ordinary apprentice has to pass, and he is dispensed by the Council of the Law Society from the preliminary examination in what are known as the Arts— Latin, Greek, etc.
I completely agree with Senator Farren that a man should not be prevented from becoming a dentist through the mere fact that he is not able to pay the fees which may hereafter be fixed by the Board. But if he is able to satisfy a competent authority, which in this case will be the Board set up under the Bill, that he has the necessary experience, that he has performed the duties of a mechanical dentist, or whatever it is called, for his master, that man should not be debarred from ultimately becoming a registered dentist merely because he happens to be a poor man.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps I should mention to the Minister that the only two substantial points that have been raised as to the merits of this Bill are, first of all, the suggestion made by Senator Farren that insufficient provision is made for opportunities to be given to humble students, qualified as practising mechanical dentists, to be put upon this register. The second point was one raised by Senator O'Farrell as to whether there should not be practically an automatic prima facie right to every person practising as a dentist to apply to be put on the Third Schedule, and that the Third Schedule should not be automatically closed up by putting into it a certain number of specified names; that there should be an opportunity afforded hereafter to any person who wished to claim of having his application entertained.
My suggestion is that the Third Schedule should be made unlimited inasmuch as no person whose name is entered there can claim to be a dentist until he passes the prescribed examination. It may be found afterwards that people perfectly entitled to go on have been left out through not applying or through an error. They should either be eliminated altogether if they do not wish to come on for examination, or they should be entitled to apply to sit for the examination.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Of course the Minister will obviously see that these are more or less Committee points, but at the same time I think it is desirable that they should be raised now, because he may be able to relieve the minds of Senators about them.
I would like first of all to apologise for my absence for the last half-hour. I was engaged with business in the other House which I could not hand over to anybody else. With regard to the two Schedules, I did hear Senator Brady remark that his doubts would be dissipated if there was an assurance that this House, through a Committee appointed by itself, could again have these details considered. Of course there could be no objection to that. It is not for me to suggest it, but it would hardly seem to me to be a thing that this House should simply accept what has been passed by a Committee of the other House without making some investigations itself. I had intended suggesting, in case the House did not care to set up a committee, that I would have convenient to the House the files relating to all the cases that were before the other Committee, so that if Senators thought that a name or names had been left out that should not have been left out, they could investigate, and then an appeal could be made to set up a Special Committee of this House. I think it would not be at all right for these names to be openly discussed in the House, and if this matter is to be done at all it should be done in private. So far from having any objection, I would welcome the suggestion that, as soon as you investigate the files relating to individuals who applied and who are not on the Schedule, if you found that there were some difficulties, they could come forward before the Committee. I would only make this suggestion, that it should be done prior to the Committee Stage here, which would save us the necessity for recommitting the Bill on the Report Stage. That would only mean that a fairly long interval should be left between this and the Committee Stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The alternative suggested by Senator O'Farrell was that, instead of allowing the Bill to go to a Committee of the whole House, it should now be referred to a Select Committee.
That, of course, will be for the House to decide. Senator O'Farrell's other suggestion, that the Third Schedule should be left unlimited and that anybody who has applied, or who may hereafter care to apply, should be allowed to make his way to the Board and should be at the mercy of the Board as to what they should give him in the way of an examination, would not, I think, get us much further. I cannot forecast what the Dental Board is likely to do with these people, but if I might take a line from what has happened on the other side, I think that they would penalise people already on the Third Schedule, because when the 1921 Act was going through the English House of Commons, it was agreed that if there were certain people who had been for seven years engaged in the practice of dentistry—not dental mechanics—and that these people had prove that fact, and had proven two or three other matters of that character, they were entitled to go on the register without further delay. Then a second group of people who could prove that they had been engaged for a certain number of years prior to the passing of the Act as dental mechanics were put on the Schedule, and subjected to an examination, now an examination of a very trivial type. I heard recently that one man failed at it, but my information previous to that was that nobody had failed that examination. The examination was trivial but served a purpose. It served the purpose of making those people who were experienced by practice get down to the foundation of their studies and make themselves expert in that. They were all able to do it.
If this House presents the Dental Board with this proposition suggested by Senator O'Farrell, that hereafter anybody who has served long enough as a dental mechanic should go on the register, the Board will have to give those people an examination, and those will be put on an equality with the cases of those tried out by the Dáil Committee. I suggest that the examination of the Dental Board would be a fairly stiff one. They will be going to see that the profession will not be overcrowded by the admission of people who have not taken up the study of the subject in a sound way, and I think that they would penalise the people who are now on the Schedule and who have been passed as almost ready for acceptance if they pass an examination hereafter. I also think that there is a further difficulty. If Senators will read through the file of letters dealing with the present applicants they will find that there is amongst them a gentleman who described himself as an ordinary hardware merchant who had occasionally pulled teeth for the local doctor, and he wrote casually: "I think I ought to go on the register." One is obviously not going to take that man seriously. He could not be put on the Schedule; he should not even be allowed to come up before the Board, otherwise all the hardware merchants in the country could come forward and think that they could become qualified. I would decry any suggestion that the list should be extended indefinitely for the Third Schedule and that people should be allowed to come forward when they liked. If there is a suspicion that certain people have not got notice about this register in time and have delayed their applications, then let there be a suggestion as to advertising, setting out at what date applications will have to be received, give everybody who has practised dentistry a chance to apply, and have this matter determined. But it should be determined now when this Bill is going through, and the profession should then be closed, except keeping open the avenue of examination, plus practice.
CATHAOIRLEACH
As I understand your suggestion, you think the wisest course for the House to adopt would be, first of all, to have the usual Committee Stage of the Bill and deal with any amendments of principle to the other clauses of the Bill, but that for the purpose of these sections we should then appoint a Select Committee, and after advertising, let them go into fresh applications and see how far they will extend or modify them?
Exactly. I think the House could deal in the ordinary Committee way with the principles of the Bill and the big details, but when it comes to the schedules, discussion on individual cases as to whether people have or have not a right to go on, that could go to a Select Committee of the House, which may find that advertisements should be issued to bring publicly to the notice of aspirants to the profession that this register is being closed, and that if applications are not in by a certain time they will not be considered. That raises the question as to whether this House could vote money for that purpose. There could be a report back to the Dáil and that could be settled. I would suggest that the House should deal in the ordinary way with the Bill, leaving out clauses that have reference to the Schedules and referring Section 28 and the two schedules which depend on it to a Select Committee, which can bring in whatever report it likes, and a list of names. With reference to Senator Farren's point about poor men's sons qualifying by experience, that strikes at the root of the establishment of this profession in the way proposed by the Bill. If it is thought that a man should have the right to go on simply by becoming a mechanic, getting a certain amount of skill through experience, and working his way on to the register, a very drastic amendment of the Bill would be required. That had better be argued in Committee. I am not saying anything for or against it at the moment.
I think that for the future any hope a dental mechanic would have of becoming a registered dentist would be gone if the Bill passes in this way.
That is what is meant.
I say that is unfair. I say it is penalising the poor man's son; that no matter what his qualifications might be, an avenue by which he might become a dentist is being closed from the date of the passing of this Bill. Some provision should be made so that for the examination it would not be necessary for such a man to study Latin, Greek or things that have nothing to do with the profession of dentistry. While I think there should be an examination, I only want men of ability and with qualifications necessary to do the work to get on, but they should not be debarred on the money question.
It would mean that dental mechanics should not get on except by the process of examination. There is a way for that just as there is a way for solicitors' clerks becoming solicitors, or chemists becoming doctors eventually. The Dental Board will have to take cognisance of the capacity of the people who are good students, good at their work, and there is every reason to believe that the Board will act fairly towards such people. But what is blocked in this Bill is the 1921 situation being extended into the future indefinitely. That is to say, that people would come before the Board, prove that they have six or seven years' practice and get in as a result of one examination, and that generally a trivial one. In the interests of the public I would urge that this is the proper attitude towards the dentists, that people should not be allowed to go in with six or seven years' practice with one single examination which, as I say, up to date has been of a trivial nature. That is one point to be argued out in Committee of the whole House, as to whether that is a proper attitude towards these people for the future or whether we should insist on the Board having some easier method of entry for people who would be described as approaching the profession through the avenue of dental mechanics. If the House decides to advertise and we get applications that might reasonably be put forward the problem then ceases to be a problem, because people will then face up to the fact that becoming dental mechanics without going through the Dental College they would have no hope of getting on, so that the problem is finished.
University students are debarred.
I heard some talk about universities and people having to study Greek and Latin. You have only to be in a university to know what an intimate knowledge of Greek and Latin means sometimes. I know of people who had to do a certain examination, and in three weeks they had to get a sufficient knowledge of Latin, and they got through.
Is it a matter for this Bill or for the Dental Board to provide protection for the dental profession from exploiters? At present there are companies who run dentists two days, say, at Athlone, and another day at Limerick, which will prevent the dental profession ever reaching maturity or experience, because positions, such as are offered for wandering dentists, usually by resident Jews, only last for a few months after the men are qualified. The dentist gets 50/- a week and there is a book-keeper put in by this dental company. That will almost defeat the object of the Bill, which is to have efficient dentists, because they will be constantly employing dentists who are just at the beginning of their professional life. I suppose it is a matter for the Dental Board to prevent that. It is obvious to everyone that it is an abuse, and particularly an abuse of the objects of the Bill.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is all elaborately guarded against in the Bill.
Section 45.
I do not think it could be covered without a voluntary declaration. There is nothing to prevent a company being foolish enough to run me as a doctor with others.
I think that is a Committee point.
I think so. It would be for the Board.
I should like to support the suggestion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It seems to me that there are a great many questions, besides the question who should go on the dental list, to be considered. That can be better done by a Select Committee, who would give it consideration that the House cannot give it. One of the reasons why I think the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is, as the Minister mentioned, the need for investigation of the list. That could be better done in Committee than in public. I think it would be much more preferable to have it done by such a Committee. In Section 44, there is a penalty mentioned and, as I read it, it amounts to £100 on anyone who extracts a tooth. Consider the case of an unfortunate peasant or fisherman in the wilds of Connemara or Kerry who has a violent toothache. It was the habit in the past to go to the local blacksmith to have a tooth pulled and he charged no fee. If that practice is proscribed in the future it will be a great hardship in isolated districts, where the people take the risk. Even if a man extracts his own tooth he may be liable to a fine of £100 under the Bill.
A penalty not exceeding £100.
CATHAOIRLEACH
None of these points touches the principle of the Bill at all. They can be very much elaborated in Committee. The real question of importance is the suggestion of the Minister. I am not at all certain that under our Standing Orders we have any power, once the Bill is being considered by the general Committee, to refer it to a Select Committee. The Standing Order says "Bills not considered by the Seanad sitting in Committee may be referred to Select Committees." We may do it in this way. I think if this Bill went in the ordinary way to the general Committee in the first instance we would have power to refer to a sub-committee a particular matter such as the Minister mentioned. It would not be a Select Committee in the strict sense.
Might I suggest, apart altogether from taking this Bill in Committee at the next meeting of the Seanad, that by special resolution a Special Committee could be set up to examine into the names on the Schedules. That should be apart altogether from the Committee on the Bill and the Report would be on the Table. The whole Bill would then come before the House in Committee and Senators would be satisfied that matters would be investigated.
Section 28 and the Schedules.
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the other way is better, because a general committee in discussion would be more likely to go into particular matters that they thought would be more appropriate for a special report. They would be more likely to do that than a special committee. If the principles of the Bill are threshed out in general Committee the House would then have before it the particular matters that they thought required special consideration. They could pick those out and appoint a special committee or a sub-committee to go into them. I think that would be the solution.
That is what I was going to suggest. It would really mean a special committee ad hoc to consider Section 28 and the Schedules.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that would be the wisest course. Do you move your motion, Senator O'Farrell?
No.
Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.