The House may recollect that this Bill was considered in Committee until we came to the schedules. When we came to the schedules it was decided to refer them to a small Committee of the House, and now we have before us the report from that Committee.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1927—COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).
CATHAOIRLEACH
I move the adoption of the amendments agreed to by the Special Committee. They are as follows:—
1.—Third Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words: "Hill, Robin, 42 MacCurtain Street, Cork."
2.—Third Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words: "Keegan, Bernard, Danesfort, Killarney."
3.—Third Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words: "O'Leary, William J., 2 Chapel Hill, Cork."
4.—Third Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words: "Short, Roland, 59 Waterloo Road, Dublin."
5.—Third Schedule. To delete the words: "Plant, Desmond, 55 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin."
6.—Third Schedule. To delete the words: "Reid, John, 144 North Strand Road, Dublin."
7.—Fourth Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words: "Dillon, John Patrick, 85 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin."
8.—Fourth Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words:
"Hanrahan, Michael Francis, Francis Street, Kilrush."
9.—Fourth Schedule. To insert in the appropriate place the words:
"Reid, John, 144 North Strand Road, Dublin."
I might mention that the Committee met on five occasions. Some of the meetings of the Committee lasted from two to three hours.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Have you any reason to believe, Senator, that there is any objection on the part of the Government to the acceptance of these amendments?
I have heard they may object to some of the amendments. At the second meeting of the Committee we had the advantage of the presence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister made suggestions to the Committee which were carefully considered. We would be glad to have had the Minister at all our meetings. He got notice of all of them, but only attended one meeting. When the Minister attended, he mentioned that he had had the assistance of Dr. Kelly when he was going through the applications. We invited Dr. Kelly to assist us, as he was familiar with the particulars of many of the cases. Every application that came before the Committee was carefully considered. If there was any doubt about a case, it was referred back for further information. I think I am right in stating that no change was made except some additional information was given to the Committee, information which was not before the Dáil Committee. No action was taken at which Dr. Kelly expressed a strong opinion. I mention these points to show that the Committee was most anxious to have all the facts, and to go into them fully and impartially. As far as I know, none of the applicants was known to any members of the Committee, certainly not to me. I think the Committee dealt very fully and fairly with every case that came before it. These amendments represent the findings of the Committee, and I move their adoption.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has asked me to say that as regards these amendments he is prepared to accept 6, 7, 8 and 9 but that he would oppose the acceptance of amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The principle upon which the Minister undertook to make additions to the Schedule was on the principle enshrined in the 1921 Act, in cases where it was felt that through negligence or political reasons of one kind or another persons who were entitled to be registered under the 1921 Act did not take advantage of these particular facilities. The Minister points out that as regards the first five cases the men referred to would not be entitled to be admitted. With regard to amendment No. 5, where it is proposed to delete a particular name from the Schedule, the Minister is of opinion that that person has a greater right to be on the Schedule than the persons recommended in the first four amendments for insertion.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would be more convenient if we were to take first the cases of the persons dealt with in amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4. These persons are recommended by the Committee for insertion in the Schedule. I understand now that the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks that they ought not to be inserted, and that he is also of opinion that the person whose name it is proposed to delete under amendment No. 5 should be left on. This, I am afraid, will provide an inconvenient procedure, for under it the House will have to canvass the merits of the four individuals referred to. It is to be regretted that the Minister had not an opportunity of raising his objections before the Special Committee. I would like to know if any objection was raised before the Committee in regard to the inclusion of these four names.
No. I have not the files before me at the moment. We went into the merits of each case that was put before us. I would deprecate very much anything in the nature of a discussion here as to the merits of the applicants concerned.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is my opinion too, and therefore I think that we should ask the small Committee to meet again and deal with these applications. I think a more appropriate and convenient course to follow now would be to refer this Schedule back to the Special Committee and let the Minister go before it and state his objections. There is just a point that occurs to me, and perhaps Senator Sir Edward Bigger would be able to give me some information on it. It is a matter that I think it my duty to mention. The matter is this: that I have been interviewed by a Dublin citizen, apparently a man of great respectability, who made a strong complaint to me in reference to his son. As to the merits of the case I know nothing. The man seemed to be labouring under a sense of very great injustice. He seemed to think his son was being made a victim by the operations of this Bill—that his means of livelihood was going to be taken from him. It was the case of a man named Forester. I do not know whether it came before the Special Committee or not. I do not want to raise it now, and the only suggestion I would make is that the applicant's father might be able to send the name forward to the Committee. The Committee then can dispose of the case in any way that commends itself to their justice.
That would leave it open for other people to send in names.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is there any objection?
I think it would be rather dangerous and invidious if we were to mention any name that must be re-heard before the Special Committee. I am afraid, sir, that there are several in the same category as this one you mention.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What I had in mind was that as we are going to send this report back to the Special Committee that an opportunity might be given for the Committee to consider this case.
We had applications from a large number of other people.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not press the matter at all.
I think if you are going to re-open this matter in one case it will have to be done in all cases.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have no interest in the matter, but as the case I mentioned was brought to my notice I thought I would ask the Committee had they dealt with it. We had better, perhaps, leave it as it is.
If this is to go back to the Committee, and if there is still a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Committee, we should have a report as to the principle involved. I think that is the opinion of many members of the House, and they would like to have their own opinion on the principle involved, as to whether a certain set of persons should be on the list or not. They would prefer to leave the matter to the Committee rather than discuss it here. If there is still a difference of opinion I think it would be most unfortunate to have a discussion as to the relative merits of individuals.
I strongly support that suggestion. If these names are to go back to the Committee I think there should be some expression of opinion from the House as to the attitude which the Committee should adopt towards these additions to the Schedule. Speaking for myself, I think that if there is an assurance that these applicants should be admitted to examination it will ensure a proper standard of qualification. As long as that barrier exists, and that they must pass it before getting to the Register, then the Committee should be liberal in their attitude towards the applicants. It appears to me they have been very rigid in regard to some cases, and when, as has been said, it is a question of a man's livelihood, and where the qualification can be insisted upon, I think we should deal with the cases in a liberal spirit.
As has been pointed out, Senators and Deputies have not the faintest conception as to what qualifications a man should have in order to be able to get on the Third Schedule. So long as those who are claiming to be practising dentistry cannot get on the Register without passing an examination the public are fully protected. This is to be a special examination, not involving any severe literary test, or anything of that kind, but it will be a test of efficiency. Provided a man must pass that examination in order to get on the Register I do not see why this should not be thrown open as widely as possible. It is a very serious proposition for a man who has a family dependent on him to be deprived of his livelihood by being prohibited from sitting for an examination, for that is what it amounts to. If he is a young man he can sit for a subsequent examination, but at that he will have to pass a test that may require obtaining a training in the College of Surgeons. Therefore, in effect, you are making a crime of something that was not a crime up to the passing of the Act. You are making new conditions in the case of a man who has been practising dentistry for years and depriving him of the opportunity of availing of this special examination by keeping him off the list. This matter has become a public nuisance. People are coming around canvassing at our houses. Each person who comes along states his case, and for all we know he may be as qualified as anybody else to go on the list. We have nothing to guide us, and the Minister has not stated the necessary qualifications. I do not know that the Minister has power to lay down qualifications. That is a matter for the Dental Council. I suggest that the Committee to be set up should be generous in their consideration of applications to go on the Third Schedule. Most of these men will be allowed to practise dentistry only for about six months, and if they do not pass they are no longer on the list. What greater protection could there be than that?
As a member of the Committee which dealt with this matter I hold rather strong views. On this Committee there were members of this House whose qualifications I need not go into. Our experience of men has been quite as extensive as that of any Minister. Having gone very carefully through the names of the applicants, and having previously had a consultation with the Minister, we should not run riot or be diverted from the attitude taken up. We adopted a rigid attitude—altogether too rigid—considering that men's livelihoods were at stake, and having regard to the Minister's views we made very few modifications or additions to the Schedule. There is an arrogant assumption of omniscience, having regard to the personnel of the Committee, by coming along and saying these men are not qualified. I think if this sort of thing is going on there is a great deal to be said for the attitude of some politicians who say that the Seanad had better be abolished.
Are these amendments the recommendations of the Committee?
CATHAOIRLEACH
When this Bill was passed through the Committee Stage I suggested, in regard to this Schedule, that the House as a whole was not a very convenient tribunal to discuss the private affairs of individuals who were applicants to be put on the Schedule, and that it could be better done by a few selected members, who would be asked to go into the cases and report to the House, the House not necessarily being bound to accept their recommendations. This comes before us now only as a recommendation of the Committee, who apparently went very carefully into all these applications. I may say, in reference to the particular case I mentioned, that I am now informed, and I have no doubt it is correct, that it was before the Committee on three occasions and investigated on each occasion and rejected. I have nothing more to say on the matter. On the question as to whether the House is prepared to adopt the Schedule as recommended by the Committee, we are met with regard to that by the statement that the Minister in charge of the Bill is opposed to the recommendations of the Committee, and he holds that as regards the first four names these should be deleted, and that the fifth name, which is deleted, should be restored. Of course, it is now a matter entirely for the House, but I do not see how the House will be in a position to judge as between the Committee and the Minister unless we go into the facts of each case. We then would be called upon to form an opinion as between the views of the Committee and those of the Minister. For that reason I suggest that we should refer the matter back to the Committee, and invite the Minister to attend and raise the cases there, so that when it comes back to us we would be able to deliberate on the action of the Committee.
I think that is the wisest course to adopt.
The Minister was invited to attend on each occasion on which the Committee sat.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We must make great allowance for Ministers. We know that they are embarrassed with overwork in many cases. I am quite sure the Minister meant no disrespect to the Committee, but I think the House should adopt that suggestion of referring the matter back.
I would like to mention the case of a friend of mine whose case has been heard, but who, I think, should have the opportunity of having it re-heard. It is the case of a Mr. MacCarthy, who comes from Dunmanway. He has a family to support. Undoubtedly this is a case to which every consideration should be given.
If an individual case is referred back I take it that others will also be afforded the same opportunity?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think that would be wise. If you refer one back you would be deluged with applications. If we have confidence in the Special Committee we must assume that they considered these cases to the best of their judgment, and it would require a strong case to induce the House to differ from them. We could not do that without an elaborate discussion on the merits, but we could refer back the particular five to which objection has been raised.
Would that preclude the Committee from considering other names?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Unless the House otherwise determines. If the House wished in sending back it could add that the time be extended for sending in applications.
I think, in view of the expressions here, the Committee would be a little more liberal in considering the cases of applicants.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Do not open the door for fresh applications, but let the Committee understand that they are at liberty if they wish to go back on particular cases.
In that case I think the whole report should be referred back.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it agreed that the report should be referred back to the Committee, with the request to the Minister that he will present his case with regard to any cases he objects to before that Committee?
Agreed.