The Minister for Industry and Commerce is unfortunately ill and will be unable to attend to-day. Therefore, I think we cannot make very much progress with the Bill. I should not like to take Deputy Ward's amendment without giving the Minister an opportunity of indicating his attitude towards it. He has, of course, roughly indicated it already, but he may have reconsidered his position. I propose, therefore, to ask the Committee to adjourn in a few minutes. There is, however, one matter I should like to place before the Committee. It was settled last week that we should not consider any fresh cases of individuals other than those then before us. Last week there were four such cases before us, and we decided that these would be the last we would consider. At that time, we were hoping to get the sections referred to us through Committee, so that the Bill might pass the House before Christmas. There is now no possibility of that, and it is a question for the Committee to consider whether or not they should extend the time for receiving applications.
DENTISTS BILL, 1927
You think there is no chance of the Dentists Bill getting through the House this session?
We cannot, I think, consider these sections further until the 15th February, when the Dáil resumes.
So long as this Committee is in being, I thing we should be open to receive and consider applications. There is no doubt that some people who might be able to establish claims to get on the register have not been aware of the existence of this Committee or of the procedure they should adopt. After all, we are examining these cases very carefully, and, so long as we continue to examine them carefully, I do not think that any injury will be done to anybody by allowing applications to continue to come before us. This is a different question from the question of advertising. If we were to advertise, we would be deluged with applications, but I think we should leave ourselves open to receive and consider applications which come into us from individuals.
I have a particular reason for putting this matter before the Committee. Since the Committee met last, I have received an application from a gentleman who appears to be in a position similar to a good many others. He quotes various names, but be does not produce any evidence beyond a signed statement. His practice was apparently interrupted by service in the British Army and later in the National Army.
The consequences would be very serious to anybody who might, through negligence, omit to take the necessary steps to have his name placed on the register.
I support Deputy Ward's suggestion that full opportunity should be given to anybody who thinks he has a legitimate claim to be placed on the register and who would like to have his case examined. There are many persons in the position of the gentleman referred to by the Chairman. This gentleman came to me and said that he had heard rumours that persons were being admitted to the register. I told him that we discussed the possibility at the Committee of having to canvass for applicants of his class. He said that he saw no advertisement published. I advised him to send in an application at once, and, when required, to furnish any supplementary evidence. I certainly think that applicants in this position should not be shut out from the privileges which the Bill affords. There are men in Dublin who know very little about what is happening beyond the fact that they see in the paper that the Dentists Bill is going through. It is only fair to these men that they should have a further opportunity. There are probably not a dozen of them, and they should not be victimised. The gentleman referred to by the Chairman has had 28 years' practice, but I never met him until yesterday. I may say that he is not very friendly to me politically, but, nevertheless, I think it is only fair, since he has been living by the practice of dentistry for the last 28 years, that he should get an opportunity of registering, particularly as others may be admitted who may not have an equal claim.
It appears to be the general opinion of the Committee that a slightly longer period should be given for applications to be received. If that is agreed, I think we should name a definite date after which applications will not be considered.
I cannot see what objection there is to getting the Minister for Finance to insert an advertisement in legal form in the Press stating that applications should be sent in. If that is not done, we will have applicants coming along when the Bill is going through the Seanad and endeavouring to have amendments made. That would cause a lot of trouble and inconvenience, whereas, if an advertisement were issued, it would facilitate the consideration of the Bill in the Seanad.
I am afraid I must rule that that is outside the scope of the Committee. It is open to any Deputy to urge on the Minister the advisability of advertising. He can do that as a Deputy but not as a member of this Committee. That matter is not included in our terms of reference. Do I take it that there is general agreement that a slightly longer period should be given to persons to make application?
I am in agreement with the suggestion that there should be a longer period, without the " slightly."
I am anxious that we should get the matter through quickly when the Dáil re-assembles, so that we may have a final decision. The long delay is not doing the profession any good. I would suggest as a date up to which we would receive applications, the 16th January. That would give a clear month for inquiry before the Committee re-assembles. We ought have the cases then in their final form, so that we could dispose of them quickly.
Why has the man to whom you, Mr. Chairman, referred not been on the Dental Register?
If I might interrupt, I think you should not go into the merits of this case until you decide the principle—until you decide whether the case should be considered or not.
It will be for him to explain when asked.
I think Deputy Ward is quite right. We shall have first to decide whether or not his application will be received.
Deputy DOYLE
Would not the 31st December leave a sufficiently long period in which applications could be made?
Christmas time would be a bad time for getting affidavits and letters from solicitors.
—Seeing that the adjournment is so much longer—provided it goes through and that we are unable to defeat the motion—than anybody anticipated, we should give as long a time as we possibly can for the receipt of applications. We have really come into being for the purpose of examining applications and seeing whether the applicants should be included in the second or third schedule. Why we should cease to examine applications a month before this Bill comes before the House I cannot understand. I think we should leave ourselves open to receive and examine applications for a longer period. It might not take us ten minutes to dispose of any case. If we were to leave one man off the register and thus deprive him of his livelihood for all time it would be a serious injustice—an injustice which we should not inflict on anybody.
What date would Deputy Ward suggest?
I would be prepared to accept the 15th January as against the 31st December, as suggested by Deputy Doyle.
I think a month should afford reasonable time for securing that a case be fully made up. Of course this date will be for originating applications. The first applications must be received by the 16th January.
A number of applications might have to be referred back for further evidence.
Deputy DOYLE
I do not propose to stand absolutely by the 31st December. I merely suggested that date as suitable, but I would like to give a fair chance to every applicant, without enlarging the period unreasonably.
Have you any idea, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not the Minister is referring these new cases to the Departmental Committee.
He referred four last week. I will give the letter from this gentleman to the Clerk of the Committee and ask him to forward it to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with a view to having it placed before the Departmental Committee.
These new applicants will have to appear before the Departmental Committee?
Yes.
I beg to move that we extend the time for receiving applications up to the 16th January.
I support that.
I think the best way of carrying that resolution into effect is to have applications received by Deputies sent on to the Clerk of this Committee. The Clerk will forward them to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for investigation by Dr. O'Kelly's Committee.
Deputy BRADY
Would it not be well to insist that anybody sending in an application should send in all the forms required?
I think Dr. O'Kelly's Committee will ask for all the necessary facts. If an applicant consults a Deputy, he would do well to advise him to submit corroborative evidence.
Deputy DOYLE
Do you not think that all applications coming in should go before Dr. O'Kelly's Committee?
They should go first to the Clerk of this Committee, who will place on record the fact that they have been received, and then send them on for investigation by Dr. O'Kelly's Committee. That, I think, is the most helpful course. If individual members of this Committee were to investigate cases, we should probably fail to arrive at a uniform standard. Dr. O'Kelly's Committee deals with all cases on a uniform standard.
You think it is better we should not deal with the list to-day.
The difficulty is that we have no report from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister, no doubt, expected to be here. We have nothing more to go upon.
I do not think we we could proceed with advantage.
I am afraid the only course for us is to adjourn.
Shall we meet again on the 16th January?
I do not think we need meet until the Dáil reassembles. If the Committee authorises me, I will consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce before the reassembly of the Dáil and fix a date for next meeting of the Committee.
Agreed.
At a previous meeting of the Committee I mentioned that if a man had been a member of the Incorporated Dental Society and paid £2 2s. 0d. to the local secretary he would be admitted to the register. I have been informed since I made that statement that I should have qualified it by saying that such an applicant should have been eligible two years before the Bill was initiated in the British Parliament. An impression got abroad from my statement that a man had only to proceed to the proper official the night before and pay his £2 2s. 0d. in order to obtain this privilege. That was not the impression which I desired to convey. It was necessary that the applicant should have been in practice for the necessary stipulated five years and for two years previously.
Your point is that, in the case of the British Bill, this provision applied only to persons registered two years before the passing of the measure.
To persons who were members of the I. D. Society two years before the passing of the measure.
Deputy Keogh merely wishes to correct the statement he made on the last occasion, which he did not sufficiently amplify.
The Committee adjourned at 11.20 a.m.