With regard to the Committee Stage, I was going to make a suggestion, if it met with the approval of the House, that we should take all the details of the Bill in Committee of the whole House, but should refer the schedule to a Special Committee, and, of course, anything consequential on it would be referred to the same Committee. If that schedule is going to be discussed openly in the House, we are going to have 25 to 40 individual cases discussed.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Does the Minister mean the second schedule?
The second schedule only. The first schedule is not controversial. I would move, in accordance with Standing Order 84, that we refer the second schedule to a Special Committee and discuss the rest of the Bill in the House.
The proposal is to take the Bill up to the second schedule in Committee of the whole Dáil, and to refer the second schedule to a Special Committee.
Would that include amendments like No. 27?
Any amendment to the second schedule.
We can discuss amendment 27 here, because that is an enlargement of the new admissions by way of an enlargement of the terms of the Bill, but not by way of simply recognising individual cases and adding special names.
I quite agree. I was only asking for information.
What about the constitution of the Committee—will the Minister not include that in his resolution?
It should be included in the resolution.
I would take it in the ordinary way—the Committee to be appointed by the Committee of Selection.
How many Deputies are there to be on the Committee, and so on?
We had previously named eleven.
Will the Bill be open to amendment?
The amendments are before the House. I am merely suggesting that we go through all the Bill except the second schedule, and that that should be referred to a Special Committee of the House, consisting of eleven Deputies to be appointed by the Committee of Selection.
Am I right in saying that the Minister previously referred this schedule to a Committee that he formed himself, that they had been dealing with it up to a certain stage, and that the cases have actually been considered by that Committee? I do not know what the constitution of that Committee was, and that is why I am asking as to the constitution of the committee that is now going to deal with it.
It is quite clear that what the Minister is now proposing is not any investigation on his own behalf or by his Department, but a reference of the second schedule, dealing with certain persons' names, to a Special Committee composed of Deputies operating in the ordinary way and reporting to the Dáil.
That is the same as the Committee appointed before which did not do any work?
Exactly.
If the Minister is not ready now with the complete motion dealing with the number of Deputies on this Committee, we can take the Bill in Committee of the whole Dáil, and discuss the schedule, report the Bill, and refer the second schedule to a Special Committee.
It was my intention before we came to the schedule to have a motion listed in my name referring the second schedule to a committee.
With regard to amendment 1, which is an amendment to the definition section, lines 17 and 18, it makes a particular change in the Bill, and I would prefer to see it discussed on the operative section—Section 3—which sets up the Board. The operative section of the Bill setting up the Board is Section 3, and the change that Deputy Ryan seeks to achieve is to have a Council instead of a Board. If that change were effected in the definition section, it would, of course, involve consequential amendments all through the Bill, because "Board" is referred to constantly in the Bill and would have to become "Council." The same thing applies to Section 3. I think the point will arise better on Section 3.
I should like to offer a protest to that suggestion. I am faced with an amendment to delete the definition of the word "Board," which is constantly used throughout this Bill, and instead of that to put in a definition of the word "Council," which nowhere occurs in the Bill. I am not asked, and there is no amendment, to substitute the word "Council" for "Board" right through the Bill. The amendment down is a foolish amendment—there is no meaning in it. It is defining a word which does not occur, and it is not moving to substitute that word for the word "Board" which is used.
I am not accepting the Minister's argument. It is really an amendment to set up a Council instead of a Board. Whatever that implies I do not know, as I have not heard any arguments at all upon the point, but it would occur most properly under Section 3. Whatever is decided on Section 3 will have to run through the whole Bill, if an appropriate amendment to Section 3 can be made.
There is none down.
There is none down, but the point would arise on Section 3.
The amendment is not being moved.
Amendment not moved.
SECTION 1.
In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;
the expression "the Board" means the Dental Board constituted by this Act;
the expression "the register" means the Register of Dentists for Saorstát Eireann to be established under this Act;
the expression "the General Council" means the General Council of Medical Education and Registration constituted under the Medical Acts; the expression "the General Dental Board" means the Dental Board in the United Kingdom as constituted under the Dentists Acts as modified by the Agreement set out in the First Schedule to this Act;
the expression "the General Dentists Register" means the Dentists Register maintained under the Dentists Acts;
the expression "the Medical Council" means the Medical Registration Council;
the expression "registered dentist" in relation to anything done or to be done or an event happening before the establishment of the register means a person registered in the General Dentists Register and in relation to anything done or to be done or an event happening after the establishment of the register means a person registered in the register;
the expression "qualifying examination" means an examination in dentistry or dental surgery held for the purpose of granting certificates of fitness to practise dentistry or dental surgery by any university or college in Saorstát Eireann for the time being having power to grant such certificates;
the expression "practice of dentistry or dental surgery" means the performance of any operation and the giving of any treatment, advice, opinion or attendance usually performed or given by a dental surgeon or dentist and includes the performance of any operation or the giving of any treatment, advice or attendance on or to any person preparatory to or for the purpose of or in connection with the fitting, insertion or fixing of artificial teeth;
the expression "self-governing dominion" means and includes the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and Newfoundland;
the expression "British possession" does not include Great Britain or Northern Ireland or the self-governing dominions.
I move amendment 2:—
In line 31 after the word "Council" to add the words "constituted under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1927 (No. 2 of 1927.)."
This is necessary in order to make clear and remove any ambiguity that there may be with regard to the definition of the word "Council." It is the registration Council constituted under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1927. The reason the term was not put in previously was that it was not clear whether this Bill would be passed before the Medical Practitioners Bill became law.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 3:—
To delete lines 32 to 37 and substitute the following—
"the expression ‘registered dentist' means—
(a) in relation to anything done or to be done or an event happening before the establishment of the register, a person who at the time when such thing is done or to be done or such event happens is either registered in the General Dentists Register or, having been so registered at any time after the 1st day of January, 1922, has ceased to be so registered otherwise than by reason of his death or his having been convicted of a felony, misdemeanour, crime, or offence or his having been found guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, and
(b) in relation to anything done or to be done or an event happening after the establishment of the register, a person who at the time when such thing is done or to be done or such event happens is registered in the register."
This was to meet a defect discovered in the terms of the Bill, as it at present stands. The expression that was in previously was "Registered Dentist," and that was defined "in relation to anything done or to be done, or an event happening before the establishment of the register means a person registered in the General Dentists Register, and in relation to anything done or to be done, or an event happening after the establishment of the register means a person registered in the register." Later on it was discovered that these were difficult words. It was not compulsory that dentists under the 1921 Act should register year by year, and that after the establishment of the Free State the British Dental Board took the point of view that they would not accept registration fees and subscriptions from dentists who were clearly Irish. If we stand by the expression there in certain other sections of the Bill, we are in this difficulty, that we admit to the register prior to the establishment of our own register those who were registered immediately before in the Dental Register in England. In other words, we are imposing upon people who never paid registration fees in England and from whom that fee has been refused when offered, the necessity of making a further offer to the British that they should accept that fee which they previously refused and so get on the General Dentists Register, and by reason of that come over here. One way of removing the difficulty is, simply to take out the word "immediately" where it comes in in the text of the Bill, but that would lead to another, that unless the word "immediately" were in, or some defining or limiting phrase, you might have a person who got on the Dentists Register in England and was put off for infamous or disgraceful conduct, and he might, under the terms of the Bill, if the word "immediately" were dropped, assert his right and come over here and practise as a dentist. In order to guard against that, we have to define it in this new way proposed. This meets the difficulty that occurs in the text of the Bill. We transfer the difficulty to the definition and meet it by an enlarged and new definition which does meet the point.
I take it in view of this new definition amendment 25 becomes unnecessary? Is that correct?
Yes, to my mind it is the same point.
It is to meet the point in Section 24 that we proposed amendment 25, and the reason it was necessary was this: The total number of dentists who should be registered is 618. In the Free State portion of the register for 1927 there are only 265 names. If the matter had been allowed to remain as originally in the Bill it would be necessary for 350 men to go back to the British Register and to be re-entered upon the register, and the Minister is now meeting that point by putting in a new definition of those people instead of meeting it by our point as raised in amendment 25. I am quite satisfied our amendment will not be necessary owing to the new definition.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) A Board to be styled the Dental Board (in this Act referred to as the Board) shall be established in accordance with this Act to fulfil the functions assigned to it by this Act.
(2) The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and may provide itself with a seal and may sue and be sued under its said style and name.
(3) The Board shall consist of nine members nominated or elected from time to time as follows, that is to say:—
(a) one shall be nominated by the Executive Council,
(b) three shall be nominated by the Medical Council,
(c) one, who in the case of the first election shall be a person resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the persons who are for the time being so resident and registered and in the case of every subsequent election shall be a person resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the register by virtue of a previous registration in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by persons so resident and registered, and
(d) four, who in the case of the first election shall be persons resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the General Dentists Register otherwise than under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the persons so resident and registered, and in the case of every subsequent election shall be persons resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the register otherwise than by virtue of a previous registration in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the persons so resident and registered.
(4) In this section the expression "the first election" means the election of elected members of the Board required by this Act to be held by the nominated members of the Board.
I move amendment 4. It is really consequential upon the last amendment. It is readjusting the method of appointment to meet the terms of the new expression "registered dentist."
In sub-section (3), to delete paragraphs (c) and (d) and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:—
"(c) one, who in the case of the first election shall be a registered dentist resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered or formerly registered (as the case may be) in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and so registered or formerly registered (as the case may be) and in the case of every subsequent election shall be a registered dentist resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the register by virtue of a previous registration in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and registered, and
(d) four, who in the case of the first election shall be registered dentists resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered or formerly registered (as the case may be) in the General Dentists Register otherwise than under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and so registered or formerly registered (as the case may be) and in the case of every subsequent election shall be registered dentists resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the register otherwise than by virtue of a previous registration in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, and shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and registered."
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments stood on the paper in the names of Dr. Ryan, Professor Thrift, and Dr. Thos. Hennessy:—
5. In sub-section (3) (c), line 38, after the word "election" to insert the words, "before the 1st day of January, 1945," and in paragraph (d), line 49, after the word "election" to insert the words "before the 1st day of January, 1945."— Séamus O Riain.
6. To add at the end of sub-section (3) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(e) after the first day of January, 1945, in the case of every subsequent election persons resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered in the register shall elect five of their number in lieu of those previously elected under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section."—Séamus O Riain.
7. To add at the end of sub-section (3) the following proviso:—
"Provided that after fifteen years the representation secured under paragraph (c) of this sub-section shall cease and that the four members of the Council elected under paragraph (d) of this sub-section shall be elected by persons then resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered on the register."—William Thrift, James Craig.
8. To insert before sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) After twenty years the members of the Board elected under paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) shall be elected by persons resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered on the register."—Thomas Hennessy.
The questions involved in amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 are difficult, because the amendments aim, to a certain extent, at the same thing, but give different dates. The suggestion I have to make is that we should take amendment No. 5, and discuss 6, 7 and 8 on number 5. We could then put No. 5, and on the fate of No. 5 see on the next stage what amendment Deputies would like to have inserted. That may not be completely satisfactory.
Except there are two points in these four amendments: the disappearance of the members of the Council to be elected by the 1921 men. There is a difference of opinion as to when that representation should cease. In addition, there is a further difference of opinion as to what is going to happen to the Council after they cease. Do they simply cease and the Council then become a Council of eight instead of nine, or is the representation now given to the 1921 men to pass to some other body? These are the two points to be discussed.
I agree with the Minister and, as regards the first point, the number of years that should be given to these men, who are a vanishing quantity, eventually it will lead to one man representing himself in the later stages of the Act. So far as that is concerned, I do not feel strongly in the matter, and I am quite prepared to accept twenty, twenty-five, or thirty years. I think, in our amendment, it is fifteen years, but I am not absolutely bound to that.
So far as we are concerned we will accept either fifteen, eighteen or twenty years.
I am ready to fall in with the suggestion of Deputy Craig, but I have a bigger expectation of the life of dentists than he apparently has.
I do not think that any of us are tied to the period of fifteen years, but I think that it is in this connection that the point raised by Deputy J. J. Byrne arises. There are really three points. The first is whether it is a satisfactory representation. It is quite possible that the best solution might arise from having a diminishing representation, step by step with the years.
While there may be a new point as to what is to be the number of representatives under paragraph (c), it seems to me that we get rid of one point, namely, that there seems to be no difference of opinion as to whether the period is to be fifteen, eighteen, or twenty years. I suggest that we argue on a basis of fifteen years and get an official amendment later on clarifying that.
Then we could take the period of fifteen years as agreed and an amendment to that effect would be introduced later.
There is another amendment down increasing the number. Therefore, if a change is to be made in that direction it could be done on Report Stage. I do not think that we could deal with the matter at present.
That is another question on the amendment.
The difficulty we are in is that we have over 50 per cent. of these men receiving, as the Bill is now framed, only one representative. We feel that if amendment No. 6 were passed it might happen, in the event of a particular individual unfortunately expiring in the meantime, there would be no representation.
In the event of a casual vacancy that will be filled.
As regards the number of representatives to be given to men without diplomas, is the Minister prepared to give them two representatives instead of one?
For what reason?
The reason given is that these men number 312, and the rest number 308. In view of the fact that you thought fit to let these men in and recognise them as registered dentists, we suggest that one representative is inadequate for a body numbering 312. If we get an extra representative we would be satisfied.
On behalf of the Incorporated Dental Society, I would like to say that to give them only one representative is not treating them fairly. They constitute a majority of the registered dentists at present, and when their position was legalised, as it were, by putting them on the register at all, I think they should have two representatives. In country districts in particular, these men have been responsible for doing practically all the dentistry. In some districts in the south and west, up to two or three years ago, there was not a diploma dentist. In Roscommon at present there are only two, whereas there are at least ten belonging to the Incorporated Dental Society. As they constitute a majority, I think they are entitled to two representatives.
Are we not getting into two different points?
Yes. I suggest that Deputy Hennessy's amendment be accepted, so that the period will be fifteen years. The 1921 men will then be transferred to the other class, namely, the registered dentists, as we are assuming that in fifteen years the 1921 men will have disappeared. That is not a hardship, and it is right that we should continue the representation of five of the general body of dentists who will then be purely diploma dentists and no longer a mixed class.
That is a little different to what Deputy Thrift and I have to propose in amendment 7. We propose that after 15 years representation under paragraph (c) of the sub-section shall cease and that four members of the Council elected under paragraph (d) shall be elected by persons then resident in the Saorstát and registered on the register. That is to say, one will disappear and be replaced by four. That was what was in our minds. The Minister is now suggesting five.
Yes.
Is the proposal with regard to the number of members of the Council accepted?
I am not prepared to press for four as against five. In fact, I would prefer five to four.
Does the amendment require drafting for another stage?
It does. We are accepting 15 years. Paragraph (c) representation ceases. Thereafter five people are to be elected by these mentioned in (d). As I am amalgamating amendments 7 and 8, and putting in 15 years instead of 20 in amendment 8, the whole thing would require further drafting.
I will take amendment 5 as being moved by Deputy O'Dowd for Deputy Seamus Ryan, and the other amendments as not moved.
As moved and not accepted?
I am taking No. 5 as moved, and withdrawn, and the other amendments as not moved, on the understanding that they will come up again.
I put it to the Minister to consider a suggestion we have made before, that is, that he should have a diminishing scale for the two periods, and in order to meet the demand of the 50 per cent. for sufficient representation he should give them two.
That would meet, partially at least, Deputy J. J. Byrne's point. The matter cannot be brought to any conclusion at this stage. An amendment could be brought forward with regard to giving a representation of two. That could be discussed on the section. If Deputy Byrne will put down an amendment for the Report Stage, giving the 1921 men a representation of two to start with, that and Deputy Thrift's suggestion could be considered if the matter were held over for Report.
Amendment 5 is withdrawn, and amendments 6, 7 and 8 are not moved.
Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Sub-section (5). At every meeting of the Board the members of the Board present at such meeting shall elect one of their number to be the chairman of such meeting.
I move:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) It shall be the duty of the Board to elect from time to time as occasion requires one of its members to be the President of the Board.
(2) Every President of the Board shall hold office as such President from the date of his election to that office until the happenings of whichever of the following events first happens, that is to say:—
(a) the expiration of his term of office as a member of the Board,
(b) his ceasing to be a member of the Board otherwise than by the expiration of his term of office,
(c) his resigning the office of President of the Board."
This amendment is brought forward at the request of the Irish Dental Association. They have some idea that there is more dignity in the title of president than chairman. They also desire that the office of president, or even chairman, should be permanent. The reasons for that are obvious. It would be very difficult to transact any business if the chairman or president were not permanent, and if they were allowed only to elect a chairman at each meeting it would involve serious inconvenience, because the registrar will continually want to be in conference or communication with the permanent president.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
To delete sub-section (5) and substitute therefor the following sub-section:—
"(5) The President of the Board shall act as Chairman of every meeting thereof at which he is present, and in the absence of the President from any such meeting the members of the Board present at such meeting shall elect one of their number to be the Chairman of such meeting."
This is consequential on the previous amendment.
And is I think the only consequential amendment required.
Amendment put and agreed to.
"Question—"That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Sub-section (1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall send to every authority and body (other than the Executive Council) entitled under this Act to nominate a member of the Board a notice in writing requesting such body or authority to nominate a member of the Board.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, line 54, to delete the words "a member" and substitute the words "three members."
This is to rectify a drafting error in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move:—
To delete sub-section (2).
This sub-section was inserted in error.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Wednesday, November 9th.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.55 p.m., until 3 o'clock on Tuesday, November 8th.