Vol. 22 No. 2
I move:—
In page 3, section 1 line 44, after the word "respect" to insert the words "or his registration having been procured by fraud or made by mistake."
This is to meet the point that was raised by Deputy Thrift on the Committee Stage, that a man might have had his name on the Register by mistake or through fraud.
Amendment 2 has, of course, to be taken with the Schedule which is concerned with the last amendment, and I think in conflict with that amendment are amendments 3,4,5,6,7 and 8. I do not know in what order it is proposed to take them.
Shall we discuss the number and constitution of the Council under amendment No. 2? If No. 2 is carried, clearly amendments 3 to 8 fall.
If No. 2 is carried do not all the rest fall?
Could we really discuss amendment 2 without discussing the Second Schedule?
Not at all; the Schedule is bound up with it.
I merely want agreement as to which we should take.
I would like to make a point about this, because it seems to me that there are two principles involved in these amendments. If we pass amendment 2 we fix the membership of the Council at nine, and therefore virtually carry the adoption of the Minister's Schedule. That would make it impossible to make the change, such as was sought to be made in Committee, of giving more representation to the dentists who were registered under what we call the 1921 Act principles. It seems to me that there is at least this distinct difference: that is the question as to whether the number shall be fixed definitely at nine from now for the future, or whether it should be fixed at ten for a number of years, and subsequently at nine. I would like to have a decision taken on that point if possible. That alternative would give some measure of agreement amongst those Deputies who have put forward amendments in various forms. That seems to be where the real difference of opinion comes in, that a number of Deputies think there should be certain flexibility in the matter, that for a time the Council should consist of a larger number than nine, and that after that time it should consist of nine.
Might I say, in answer to Deputy Thrift, that it is not necessary to increase the number of the Council in order to give increased representation to the class known as the 1921 men. If I take my own Schedule, as the Bill stands at the moment, the four bodies to be represented are the Executive Council, the Medical Council, the 1921 men, and the other dentists.
Are we not really going into the merits of the amendment now?
I am afraid we are.
I suggest not. The Minister did not exactly get the point I was trying to make. If you carry nine I say that those who wish for greater representation for the registered dentists under the 1921 Act are faced with this dilemma, that they must accept a smaller representation, either for the members of the General Medical Council or for the properly registered dentists, and that I think a number of them would rather not have, even with having succeeded in getting two for the registered dentists under the 1921 Act, and, therefore, would be cut out from making a suggestion they wish to make about these dentists. It is not debating the rights or wrongs of the thing at all; it is debating the effect of binding us down to a considered amendment of that sort.
Is it not possible on amendment 2 to discuss all amendments down to 8?
That is my suggestion, that we take the numbers involved in all the amendments down to No. 8 on No. 2.
It must be remembered that we are on the Report Stage, and that a Deputy can make only one speech, unless you decide to recommit the Bill.
That is for the Dáil.
I think that the Minister has met the objections very fairly——
Could we decide to go into Committee on this?
We will take amendment 2, and discuss on it all the amendments down to No. 8.
On amendment 2, as the Bill stands at the moment, it is proposed that the Dental Council shall consist of nine members, and four sets of people are supposed to be represented on or nominated to that Council—the Executive Council, the Medical Council, the 1921 dentists, and those men who are called fully qualified dentists, in opposition to the 1921 class. As the Bill stands, the representation given to these four sections is: one to the Executive Council, three to the Medical Council, one to the 1921 men, and four to the qualified dentists. It was suggested on the Committee Stage that sufficient representation was not given to the 1921 men, and the very sound point was made that on the Board the single 1921 representative would not have an additional member to second a motion, or an amendment, or something he would bring before that Board. To meet that I propose to change the Council. I propose still to keep a body of nine, but I propose to vary the representation given to these four different bodies in successive periods of five years. The reason for that is that the 1921 dentists are a small class. They are a larger class here in relation to the qualified dentists than the same class would be in England, but they are a disappearing class. Their numbers cannot be added to, and after a five years' period there will be certainly a big diminution in their numbers. Consequently, in the Second Schedule I propose that for the first five years the Council should consist of nine, of which one would continue to be nominated by the Executive Council, and only two would be nominated by the Medical Council instead of three as proposed in the Bill, and that that member taken from the Medical Council should be added to the 1921 men. The representation would then run: a member nominated by the Executive Council, two by the Medical Council, two by the 1921 men, and four by the others. After the first period of five years has expired, the representation would be: one by the Executive Council; the Medical Council would recover its third representative as the 1921 men would lose the additional man given to them for the first period of five years, and four would still be nominated by other dentists. The representation then would be: one nominated by the Executive Council, three by the Medical Council, one by the 1921 men, and four by the others. After that period, the Council would still consist of nine people, but the nominations would be: one by the Executive Council, three by the Medical Council, and five by qualified dentists. I would suggest that as a proper equilibrium as between those conflicting dentists and the Medical Council. The Executive Council member remains constant throughout.
We are all agreed, I think, that the 1921 class, or the people engaged in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery, who have not been on the register but will get on it as a result of the present Bill, are numerically strong enough to be entitled to more than one representative on the Dental Board. The only point I think there is disagreement on is as to at whose expense the representation of the 1921 men is to be increased. The Minister's amendment proposes that the representation of the 1921 men on the Dental Board should be increased at the expense, for the first five years, of the Irish Medical Council. Other amendments suggest that it should be increased at the expense of the dentists holding degrees or diplomas. To me it seems highly objectionable to reduce the strength of the representation of the Irish Medical Council to a figure of two in a Dental Board consisting of nine members. It is very doubtful if, in the original constitution of the Dental Board, the Irish Medical Council was given sufficient representation. But in view of the importance of the position of the Irish Medical Council in relation to the Dental Board and the dental profession, I think that to give two representatives to the Irish Medical Council is nothing short of an absurdity. For the benefit of some Deputies who may not be conversant with the relationship of the Irish Medical Council to the Board, I would refer to some of the sections of this Bill. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32 are as follows:—
(2) If, as the result of an inquiry held under the foregoing sub-section or as the result of a report received by the Board from the General Dental Board of an inquiry held by such Board, the Board finds that the person in respect of whose conduct such inquiry was held was guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect the Board shall send to the Medical Council a report of the facts proved at such inquiry and of the finding of the Board.
(3) If the Medical Council, on consideration of a report sent to it under this section and after giving the person to whom such report relates and the university or college (if any) at whose instance the said inquiry was held a reasonable opportunity of being heard, is of opinion that the name of such person should be erased from the register, the Medical Council shall direct the Board to erase the name of such person from the register and the Board shall forthwith erase such name accordingly.
These two sub-sections very clearly indicate the responsibility of the Irish Medical Council towards the Dental Board, and I think they very clearly indicate the necessity for maintaining the representation of the Irish Medical Council on the Dental Board at at least a reasonable strength. On the other hand, I do not think it would be reasonable to increase the representation of the non-qualified, the 1921 men, at the expense of dentists holding a degree or diploma. The position of the 1921 men has now been legalised, but while we admit that they are entitled to more than one representative on a committee of nine, yet a proportion of two representatives of non-qualified men to three representatives of qualified men would not be a proper reflex of the status of the two classes of dental practitioners. I am sure the Minister is aware that the constitution of the Dental Board of Great Britain gives very strong representation to the British Medical Council. I do not for a moment suggest that everything done over there should be slavishly copied here, but they sometimes do things that are on proper lines, and the fact that they legislate in a manner that could with advantage be copied here is, I think, not sufficient reason for refusing to adopt similar methods here. I wish to oppose as strongly as I can the Minister's amendment to reduce the representation of the Irish Medical Council to two.
I am generally very easily pleased, and in this case I will be prepared to meet the Minister if he makes a very slight change. As far as the numbers are concerned of those who are qualified and those who are getting on under the 1921 Act actually, the number of unqualified people is greater than the others, and I should be satisfied if in the first part of the Schedule he gave the numbers as follows:—One member shall be nominated by the Executive Council; three members shall be nominated by the Medical Council; two members nominated by the 1921 men, and three by the registered men. That is all the change I suggest, and I make it for this reason: that for those five years there is no doubt the non-qualified men would exceed in numbers the qualified men—at least for a year or two— and to have a proportion of three to two would not be at all unfair. I would deplore a lessening of the number of the representatives nominated by the Medical Council, although Deputy Ward has perhaps fallen into an error by omitting to state that the Minister intends, if he is able to carry it, to remove the power of the Medical Council as far as the matters Deputy Ward has referred to are concerned. According to another amendment, the Minister is going to give complete power to the Board to remove the names of men. As the Bill stands, after passing through the Committee Stage, the Board, after trying cases, report these cases to the Medical Council, and the Medical Council will order the names to be removed. The Minister now proposes to take that power from the Medical Council, and he further suggests to take one member from the representation of the Medical Council for the first five years.
I would support the Minister if he met me in this way, namely, to have the first period as follows: 1, 3, 2, 3; after that 1, 3, 1, 4; and after that 1, 3, 5. That would allow three representatives from the medical profession all the time.
With one exception I would support the Minister's Schedule. That exception refers to the point made by Deputy Ward. I think it would be a mistake to reduce the representation of the Irish Medical Council to two, even for five years. The suggestion which I would make is a simple one. It is that the Minister should accept a council of ten for five years, and the numbers should be 1, 3, 2 and 4, giving the dentists registered in 1921 two out of ten for five years, and after that the total number should be nine. Taking the numbers as specified in the Minister's Schedule, that would give an increased representation to the 1921 people. It would not curtail the Irish Medical Council's representation, nor would it curtail or unduly depress the representation of those whom the Minister calls properly qualified dentists.
I wish to point out that the Minister originally agreed to give the 1921 or unqualified men a representation of two, and I am rather surprised to learn that that representation of two is to be reduced to one after five years. I fail to see on what ground that proposal could be justified. At present the unqualified men are in excess of qualified men. There should be some reasonable representation given to unqualified men. Is it suggested that after five years the unqualified men will disappear? I am sure that the Minister would not make a suggestion of that kind. There can be little disagreement so far as the representation of the other units is concerned. I suggest to the Minister that it is a great hardship to give with one hand and take away with the other. I ask him to substitute for the figure five the figure fifteen.
I am afraid that I will have to go over a larger field than I intended owing to Deputy Ward's reference to Section 32, which now remains as it was passed on the Committee Stage, but Deputy Ryan moved to wipe out that and prevent the Medical Council from having anything to do with that section. I promised to look into the matter, and I am proposing to amend it as Deputy Ryan proposed in Committee. I want to take out the Medical Council from that section. That may be a reason for strengthening the medical representation or getting rid of it on the Dental Board. One thing I feel about it is that, whatever representation is going to be given, qualified dentists should, at any rate, loom rather largely on that Board, and to propose that the representation of these men should be cut down at the expense of the Medical Council does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition. If I thought there were going to be many subjects of conflict arising between the medical and dental members on the Board, we would have to see what these subjects were going to be, and whether the medical point of view would be sounder than the dental point of view. I do not see that there is going to be much conflict. There is reason for giving representation to the medical profession on the Board, so that the two professions might have the same professional standard and etiquette. I do not think it is necessary for that purpose that the medical people should have a very big representation on that Board. Deputy Sir James Craig wishes, with Deputy Ward, to have a representation of three for the qualified men as opposed to four, which was my suggestion, for the first period, and that the medical representation should be increased to three instead of two. That, I think, is unreasonable, as the qualified dentists should, at least, be left with a representation of four, and that representation should be increased to five at the end of fifteen years. It would not be fair to have on the Dental Board a representation of three qualified dentists out of nine members.
My amendment provides for a Board of ten—four representatives of the qualified or degreed men, two of the 1921 men, one nominated by the Executive Council, and three by the Irish Medical Council.
That is practically similar to Deputy Thrift's amendment enlarging the Board to ten for the five years period. It seems to be the best amendment proposed yet. Deputies must consider whether it is sufficient to have the qualified men represented by four members on a Board of ten. I think it would be better to give them four on a Board of nine. I think they deserve that. There is not much difference, but it would probably mean, if the Board were increased to ten, that the Executive Council would have to lean definitely towards the appointment of another qualified dentist for the five years period. The proposal, however, is a matter for the Dáil to determine. I would suggest, if the Schedule is not acceptable as it stands, that Deputy Thrift's amendment be accepted, that is, for the first five years the number will be increased to ten, and that the composition of that ten would be one by the Executive Council, three by the Medical Council, two by the 1921 class, and four by the qualified dentists. Personally, I prefer the Schedule. I think it is right that the medical representation should be cut down for the first five years, and let them rise to their full height of three after that. With regard to what Deputy Byrne has stated, I did promise a representation of two, but when I thought of giving increased representation to the 1921 class, I indicated, as everybody must recognise, that they would be a disappearing class, that their influence would disappear with the matters that brought the 1921 class into being, and that they would not require separate representation. The 1921 men to all intents and purposes, will be qualified dentists from this on, and there ought not be any conflict between them and the people who emerged from an examination test. Their numbers are greater, and they are going to decrease. The details upon which there will be subjects of quarrel with the other people will lapse quite soon.
I am willing to accept Deputy Thrift's amendment.
The only point of difference between Deputy Thrift's amendment and mine is as to the number of years the Board of ten should continue to exist. If there is general agreement I am prepared to accept Deputy Thrift's period of five years.
I hope the Minister will accept the 15 year period suggested by Deputy Byrne. The 1921 class number 319, and though they may be a disappearing class they are entitled to some consideration.
The 15 years period was never before the House as an amendment. That was merely an expression of opinion by Deputy Byrne.
I never imagined that the Minister would only give representation of two for five years. If I had got any hint that that was so I would have put in an amendment. If the Minister would accept the ten years period I would agree to that.
It is not a question of bargaining with me. It is a question of convincing the House of the necessity for a ten or a fifteen years period.
Is there general agreement with the amendment that "nine" be deleted?
Will An Leas-Cheann Comhairle accept an amendment at this stage that the period for the unqualified men be increased from five to fifteen years?
I do not think I could accept an amendment at this stage.
Deputy Thrift's amendment has been accepted.
There has been general agreement to delete the word "nine." What is the amendment the Deputy wishes to propose?
The representation of two of unqualified men is being reduced to one in a period of five years. I wish that period should be increased to fifteen years.
Would the Deputy accept seven years?
Yes.
Am I to take it that Deputy Byrne's amendment to the Second Schedule is to put in seven instead of five years? The whole system of allocation is based on the five years period, and if the amendment were accepted it would require a considerable amount of reshuffling to get the matter in order.
If it would help the Minister to square the Bill I will accept the ten years period. It was only on the suggestion of the President that I was willing to take half a loaf. I suggest that in the Second Schedule a period of ten years be substituted for the five years period.
If that is the proposal I do not agree with it.
My suggestion is that in the Second Schedule, for the word "five" we substitute the word "ten."
Would that mean that there would be two elections, one at the end of the first five years and another at the end of ten years?
It would.
At this stage I will have to revert to my former ruling. I cannot accept the amendment. I have not the amendment before me and I do not see exactly what the Deputy wants. I cannot accept it. It is clearly a matter that has been discussed in Committee and out of Committee—a special Committee and a general Committee—and I cannot accept the amendment at this stage.
May I suggest we are discussing this matter now in Committee?
I allowed the Deputy ample time in order to hear what he wanted and the Deputy evidently has not made up his own mind as to whether the period should be 5, 7, or 10 years.
I understood I was being ruled out because we are not in Committee.
No; we are in Committee.
Have we left the Schedule, or are we to take it that in (b) three is substituted for two?
It is amended by the substitution of three for two in paragraph (b) of Section 3 (3). I think that was the agreement of the House.
Yes.
I am quite agreeable to that.
I move amendment 9:
In page 5, Section 6 (1), line 31 and also line 33, to delete the words "authority or."
This is a drafting amendment. A particular phrase crept in and it was not necessary.
Amendment 10 reads:—
In page 6, Section 9 (1), line 20, to delete the word "three" and substitute therefor the word "two."
This amendment is not necessary now, because originally it was brought in on the basis that the Second Schedule was going to pass with two members to be nominated by the Medical Council. It is now thrown back to the original figure of three, and the amendment, consequently, is not moved.
I move amendment 11:—
In page 6, Section 10 (1), line 42, after the word "Board" to insert the words "to hold office during the five years next after the establishment of the Board."
Again this is pretty definitely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 12:—
In page 6, Section 10 (3), line 53, to delete the word "three" and substitute therefor the word "two."
Originally the idea was that three should constitute a quorum. Then it was decided that we should make two a quorum at the first and every subsequent meeting of the nominated members of the Board. I think it would be well to make the quorum two, and I move accordingly.
Two is a very small quorum out of ten. It is not a very small quorum where you have five or six members. I think this is a case where you should have something in the Act to meet the two cases, which are quite distinct.
It is only for the nominated members.
Do you specify a quorum when you have the full Board sitting?
I think after the Board is fully established it is left to the Board to fix its own quorum. This has reference only to the nominated members, the nominated portion of the first Board.
It may be assumed, then, that the power of the Board afterwards to fix its own quorum will not be interfered with?
No.
I move amendment 13:—
In page 7, Section 13 (1), to delete all words after the word "every" in line 19 to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "each of the bodies entitled under this Act to nominate members of the Board a letter notifying such body of the date of such expiration and requesting such body to nominate such number of persons to become and be members of the Board on such expiration as such body is entitled under this Act to nominate in respect of the period of five years commencing on such expiration."
This amendment has been rendered necessary by changes on the Committee Stage and other changes proposed here. The effect is to delete all the words from line 20, and it fits the thing in with the scheme as the arrangement for election and nomination now stands.
Amendment 14 is the same as amendment 9:
In page 7, Section 13 (2), line 25, to delete the words "authority or" and in line 32 to delete the words "or authority."
I move amendment 15:
In page 7, Section 14 (1), line 36, to delete the words "elected members of the Board" and substitute therefor the words "such number and classes of elected members of the Board as are prescribed by this Act in respect of the period of five years commencing on such expiration."
Again it is a clarifying amendment. It sets out in better detail what has to be done.
Amendments 16 and 17 read:—
In page 10, Section 28 (1), line 56, to delete the word "Second" and substitute therefor the word "Third."
In page 10, Section 28 (2), line 62, to delete the word "Second" and substitute therefor the word "Third."
They are much the same. There has been a new Schedule put in.
I propose amendment 18, which reads:—
In page 10, line 61, to add at the end of Section 28 (1) the following:
"Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall operate to prevent the several persons named in the Schedule from engaging in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery for one year from the date of the passing of this Act."
This is an important point. Certain names contained in what has just become the Third Schedule, though it was referred to in the amendment down in my name as the Second Schedule, are affected by this amendment. It is proposed that they should be allowed to practise after they have passed a certain examination. Other people whose names are in the new Schedule are to be allowed to practise immediately after the passing of the Bill. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, suggested, and the Special Committee agreed with him, that there were certain people who were entitled to special consideration, that they should be given an opportunity of completing their qualification by passing an examination within a certain period after the Bill became law, and that they should, when they did pass that examination, be entitled to be put on the register to practise as dentists. The point arose as to what was to happen to these people—people nearly qualified—in the period that was to elapse between the coming of the Bill into law and the time when they passed the examination. The Minister takes a very strong line in the matter, indeed.
It seems to me unnecessarily hard lines to refuse permission to these people to practise dentistry at all, once the Bill becomes law, until they have passed an examination. Some months would, of necessity, elapse before such an examination would be held, and it might happen that at the first examination they would not succeed in satisfying the examiner. Some months would of necessity elapse. These men are at present engaged in the practice of dentistry, and engaged, as appears to the Committee, with a considerable amount of success. Unless we make some considerable changes here, the effect of the Bill as it now stands would be that the practice which these men have would be automatically cut off the moment the Bill became law, and that in the period that would elapse between the passing of the Bill and their passing an examination, they would not be able to practise at all. Even if they were to pass the examination afterwards, their practice, or a large part of it, would be lost and they would not be able to resume business in the same way favourable to themselves as they would if they were allowed to practise after the passing of the Bill. It seems it would be right in the case of men who are recognised as the best class of unqualified dentists that they should be allowed to carry on their practice as they have done for several years past until they had an opportunity at least of passing this qualifying examination.
The second amendment in my name would give them at least two examinations in the twelve months in which it would be necessary for them to obtain the required qualification. But my amendment would enable them to have continuity in their work, continuity between the present time when the Bill becomes law and the time at which they pass the examination. If they fail to pass either of the two qualifying examinations held within twelve months after the Bill becomes law, I would not suggest that any more mercy should be shown them. But I would give them an opportunity of passing this examination before I brought down the guillotine, as the Minister proposes to do. The effect of my amendment would be to give them a period, possibly up to twelve months, during which they would be required to pass a qualifying examination, and during which they could continue their practice and not be submitted to the hardship of losing their practice, as would be the case if this section is passed without an amendment.
I would like to support the amendment moved by Deputy Thrift. I think it should be generally agreed that if the practice of these men is now to be interrupted until such time as they pass the qualifying examination and become registered, we might as well not have put them on the schedule at all for examination, if we are now to put them out of practice for such length of time as will elapse until they have passed the examination and become registered. There are not so many cases involved altogether, and the Committee that was set up by this House to examine the cases went into them very carefully. Most of these people have been, during a very long number of years, practising dentistry. Their years of practice range from seven or eight years to 20 or 30 years. During those years, while so engaged, there has not been any case put up that they have done very much harm to the community amongst whom they were let loose. When the corresponding Act was passed in the British House of Commons in 1921, the people who were engaged in the practice of dentistry during a period of seven years prior to that were automatically admitted to the British register without having to pass any examination. Practically all those people who are on this schedule, if the Act were passed independently in this House, regardless of the Act passed in 1921 in England, would go on the register the same as the people who had been engaged in practising dentistry for seven years prior to 1921 in Great Britain and without passing any examination at all. I think that a number of those people had no reason to believe that when an Act similar to the 1921 Act passed in the British Parliament came to be passed in this country that it would be made retrospective for all practical purpose. I think it would be a very great hardship on this section of the community if we were to put them out of practice now until they have passed the qualifying examination, and it certainly will be a very great injury to their business as dental surgeons or mechanics.
I would also like to support the amendment. It does not work exactly in the way I would like to see it, because, under one of the sections of the Bill, these men are given seven years in which to pass the examination, and that to my mind is very much too long. In my opinion, if a man is to pass an examination at all, he is going to do it within a couple of years. I would prefer to see the period of seven years cut down to two years and to give these men an opportunity during these two years of passing the examination without being cut off from practising in the meantime. At the moment a case occurs to me. It is the case of a man who has been employed by a widow to do the work of her late husband. This man has been supporting the family by his work. I may be wrong, but I think this is one of the men who would have to pass the examination. In my opinion, it would be a very serious thing for that family who were dependent for their support upon his work as a dentist if he were prevented from practising until such time as he passed this examination. The Minister's point of view is on the whole very fair. He says that if we give these men seven years they may go on for the seven years and they may say: "I will not bother myself about the examination; I will go on for seven years and then chuck it." That may not be the exact expression used by the Minister, but what he said was something on these terms. At all events, he has expressed some such views as these. I agree with him that seven years is too long. I would tighten them down and I would certainly not give them seven years. When the Medical Act was passed last year, the Medical Council elections were held in September, and I think it was only in the last week or two that they have been able to draw up their Standing Orders. It would, therefore, be impossible for the Medical Council to make preparations for an examination inside seven or eight months. For that reason, I think that a year is too short a period, and it would be impossible to have two examinations within the year if they were unable to get their Standing Orders drawn up before the lapse of several months.
I would like to object very definitely to this amendment, or to any amendment of a similar type. I would not like to have the House impressed by any argument as to a man supporting his family. The same argument could be used with regard to every quack bone-setter and fraud in the country if he happened to have someone unfortunate enough depending on him. Surely you are not going to legalise malpractices simply because someone is getting sustenance from such malpractices. There is a distinct cleavage of opinion on this. As the Bill stands, unless people have a certain amount of experience which entitles them to get on the Second Schedule, and unless their qualifications are further verified by some examination, they cannot practise. That is the situation with the Bill if Deputy Thrift's amendment does not pass. As opposed to that, the argument was raised in the Select Committee that the Dental Board, being antagonistic to these people on the Second Schedule, might refuse to hold an examination for the full period of seven years, and might consequently keep some of these people, who would eventually get on by passing an examination, out for the seven years. On the other hand, it was proposed at one time that they should be entitled to continue to practise until such time as they had failed in an examination. The counter argument then could be used that people who were satisfied that they were going to fail would refuse to go for the examination and secure for themselves seven years unqualified practice which they knew they were not really entitled to. Deputy Thrift's proposal is that you do not touch any of them for a year, and that within that yearly period you have two examinations. I suppose the implication thereafter is that if neither of the two exams. is attended, or if attended and failed, that then they would cease their practice.
That would be the Bill.
That is the situation, that they would cease their practice but that they would have the right to go for an examination as often as there was an examination in the next six years. As a counter to that I offered an amendment in Select Committee that the several persons named in the Schedule should not be entitled to practise from the date on which this became law, but that they could demand an examination at any time and at successive periods of six months within the seven year period. To meet the point which Deputy Sir James Craig made, that in case the Board was not established, say, in the first six months' period, that then an examination would be held under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Minister for Local Government, that amendment I would offer again here as a compromise between what Deputy Thrift has proposed and the situation in the Bill. Is there any merit why these people should get the opportunity of continuing what, up to this, has been an illegal form of practice without having their qualifications authenticated by examination. Deputy Ward made the point that under the 1921 legislation in England certain people who could show that they had been a certain number of years practising got on without examination. I would point out that this Schedule of ours has not been drawn up on that basis. In Select Committee we did go into all these cases with some precision. We had another Committee appointed to examine and report upon the qualifications and experiences of the various people, but we did not set aside any term of years. It cannot be said that this Schedule, with 22 names, contains everyone who has been in practice for eight years. I never examined the Schedule from that point of view.
Seven years was the shortest. I think there was only one such case.
At the moment I am not in a position to refute the Deputy's statement, but that was not my view and I leave it there. At any rate, where is the hardship? Here are people of whom no one can say that they have shown qualifications. All that one can say is that they have been lucky in their practice to date, that there has been no misadventure and no death arising out of the fact that they have been practising for a certain period. Are we to accept that? At the moment you have a considerable number of students in the Dental Hospital. They have been doing, under supervision but for a less period, a better type of practice than a certain number of these men, and yet no one is going to ask that, prior to passing their final examination in the Dental School, that these students should be enabled to practise on the public. But that is what one is asked to do with regard to the 22 people here—that simply because they have been in an unqualified way practising on the public for a certain number of years that we are to say: "Very well, continue to practise until such time as you fail an examination."
Deputy Ward said we might as well not put them on the Schedule. There is a great deal of virtue and value in putting a man on the Schedule at the moment. For one thing, it will entitle a man to get a professional status here if he passes the examination. If my amendment, which I had before the Select Committee, were accepted, it would mean that these people could, within six months after the passing of this Bill, demand an examination from the Minister for Local Government, who would have to prescribe and hold such an examination. The only disability put upon these 22 people would be that for some limited period of months, not exceeding six, they would have to leave their practice. And why should they not? They are not qualified dentists, and they have yet to show that they possess the qualifications that one ought to look for in a qualified dentist. It is all very well to say that they have been lucky to date, but there is every reason for asking that this period of experience of theirs should be further authenticated by an examination before they are allowed to practise. By passing that examination there is this big consideration to be taken into account, that it will give a man a professional status with the right to practise dentistry. His right to practise dentistry can no longer be challenged. It will also mean that a man's means of earning a livelihood is assured to him. I offer as an alternative the amendment which I had before the Select Committee. What that amendment comes to I may describe in this way: that there is no practice after the Bill passes into law until each and every one of the 22 people mentioned in the Schedule has passed an examination. That examination can be demanded within six months after the passing of legislation. If those on the Register fail at the first examination, then a further examination can be demanded at intervals of six months. I offer that as a reasonable amendment in opposition to the one put forward by Deputy Thrift. If this amendment is accepted, I wonder would Deputy Thrift agree to what Deputy Sir James Craig has almost indicated, that is to say, that the seven-year period should be eliminated altogether.
Cut it down to two.
Cut the period down to one year and finish these 22 people once and for all.
I would not agree to that.
I think the seven-year period is altogether too long.
We would all agree to two years.
I think, whether we pass my amendment or not, we should agree that the seven-year period should go and that two years be put in instead. That is to say, an examination has to be passed within two years, and that there is to be no further examination.
Will you allow them to practise for two years?
Oh, no. I have my own point of view on that. I am asking is there agreement in the House whether or not there should be practice immediately or deprivation of the right to practise immediately?
My suggestion is only in the nature of a compromise.
The Minister does not recognise one very important thing, and that is that these men who have been put in the Third Schedule have all served apprenticeships and justified their apprenticeships before they practised. I do not recollect any case where there was not an apprenticeship. They practised after that for a considerable number of years—I cannot say exactly how many. That is to say, they are not really unqualified men. They are not the men against whom this Bill is aimed; they are those who are more or less caught by the Bill in the attempt of the Bill to prevent harm being done. They are not, properly speaking, unqualified, but they have not got the right kind of qualification, and we insist on this examination. I think we should not have this serious gap which will prevent them from practising as dentists. We cannot cut a man off for six months from his profession and expect him to come back after that period where he left off; he will find all his practice has been taken away. If the Minister would give six months I would put down an amendment——
With one examination?
I would ask two chances, but I would not require that he should be allowed to practise up to the second. Let him practise up to the first examination, and then give him two years in which he might resume practice if he passed an examination.
I think the Minister is putting the cart before the horse. He speaks of these men demanding an examination, but I think it is the Board which demands them to sit for an examination. The Board should not be obliged to wait until it suited their whims to come up for examination. They should not be allowed to put it off from month to month. They should be asked to present themselves for examination every three months or so, and it is the authorities who should ask them to submit themselves for examination. If it is left to them to demand an examination they may not be in a hurry to demand it.
It seems to me that we might get agreement on this basis: having an allowance to practise for six months after the date of the passing of the Act—that is as regards the persons named in the Third Schedule—and cutting down the seven years in the body of the Act to two.
I would agree to that.
That leaves only one point to be discussed: how many examinations are to be held within the six months period?
One.
I would agree to that, certainly. As far as I can gather, what has been suggested now is that in Section 28, in line 5, the word "seven" should be changed to "two," that Deputy Thrift's amendments, 18 and 19, would be accepted and amended by inserting the word "third" before the word "Schedule" in the second line of amendment 18. by changing the words "one year" to "six months" in the third line of that amendment 18, and in amendment 19 by deleting the words "at least two examinations" and inserting "one examination."
Will your amendments go forward?
Oh, no.
I think they are necessary; as Deputy Sir James Craig has pointed out it will take a considerable period to get the Board established. It is very likely that they will not be able to hold an examination before the six months has passed, and therefore you want to leave it to the Ministry to hold that examination and to increase the period when the six months has elapsed. You require to have the examination held before the six months elapses, and you also require something in the Bill which would enable any person on this Schedule who failed at that first examination and who thought he had been very unfortunate and that if he had another chance he would pass to go up for examination afterwards. I think you want to secure these two points.
I think we are in agreement now. Amendment 19 will have to be amended so as to read: "One examination shall be held within a period of six months after the date of the passing of this Act to enable—"
Would it not be an easy matter for the Minister to arrange an examination?
In addition there would be this further amendment accepted: "Where an examination has to be held under this section before the establishment of the Board, such examination shall be prescribed and held by the Minister."
Would the Minister consider the advisability of bringing in a new amendment seeing that the principle is accepted?
Yes. I move to report progress on those amendments, and I will undertake to have the amendments to-morrow.
resumed the Chair.
