Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1928

Vol. 22 No. 3

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - DENTISTS BILL, 1928—RECOMMITTED—(RESUMED)—AMENDMENT 18).

The Dáil went into Committee.

SECTION 28.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

18a. In page 10, Section 28 (1), line 58, to delete the words "by the board for the purpose" and to substitute the words "under this section."

18b. In page 10, Section 28 (1), line 58, to delete the word "seven" and substitute the word "two."

18c. In page 10, Section 28, line 62, before sub-section 2, to insert 6 new sub-sections as follows:—

"(2) The first examination under this section shall be prescribed and held after the expiration of five months and before the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act.

(3) Any of the persons named in the Second Schedule may (unless he has aready passed an examination prescribed and held under this section) demand that such an examination be held, and may make such demand at any time after the holding of the first such examination and not less than one month before the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act.

(4) Whenever an examination is demanded under this section an examination shall be prescribed and held under this section as soon thereafter as conveniently may be, or where an examination has been held under this section within six months before such demand, at the expiration of such six months and public notice of such examination shall be given and every one of the persons named in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be entitled to attend and be examined at such examination.

(5) Before the establishment of the Board a demand for an examination under this section shall be made in writing to the Minister, and after the establishment of the Board, such a demand shall be made in writing to the Board.

(6) Before the establishment of the Board every examination to be prescribed and held under this section shall be prescribed and held by the Minister, and after the establishment of the Board every such examination shall be prescribed and held by the Board.

(7) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prohibit any of the persons named in the Second Schedule to this Act from practising or representing himself or holding himself out as practising or prepared to practise dentistry or dental surgery during the period between the passing of this Act and the publication of the results of the first examination held under this Section.

We have come to certain agreement with regard to amendments 18 and 19, and in order to get the force of the agreement properly before the House I suggested that we should report progress last night, and I now suggest the amendments, typescript copies of which have been circulated in the House, in order to meet what was put forward last night. The effect of the insertion of these amendments in the sub-section and the deletion of certain words brings about this position, that the period within which the persons mentioned in the Third Schedule must take out examinations has been reduced from 7 years to 2; that those on the Second Schedule are allowed to continue in practice without taking any examinations for a period of six months after the passing of the Act, and that the examination must be held not earlier than five and not later than six months. Those who succeed at that examination, of course, go on the register and those who do not succeed go out of practice—go off the register— but may attend such examinations as are held up to an extreme period of 2 years after the passing of the Act.

The new sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) are to give these people the right to demand an examination within the six months' period and every six months after that up to two years.

Professor THRIFT

I think the Minister's amendments embody the agreement reached yesterday, and if they are accepted by the House I am prepared to withdraw mine.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Amendments 18 (a), (b), (c) put and agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move amendment 20, which is as follows:—

In page 11, Section 28 (3), line 5, to delete the word "third" and substitute the word "fourth."

This is necessary as there has been a new Schedule inserted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 28, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 29.

The Board may at any time by special direction in that behalf and on account of special circumstances to be stated in such direction register in the register any person who in the opinion of the Board has received training and possesses qualifications not inferior to the standard of training and qualifications necessary for obtaining the right to be registered under any other section of this Act.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:

In page 11, to delete Section 29, lines 14 to 21.

There has been considerable doubt as to what value this section would have. In certain cases the section seems to be of value, but it would not apply to a great number of cases, and there will be other methods of dealing with them. It might be wrongly used or used in a way in which it is not intended.

Amendment put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

32.—(1) The Board may at any time and shall on the application of any university or college in Saorstát Eireann having for the time being power to grant certificates of fitness to practise dentistry or dental surgery hold or appoint one or more members of the Board to hold an inquiry into the conduct of any person registered in the register who is alleged to have been guilty of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

(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.

(4) A person whose name has been erased from the register under this section may be restored to the register by order of the High Court under this Act or at any time by special direction of the Board given with the consent of the Medical Council but not otherwise, and when a person is so restored to the register by the Board the Board may with the consent of the Medical Council attach such conditions (including the payment of a fee not exceeding the fee which would be payable by such person for registration if he was then being registered for the first time) as the Board with the approval of the Medical Council thinks fit.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move amendment 22, which is as follows:—

In page 12, Section 32 (2), to delete all words after the word "Board," line 13, to the end of the sub-section, and substitute therefor the words "may, if it thinks fit erase the name of such person from the register."

These amendments were, I think, first moved by Deputy Ryan in Committee, but I asked that they should be held over in order to give me an opportunity of discovering whether there was any reason for having the Medical Council brought in instead of giving the Dental Board the right over penal cases. I have not been able to make much in the way of investigation, but any investigation which I have made led me to believe that there is no reason why the Medical Council should be brought into the Dental Board's procedure, any more than they will be represented by three Medical Council representatives on the Board. I am moving these amendments to do what Deputy Ryan proposed to do in Committee. It will mean that so far as penal cases are concerned the Dental Board is given full right over its members subject to appeal to the Courts which is brought in in a further section.

Professor THRIFT

I hope that the Minister will not press his amendment. I do not think it is important. In fact, I think it is quite the reverse. I wonder whether the Minister has consulted the Medical Council before bringing it forward. From any information which has come to me, I am inclined to think that they would not approve if they were consulted. I think the objection largely lies in this: namely, that what we want to secure between the two bodies is the very closest co-operation. I have looked back to see what was said about the amendment in Committee, and I found that Deputy Ryan did not seem very keen on it. He said that he put it forward for consideration and did not wish to press it, but asked the Minister to consider the point. I think it was well worth consideration. The worst that could be said about the procedure outlined in the Bill is that it is a little cumbrous, but experience shows that where it has been cumbrous it has not been without its use. We should take advantage of experience gained by the working across the water between the General Medical Council and the Dental Board there. The experience there has been to show that the procedure outlined here in the Bill is advantageous and I urge the Minister to retain it. The effect of his suggestion would be to set up more and more closed compartments within the medical profession and the dental profession, and the only link between the two would be the representation on the Dental Board of the three Medical Council representatives. Anything we can do to put the two bodies into the closest contact would be of great advantage. I strongly advocate the retention of the procedure originally outlined by the Minister which appears in the body of the Bill and which went through the Committee Stage.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I agree with Deputy Thrift. I do not think this suggestion is a good one. It is not a matter on which I feel very strongly, but I think that the amendment will not have the effect of maintaining good feeling between the dental and medical professions. The Medical Council are in closer touch with what is regarded as misconduct in a professional sense, and if the amendment is carried it will leave the Dental Board the power to order the erasure of the name of a man guilty of misconduct from the register instead of allowing the report to go forward to the Medical Council and allowing that Council to make the order. There is not much difference between the two, but experience has shown that the Medical Council has much more experience in these matters, and it will relieve the Dental Board of a certain amount of responsibility by being able to send on the report to the Medical Council, who will be more in touch with what is regarded as professional misconduct. If the Minister's further amendment is carried limiting the practice of dentistry so far as doctors are concerned, these doctors will be practising dentistry only inasmuch as it applies to their professional work and if they do not conform to the law—and no one knows what that is—they will be tried by the Dental Board and to that I have the greatest objection. I think the Minister is making a mistake in interfering with the supervision by the Medical Council over the Dental Board.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The argument we have been listening to has proceeded on the basis that dentists are an inferior type as compared with doctors. Deputy Sir James Craig states that it would be to the benefit of the dentists to be relieved of responsibility. That is putting them in a childish position, and regarding them as doctors not come to maturity. I do not think that is the proper way of looking at this question. Deputy Sir James Craig has suggested that for the sake of uniformity the Medical Council should be asked to decide when it comes to a question of striking a dentist off the register, but it might be equally said that for the sake of securing uniformity the Dental Board should be asked to decide when it comes to a question of striking a medical man off the medical register. We are setting out on a new line. We have with regard to the Medical Council a new system, that is to say that professional misconduct and matters of that sort will in the first instance be diagnosed and pronounced upon by the Medical Council, but there is an appeal to the court. Similarly, with regard to dentistry, in England a question of professional misconduct pronounced upon by the Dental Board can be made the subject of appeal to the courts. In the end these courts will give uniformity. If a case of professional misconduct is brought before the Dental Board and a decision is arrived at to strike a name off, and that is appealed, the Medical Council are going to take note of that, because the system of professional etiquette would be much the same in one case as in the other. It is a matter for the House to decide. I do not see that any case has been made proving that dentists are not capable of deciding on a matter of misconduct within their ranks. I think they should be burdened with responsibility in this matter and asked to act up to it. Three representatives of the Medical Council are on the Dental Board. We have a Council that for the first five years will consist of ten people. Three of these will represent the Medical Council. I think that gives sufficient guarantee there is not going to be any wide divergence between the Dental Board and the Medical Council. I do not feel strongly about the amendment, or the words I am moving to delete and that Deputy Dr. Ryan moved in the first instance. I am sorry he is not here to go in more detail into the arguments he used in the Committee Stage. Any investigation I have made in the meantime, and it has been little, has brought me to the point of agreeing with Deputy Dr. Ryan.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

Did you consult the Medical Council?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I did not speak to them officially. I am not sure that I would take their point of view as being entirely unprejudiced. I have not got any statement from them. In order that the House may decide the question, I stand by the amendment.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I do not consider the dentists inferior, but I consider they are only a branch of the medical profession. The Minister is endeavouring to set up a branch on an equal footing with the whole profession. That is my chief objection to the proposal.

Dr. MYLES KEOGH

I thoroughly agree with the statement that dentists are quite capable of taking charge of dental affairs. They are more conversant with the details of any complaints that would arise than medical men would be. Medical men have been adjudicating on matters relating to the medical profession, but the Dental Council will have to consider matters of a different kind. I think it should be dentists for dentists in the matter of control. There will be three representatives of the Medical Council. Although dentists are only a branch of the medical profession, they are quite capable of taking charge of that branch in a manner becoming to their profession and with satisfaction to the State.

Professor THRIFT

It ought to be a matter of first-class importance to prevent a decision on any matter being arrived at by these two Boards which would be made a matter of appeal. It is because of that I would urge the withdrawal of the amendment, and I would vote against it. This procedure does not involve any inferiority in the case of dentists as compared with doctors, because I regard dentists purely as a section of the general branch, as Deputy Sir James Craig says. What I want to secure is that there shall be the closest kind of co-operation between the two Boards, and that there should not be a tendency to split, and giving one a separate jurisdiction entirely away from the other.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 87; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Richard Anthony.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Neal Blaney.
• Ernest Blythe.
• Patrick Boland.
• Henry Broderick.
• Seán Brodrick.
• Daniel Buckley.
• Alfred Byrne.
• John Joseph Byrne.
• Edmund Carey.
• Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
• Hugh Colohan.
• Martin Conlan.
• Michael P. Connolly.
• Bryan Ricco Cooper.
• Richard Corish.
• Martin John Corry.
• William T. Cosgrave.
• Fred. Hugh Crowley.
• James Crowley.
• John Daly.
• William Davin.
• Michael Davis.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Thomas Derrig.
• Eamon de Valera.
• James N. Dolan.
• Finian Lynch.
• Arthur Patrick Mathews.
• Michael Og McFadden.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Joseph W. Mongan.
• Séamus Moore.
• Richard Mulcahy.
• James E. Murphy.
• Timothy Joseph Murphy.
• Martin Michael Nally.
• John Thomas Nolan.
• Richard O'Connell.
• Thomas J. O'Connell.
• Bartholomew O'Connor.
• Seán T. O'Kelly.
• Daniel O'Leary.
• Edward Doyle.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• James Everett.
• Frank Fahy.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Seán French.
• Denis J. Gorey.
• Patrick J. Gorry.
• John J. Hassett.
• Seán Hayes.
• John Hennigan.
• Mark Henry.
• Richard Holohan.
• Samuel Holt.
• Michael Jordan.
• Patrick Michael Kelly.
• William R. Kent.
• Myles Keogh.
• James Joseph Killane.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Hugh Alexander Law.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• Matthew O'Reilly.
• Gearoid O'Sullivan.
• John Marcus O'Sullivan.
• Patrick Reynolds.
• Martin Roddy.
• Patrick J. Ruttledge.
• Martin Sexton.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
• Patrick Smith.
• Michael Tierney.
• Daniel Vaughan.
• Richard Walsh.
• Vincent Joseph White.
• George Wolfe.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and B. O'Connor. Níl: Deputies O'Dowd and Thrift.

• Richard Anthony.
• Ernest Blythe.
• Patrick Boland.
• Henry Broderick.
• Seán Brodrick.
• Daniel Buckley.
• James Coburn.
• Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
• Hugh Colohan.
• Martin Conlan.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Frank Fahy.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Seán French.
• John Hennigan.
• Mark Henry.
• Patrick Hogan (Galway).
• Michael Jordan.
• Patrick Michael Kelly.
• Finian Lynch.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Joseph W. Mongan.
• Richard Mulcahy.
• James E. Murphy.
• Michael P. Connolly.
• William T. Cosgrave.
• James Crowley.
• Michael Davis.
• Thomas Derrig.
• Eamon de Valera.
• James N. Dolan.
• Edward Doyle.
• Peadar Seán Doyle.
• Edmund John Duggan.
• Martin Michael Nally.
• John Thomas Nolan.
• Richard O'Connell.
• Bartholomew O'Connor.
• Daniel O'Leary.
• Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
• Gearoid O'Sullivan.
• John Marcus O'Sullivan.
• Martin Roddy.
• Patrick J. Ruttledge.
• Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
• Michael Tierney.
• Daniel Vaughan.
• Vincent Joseph White.
• George Wolfe.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P. Doyle and O'Connor. Níl: Deputies Thrift and Ward. Amendment declared lost.

Amendment declared carried.

Denis Allen.Ernest Henry Alton.James Walter Beckett.Gerald Boland.Daniel Bourke.Robert Briscoe.Frank Carney.Frank Carty.Michael Clery.James Coburn.James Colbert.John James Cole.Eamon Cooney.Dan Corkery.Sir James Craig.Tadhg Crowley.Hugo Flinn.Andrew Fogarty.John Good.John Goulding.Alexander Haslett.

Michael R. Heffernan.Thomas Hennessy.Patrick Hogan (Galway).Patrick Houlihan.Michael Joseph Kennedy.Frank Kerlin.Mark Killilea.Thomas McEllistrim.Thomas Mullins.James Sproule Myles.Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.William O'Leary.John J. O'Reilly.Thomas P. Powell.William Archer Redmond.Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).William Edward Thrift.John Tubridy.Francis C. Ward.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

That decision covers amendments 22, 23 and 24.

SECTION 45.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful for any person on or after the date of the passing of this Act to practise or to represent or hold himself out whether directly or by implication as practising or being prepared to practise dentistry or dental surgery unless such person is a registered dentist.

(2) The provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall not operate to prohibit—

(a) the practice of dentistry or dental surgery by a registered medical practitioner, or

(b) the extraction of a tooth without the application of any local or general anæsthetic by a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist, chemist and druggist, or druggist or a licentiate apothecary in dental cases which are urgent and where a registered dentist or a registered medical practitioner is not available for the purposes of such extraction, or

(c) the employment of mechanics or apprentices by a registered dentist to carry out under the supervision of such registered dentist any work which is usually done in a dental workshop.

(3) Every person who acts in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable in respect of each such offence on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds and not less than fifty pounds.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think amendments 25 and 26 and 28 and 29 all come together. They are as follows:—

25. In page 16, Section 45, to delete sub-section (1), lines 37 to 42, and substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

"(1) Save as is otherwise provided in this section, it shall not be lawful for any person to practise or to represent or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising or being prepared to practise dentistry or dental surgery unless such person is a registered dentist or is a duly qualified medical practitioner who was so qualified at the passing of this Act."

26. In page 16, Section 45, before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section a duly qualified medical practitioner who becomes so qualified after the passing of this Act may practise dentistry and dental surgery to such an extent as is incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner but shall not practise or represent or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising or prepared to practise dentistry or dental surgery further or or otherwise than as incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner."

28. In page 16, Section 45 (2), line 43, to delete the words "The provisions of the foregoing sub-section" and substitute therefor the words "this section."

29. In page 16. Section 45 (2), to delete lines 45, 46 and 47.

Of these four amendments, number 26 is the important and vital one. It will be remembered that when this Bill came before the Committee the provision in what is now Section 45 was that only qualified medical practitioners who were qualified medical practitioners on the date of the passing of the Act could continue to practise dental surgery. There were varieties of amendments brought forward to extend that provision. After a considerable amount of debate it was agreed that an amendment which was on the paper should be accepted as a ground for argument for the Report Stage. That amendment changed the Bill as brought in to this point: it left it that any registered medical practitioner, whether qualified before or after the passing of the Act, could continue to practise dentistry although he could not for the future hold himself out as a dental surgeon. I entered certain objections to that, and in the end it was agreed that an amendment should be considered to limit that full freedom with regard to dentistry which was being given to registered medical practitioners under the amendment which appears now embodied in the text of the Bill. I propose to limit what is in the Bill by amendment 26.

Amendment 25 restores the old position with regard to people who are qualified at the passing of the Act. That re-establishes the rights which qualified medicals had prior to this Bill being introduced. I want to limit the matter, and the limitation is in amendment 26. That amendment meets the one case of hardship that was put up in this House on the Committee Stage. that case being attendance on the poor where one was faced with the dilemma that a duly qualified dentist would have to be appointed just the same as there are qualified medical men appointed to hospitals and unions, or else a medical man would have to be allowed to continue as a dentist. This meets the case. It allows qualified medical men to practise dentistry such as is incidental to their medical practice and not otherwise, and forbids a medical man qualified after the passing of the Act to hold himself out as a dental surgeon ready to practise dentistry. I think the amendment meets the only case of hardship put up, and at the same time does not give the complete freedom given in the amendment accepted as a basis for discussion. I still hold that if there is going to be a separate dental class, then there should not be this permission given to registered medical practitioners to practise dentistry, to hold themselves out as likely to practise dentistry or engage in it.

Dr. WARD

I rise to oppose this amendment. It appears to me to be very little different from the original section in the Bill. It is more carefully worded, if you like, and it appears in language that does not strike one as being just as objectionable, but the principle is the same. By these two amendments, if accepted, doctors who become qualified after the passing of this Bill into law will not be allowed to hold themselves out as being competent to practise dentistry, only in so far as it is incidental to their ordinary medical practice. That is the language of the section. The question will arise: who is to decide when the practise of dentistry becomes incidental to a man's practice as a medical man? Apparently in future a doctor will be liable to be brought into court to have it decided whether a certain dental operation that doctor has performed is incidental to his ordinary practice. If a doctor becomes specially skilled in surgery of the mouth, if he should have a well-developed bump for dentistry and takes up this particular branch of surgical science and becomes a specialist, he will be liable to prosecution if the Minister's amendment is accepted.

I know of only two doctors in Ireland who practise dentistry as such and have chosen this particular branch of medical science as their forte. But the fact that it has not been universally practised by the doctors who take up this particular branch of medical science is not a reason why doctors in the future should be debarred by law from taking up this branch. To my mind it is an insult to the medical profession to prevent future specialisation in this any more than in the other. If you like, it is a highly specialised branch of medical science. That will be granted at once. But surgery of the eye and ear and surgery of the throat, surgery of the brain, abdominal surgery, gynecological surgery and bone surgery are all highly specialised branches of medical science. There is nothing in the law as it stands at present, nor, as I hope, in the future, that will debar a medical man from taking up any of these branches of medical science and becoming a specialist in it and placing his services and talents at the disposal of humanity for the relief of their ills. I do not think it will be argued that any process of dental surgery requires as high a degree of technical skill as is required by a surgeon who removes diseased vertebrae out of the spinal column and transplants there a piece of bone from the shin. That requires a high degree of skill and a knowledge of surgical science higher than any process that the dental surgeon would be called upon to carry out. And yet if bone surgery were to be protected as dental surgery has to be protected under this Bill, a medical man could not apparently take up this branch.

We have heard a good deal about the reciprocity side of it in the various stages of this Bill, and I am beginning to wonder how is that reciprocity going to work out if these amendments are passed. A doctor who takes out his degrees in the capital of Ulster at the present time and who practises in that area is practically free under the British Dental Act to practise dentistry. But if he should become, let us suppose, highly skilled as a dentist, practising in that part of Ireland, and if we should require his services in the Sovereign State, and if he comes across the Border to place his services at our disposal, no matter what degree of professional excellence he may have reached, he will be liable to a prosecution.

I do not know, but the Minister will probably be able to explain, how the reciprocity will work in such a case as that, but I venture to suggest that his Majesty's Government would take steps to protect his Majesty's subjects in that part of Ireland in such an eventuality. I think it is not in the interests of the dental profession or of this branch of medical science that the Minister should push this amendment, because friction is bound to arise between these two branches of the medical profession, between the parent body and one of its offsprings if you like. Such friction will not be to the benefit either of the dental or medical profession.

Dr. O'DOWD

I desire to support Deputy Ward in his protest against this amendment. On the first day that this Bill was debated here I pointed out that a case of urgency was one which the doctor would have to decide there and then. I cannot, I candidly confess, see much difference between "urgency" and "incidental to his practise as a medical practitioner." Take, for instance, the case of a person who comes to a dispensary in the country suffering, say, from rheumatoid arthritis or chronic rheumatism. In any of these cases the first thing the doctor would naturally do would be to look at the person's mouth to see what sort of teeth he had. In most cases there is what is commonly known as pyorrhea as an accompaniment. Will the Minister tell us if the treatment of pyorrhea is dentistry or "incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner"? To my mind, the Minister would have to issue a list of what is dentistry and what is medicine or surgery. He would have to issue such a list or else the doctors in the country will not know what to do. They will render themselves liable to a prosecution if they do things in contravention of this Act. They will not know what is in contravention of the Act, and will want to know what is dentistry and what diseases are "incidental to their practice as medical practitioners." I think, except that this amendment is more carefully worded, that it is simply reverting to the old section to which such great objection was shown when the Bill was introduced. It is just another way of putting the old section back into the Bill. I object and protest against that.

Professor THRIFT

I entirely agree with the last two Deputies. I think these amendments are just as objectionable as the original suggestion that appeared in the Bill. I think there is just as much objection to, and as great a difficulty of knowing, what is intended by the words that are now suggested as there was before. When you take the phrase "dental surgery" or "incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner," it would be utterly impossible, as the last Deputy pointed out, in many cases to say whether a certain thing came under the category of dental surgery or whether it did not. Take, for example, certain cysts in the mouth. I am informed by those who know that, though they are often treated by dentists, in many cases they should not be treated by dentists at all. They really come under the wider term of surgery, and yet they might be considered as covered by the term dentistry. Neither can anyone say what is covered by the term "incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner." Neither do I agree with the Minister that the omission of these words would interfere with the poor man's dentist. I do not think so. I do not think he would argue, clever as he is in his argument, that it is incidental to a doctor's practice in his dispensary that he should be obliged to treat cases of dentistry that come to him.

The effect of the original suggestion in the Bill and of the amendments before us is to protect dentists against doctors, because the Bill gives dentists a protection which doctors have not got. It becomes a legal and a punishable offence for anyone to practise dentistry in the future with few exceptions. There is no such kind of protection given on behalf of doctors. Beyond giving a medical certificate, anybody can practise medicine provided he is prepared to take the consequences of his ill-success. That will not be possible in the case of dentists in the future, and the result is that the dentists will be better protected than the doctor. If the amendment before the House is accepted, dentists will be protected against doctors. I agree with what has been said by the previous Deputies with regard to reciprocity. These amendments would make reciprocity cease to be reciprocity. Anyone qualifying in Ulster, for example, could as a doctor go there, and he would be put in quite a different position with reference to his rights and privileges to one qualifying in the Free State. I do not think that the argument that has been put up in support of the amendment is quite adequate. I agree with what has been said by Deputy Ward, and I am prepared to oppose these amendments as strongly as I can.

Major COOPER

I find it very hard to oppose the pleas made by Deputy O'Dowd and Deputy Ward, who, in this matter, are following the precedent set in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because I am sure they would not have made such pleas without some very strong reasons indeed. It seems to me that their arguments and the arguments they used in opposing the previous amendment, rest on the basic assertion that dentistry is a branch of the medical profession. Is that so or is it not? Historically, I do not know whether Hippocrates practised dentistry, but coming down through the centuries there is no doubt that both dentistry and medicine had a common ancestor. I hope that I shall not offend Deputies who are qualified doctors when I say that their common ancestor was the barber surgeon, who cut your hair, pulled your teeth, and, if required, let blood. He still cuts your hair, but he has relinquished the other practices. The doctor got away first, but for a long time he continued to pull teeth as well as cut hair. At any rate, both branches had a common ancestor. Deputy Ward talked about the parent body and referred to dentistry as one of its offsprings. I think this is a case of a brother and sister and not of a father and son. The brother in this case does seem to me to be somewhat ill-advised if he attempts to control the movements of his sister. If it is a case of dentistry being a branch of the medical profession, how does that work out in practice? I want some enlightenment. The professions of barrister and of solicitor are, as we know, both branches of the legal profession, but it is easier for a solicitor to become a barrister than it is for a layman to become a barrister. Certain facilities are given to solicitors to become barristers, and I believe barristers sometimes—I will not say sink—transfer their activities to the other field and become solicitors. It is possible for a member of either branch of the legal profession to become a member of the other branch much more easily than it would be for a layman. Is that the case as regards dentists? Can a dentist become a doctor more easily than a layman? Do his qualifications in the dentistry branch of the medical profession entitle to admit him more easily to the parent branch? As far as I know, that is not the case. On the other hand, it is not only illegal, but it is unusual for a dentist even to administer an anæsthetic. If he does it he runs a certain risk. Should anything happen to the patient while under the anæsthetic—should the patient die—he may be unable to get a doctor's certificate as to the cause of death. I may be wrong on these points. I have only the knowledge of a layman and am hoping to get some information.

Dr. O'DOWD

Deputy Cooper asks if it is easier for a dentist to become a doctor than a layman. As far as I remember the course for the first two years, in the National University at any rate, is identical.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The question Deputy Cooper asked was: can a qualified dentist enter more easily into the medical profession than a layman?

Dr. O'DOWD

Certainly, having already done the first two years of the course.

Major COOPER

I am grateful for that information, which rather anticipates another question that I was about to ask: to what extent is a medical man trained in dentistry, and how does his training compare with the dentist's? A dentist has to go through a four years' or a five years' course. A doctor has to go through a five years' course, sometimes six.

Dr. WARD

You will learn something about it.

Major COOPER

What I want to know is, has a doctor a complete knowledge of dentistry? One learns something about many things. One learns, when one has been in the Dáil a short time, that it is not wise to make unguarded interruptions.

Dr. WARD

The Deputy did not hear me.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy can make another speech.

Dr. WARD

I wanted to tell Deputy Cooper that he is learning something about the dental profession here.

Major COOPER

Obviously a doctor knows something more about dentistry than a layman, but is his knowledge sufficient to qualify him to practise? Is the ordinary medical practitioner qualified to treat dental cases? I do not think it is fair to bring this down to a personal issue, but is Deputy Doctor O'Dowd prepared to entrust his teeth to Deputy Doctor Ward or vice versa?

Dr. TUBRIDY

The "Doctor's Dilemma."

Dr. O'DOWD

I would like to point out that the poor of the country have had to entrust the care of their teeth and the pulling of their teeth for the past 40 or 50 years to the doctors of the country, because they had nobody else to do it.

Professor ALTON

Surely in complex cases a wise layman, when something is wrong with his teeth, will consult a doctor before he consults a dentist, and often he goes to the dentist on the advice of the doctor. The tendency of the age is in that direction.

Mr. LAW

I am very ignorant, I am afraid, of both professions. I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague, Deputy Cooper, in his excursions into ancient and medical history, but I confess for my own part I am very much more concerned with the actual workings of things at the present day. What I want to be assured of from the Minister is: is he quite sure that the restriction which this amendment appears to place on doctors in country areas will not interfere with the simple, easy and rapid treatment necessary in simple cases of the sick poor? It is a very much more important question. There is no difficulty when you are dealing with a town population or the population of big cities, where there are plenty doctors and plenty practising dentists. I can see a real difficulty in areas like these country districts. I know places where there are really no qualified dentists at all and no likelihood of there being qualified dentists, and where the only alternative before a person who is suffering, or who is in any way in need of dental treatment, is either to get the treatment from the dispensary doctor or else have recourse to the old-fashioned remedy of the string and the jamb of the door.

SEÁN O TIOBRAIDE

Is furas d' fheiscint ná fuil mórán eoluis ag an Aire ar na h-áiteanna is boichte agus is sia ó seo sa tir. Dá mbeadh a fhios aige chómh bocht is atá na daoine i n-áiteanna 'sa Ghaillimh bh'fhéidir ná cuirfheadh sé isteach ins an mBille a leithéid seo de leasú. Is doigh liom go gcomhnuíonn an t-Aire agus na Teachtaí eile a labhair ar a thaobh ins na bailtí móra 'na mbíonn na fiaclóirí le fái lde ghnáth. Bím-se féin agus dochtúirí mar mé ag obair in áiteanna i bhfhad ós na bailtí móra. Má thagann daoine bochta isteach chugainn agus galar fiacal ortha caithimíd na fiacla do dheisiú dóibh chómh maith agus is féidir linn. Má tá athru déanta ar an ndlhe ndlighe beidh sé an-chruaidh ar na daoine bocht seo. Mar gheall ar sin táim á gcoinne an leasú seo agus iarraim ar an nDáil gan glacadh leis.

Dr. KEOGH

For the benefit of Deputy Cooper I want to say that a dentist can become a doctor more easily than a layman. When he is going through his curriculum he has to take precisely the same subjects for two years as a doctor. It is with very much pleasure that I recall when I was studying for the dental profession taking out my lectures under Deputy Sir James Craig—the very same lectures which medical students attend. The same lectures are given in surgery, physiology and pathology. Deputy Cooper also asks what does an ordinary dentist know of some of the specialised subjects in medicine and surgery. He knows as much about it as an ordinary pass doctor. The Deputy wants to know what special training or what practice a dentist has before he is allowed to practise. He has the same training any surgeon or physician receives. A throat and nose specialist receives the very same training, but he afterwards specialises in diseases of the throat and nose. Even the dental profession is now specialising in particular branches. There is a branch of dental work called orthodontia. Some men practising dentistry do not attend to any branch of the profession except this branch. There was a case recently where a practitioner found that he could, by constructing appliances with springs and wires, make a person suffering from a deformity of the mouth presentable. A dentist who wishes to qualify as a doctor is allowed for the subjects in which he has already qualified. The course is a four years' course, but it is not strictly a four years' course. It is a four years period, but two of these years are given over to strictly medical and surgical subjects.

Mr. GOREY

I object to this amendment in as much as it introduces the principle that we objected to previously. I wonder if the Minister for Justice, for instance, is satisfied that a vague definition such as "incidental to his practice" is sufficient to hang a prosecution on? If it is not incidental to his practice, then there is a punishable offence in the offing. What I object to is any curtailment of the facilities that the poor have had up to now. In lieu of the practice we had up to now, are we going to have dental dispensaries as we have medical dispensaries? No. Then why take away this?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The same situation as before practically.

Mr. GOREY

Where does it begin and end?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Exactly there in that amendment.

Mr. GOREY

I think it is very unsatisfactory and is going to lead to a lot of confusion, if it means any curtailment of facilities for the poor.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would object too, but it does not.

Dr. O'REILLY

This means a curtailment of the facilities doctors already possess, and I object to it on that ground.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Read the first amendment. Doctors who are qualified at the passing of this Act have all their old rights.

Dr. O'REILLY

We have also to consider the men who are coming on. We should permit them to become doctors under conditions not less favourable than the conditions doctors are at present practising under. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary also because most doctors will not seek to practise dentistry. As a rule they do not, but it should be left open to them to practise it if they like. It is the curtailment of the privileges of doctors that I object to.

Sir J. CRAIG

I think this Bill was considered at least three times on Second Reading, and on each occasion I pointed out that this was the one serious blot on the Bill—this limitation that is placed upon medical practitioners. I want to answer one or two questions put by Deputy Cooper. In the first place, I want to tell him that a barber can still practise medicine and surgery if he wishes. There is no protection whatever for the medical profession. Dentists have now got protection against a layman practising dentistry, and in this amendment they seek protection against medical practitioners. I have objected all through to the contention that dentists are not a branch of the medical and surgical profession. I say that it is quite unfair when the medical profession have no protection against anybody that the dentist should be given not only protection against laymen, but against their parent or sister profession, whatever you like to call it. As to the next point raised by Deputy Cooper, I may say that in the general hospitals we have a dental department attended by a qualified dentist who teaches all our students the elementary principles of dentistry. I do not say that they get the training which the students of the Dental Hospital receive, but I do not want them to get that training. Nor do I put forward the claim that medical practitioners should, as a general rule, practise dentistry. But I object to the principle involved in this, that there should be protection for the dentists against the medical profession.

The other point has been dealt with sufficiently fully, namely, that there should be no limitation of the practice of a doctor as far as dispensaries are concerned. As was pointed out on a previous occasion, in many parts of the country there are areas thirty miles in extent in which no dentist practises, and when a poor man wants some dental work done he will have to get a day off, pay for a car or a train to travel thirty miles, and then pay a dentist to do the work that he might have got done free in the dispensary. I want to say a word with regard to reciprocity. I know the Minister does not agree with me in this, but I am convinced there is substance in it. Our students when qualified can place their names upon the General Register. When they place their names upon that Register, there is no prohibition on them with regard to the practice of dentistry.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Outside this country.

Sir J. CRAIG

Outside this country. On the other hand, if a graduate of an English or Northern University comes to practise here and puts his name upon the Irish Register, if the Minister's amendment is carried he will be debarred from doing what doctors are allowed to do on the other side. I have been told that if the Minister's amendment is carried it will jeopardise the Bill altogether. I merely put that forward for what it is worth. I am not a lawyer and I do not know the meaning of these things, but I state the position as it appears to an ordinary layman. The third point is the most important of all. Who is going to judge what is dental surgery to such an extent as is "incidental to his practice as a medical practitioner?" That is quite as absurd as the words I found fault with on a previous occasion. If a doctor interferes in a case that dentists think he should not be allowed to interfere in, what is going to happen? As I already pointed out, apparently the doctor is going to be hauled before the Dental Board to be dealt with. I consider that is a most serious matter. I would ask the Minister to be content to adopt what is contained in the English Act:—"Nothing in this Section shall operate to prevent the practice of dentistry by a registered medical practitioner." I ask him not to press this amendment.

Dr. HENNESSY

I should like to emphasise the remarks of Deputy Sir J. Craig and other medical deputies who have spoken. If the Minister persists in this amendment, the effect will be to limit the scope of the practice that may be undertaken by a medical practitioner. I regret that I must say that the passage of this Bill through this House has been made the occasion of making a "corner" in dentistry—of making special privileges for dentists. If a man wants to practise as an oculist, he has to take out the whole course of the medical curriculum. He has to pass a comprehensive examination in medicine, surgery and midwifery, though he has no intention of practising in any of these branches. I think he is all the better oculist because he has gone through all these courses, and the dentist would be all the better dentist if before he specialised in dentistry he had to take out a medical degree. We know that dentists every day are giving local anaesthetics, if not general anaesthetics. No man should be allowed to give a local anaesthetic unless he knows everything about the physician's part of the work, and is able to examine a patient's heart in order to satisfy himself that a local anaesthetic would do the patient no harm. I do not like to impute anything to the Minister, but I wonder is he carrying out the arrangement he made here on another occasion when we objected to anything in the Bill that would limit the scope of a medical practitioner's practice. He introduced one amendment that preserves the rights of the existing doctors, but he denies that right to future doctors. There is discrimination there. If existing doctors are entitled to practise dentistry, there is no reason, except we are inclined to make a "corner" for dentists, why the doctors of the future should not do it. If the public would suffer by existing doctors being prevented from practising dentistry, they will suffer equally if those who are not yet qualified are prevented from practising dentistry. I would appeal to the Minister to give this careful consideration, as I foresee endless trouble about it. Now that he has constituted the Dental Council the sole administrative body in connection with the penal sections of the Bill, he should be careful not to raise the question of what is medical practice and what is dental practice.

Mr. O'KELLY

Having listened to the debate with an unprejudiced mind, I must say I am deeply impressed with the arguments advanced by Deputy Tubridy and one or two other medical men who say that if the amendment is passed it will be practically impossible for dispensary doctors to do the ordinary dental work that they have been accustomed to do for the poor in the areas where dentists are few. Taking that as a fact, I would say it would be wise for the Minister to reconsider his position upon this amendment. If this is to mean that the poor are to be deprived of that necessary attention and assistance because of the fact that dentists are not as common and that there are no dental dispensaries as there are medical dispensaries, then we ought to hesitate and go very slowly indeed before depriving the poor of what they are in the habit of getting through dispensary doctors. Taking the statements of those men primarily from the West of Ireland, and knowing that when they speak they speak of that with which they are familiar, I urge upon the Minister to reconsider this amendment.

Professor TIERNEY

I listened to the arguments in this debate without any particular knowledge of the subject myself, and I feel compelled by what I heard to vote against the amendment. I should like to impress upon the Minister the desirability of putting forward some very strong arguments in favour of this amendment. The case made against the amendment is something like this from the general point of view. The object of the Bill is to protect the public from practitioners who have not got medical qualifications. The real danger to the public from unauthorised practitioners is that they may do things that may involve all kinds of danger from the medical point of view to patients, and that they may not be able to deal with those dangers when they arise. Without the amendment this Bill provides very efficiently for such protection. This amendment seems to go a great deal further. It seems to protect not only the public against people who have no medical qualifications but to go a long way towards protecting the dental profession against competition from a profession which is very often equally well qualified to deal with the case dentists have to deal with. A great deal of dental practice is surely very simple in its nature and does not require any qualification from the practitioner except that he should know how far his work may endanger the general health of the patient. It seems to me, from the point of view of the public, all that is required is protection against men who have no medical qualification. This amendment goes too far in giving protection to the dental profession and setting up practically a monopoly against people qualified, to a large extent, for dealing with these disorders.

It seems to me also that making that distinction that is made between doctors qualified at the passing of the Act and doctors who will be qualified after the passing of the Act is very arbitrary and unnecessary. There is no virtue whatever inherent in doctors qualified before the passing of the Act that should put them in a favoured position in comparison with doctors qualified after the passing of the Act. The only thing in favour of the amendment is that it gives dentists, as they would be constituted under the Bill, a kind of monopoly against the medical profession, a monopoly which is not in the slightest degree in the interest of any part of the public, and which is only in the interests of the small body of dental practitioners. The public is not served by this amendment in the least. The public will be sufficiently protected if it is laid down that only those who have medical qualifications are allowed to engage in dental practice.

Dr. MYLES KEOGH

If I may be allowed to speak again, I would like to dispel the idea that dentists have no medical or surgical qualifications. They have to attend, not as dental, but as medical students, for one whole year at a general hospital, and during that time they see cases that have no relation whatever to dental surgery. That is considered sufficient medical qualification to let them use a little more than horse sense to enable them to do their work. But the point is that they are examined in medicine and surgery after going through one year's course in the general hospital.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The main argument used against this amendment and the whole point made is that it will be injurious to the sick poor. With all respect to what Deputy O'Kelly said with regard to the views of Deputies Tubridy and O'Dowd, they may be very well qualified as medical men, but this is not a medical question or a dental question. It is a question of the interpretation of a section of a Bill. This section was brought in to meet the very sound objection raised in the Committee Stage. It is the draftsman's best effort to put beyond the possibility of doubt that dispensary dental treatment by doctors is permissible and will be permissible in the future. If that is not achieved, then the amendment can be altered and changed so as to make that possible and to put it beyond doubt. This is the draftsman's best effort to see that that is the case. I bring it forward in good faith in the way that it was given to me. I regard that as settled, and if it is not settled, if the amendment does not meet the point, then it is a question of changing it in detail. There is no intention of depriving the poor of the dispensary treatment they receive at the hands of doctors.

Mr. GOREY

And at the hands of the doctors of the future?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

And at the hands of the doctors of the future. That is why the general phrase "incidental to the practice of medicine" is used. That is expected to cover it, and it is believed that it does cover it. The phrase is used specially and deliberately to cover that type of practice. If it does not cover it let us see in what way it does not cover it, and let us have another formula that will meet the point. I believe that my amendment is the best form of words available, and it was given to me in that way by the person selected to draft the amendment.

That for the sick poor. As regards the reciprocity, it is a matter to argue. I have one point of view, Deputy Sir James Craig obviously has another. It is a matter that might have to be argued elsewhere, but at the moment I put forward this argument, that when we enter into a reciprocal agreement it does not mean that everything a doctor on the English Register did up to date, or anything such a doctor might do in the future, will be allowed to doctors in this country. I can see—it is, possibly, not so far off—a date when certain types of work that are now classed as medical work might be considered in the peculiar ethical view of this country malpractices, and that doctors would be prohibited from and penalised for carrying on these malpractices in this country. And because men who qualify in England can come over here as doctors and are allowed in England to continue, outside the arm of the law, to practise in that way, it does not mean at all that under the reciprocal arrangement we will allow them to do here everything that they are allowed to do in England. All that we are bound to under the reciprocal agreement is that we make no distinction between an Irish qualified doctor and a man qualified in England in relation to practice in this country, and in return we demand that the Irishman, qualified here and going on the General Register in England, shall have all the rights and all the obligations that the medical man qualifying in England has for practice in England. That is the beginning and end of the reciprocal argument.

We may put many more limitations on doctors in this country than are on them at the moment, and we are not to be deterred from putting on these limitations simply because we have an agreement with England and because doctors qualifying in England may have different rights there. As long as we have the same rules for everybody allowed to practise over here we keep to the reciprocal agreement.

There are two or three points with regard to which there is confusion on this matter. I am asked to define what is "incidental to the practice of medicine." I do not propose to define it. I will ask anybody to define and state a case for me as to what is "dental surgery," a much more difficult thing to define; and yet the whole basis on which this is built up is the practice of dental surgery. Because I do not presume to be able to answer all the cases that may be put to me, are these things "dental surgery" or are they "incidental to the practice of surgery," I do not think that is an argument against the amendment, and it is a false argument to say that it is going to be tested out eventually by prejudice in the case of the Dental Board. This will never come before the Dental Board; it will come before the courts. If anybody takes practice that is considered contrary to the Act there will be a case in the courts; someone will be brought up for unauthorised and illegal practice, the judges will have finally to determine, and only on a basis of judicial decision will there be ascertained the true meaning of "dental surgery" in the first place, and "incidental to the practice of surgery" in the second, as to whether a dentist ought to be a doctor, or as to whether a doctor ought to be a dentist, and how far they can easily interchange their professions.

I am getting to the point that Deputy Tierney made. It is quite right to say that a dentist may more easily become a doctor than a layman may. But why is it right to say that? Simply because he has had two years of a particular type of education. I might also say this, that a man who has taken a course in a secondary school, a course which entitles him to a matriculation examination, will find it easier to qualify as a dentist or a doctor than a man who has not taken that course. But I do not consider that courses leading to matriculation in this country are specialised, either for doctors or dentists. The dentist has to do two years of a medical course. From that one cannot derive the conclusion that medicine and dentistry are in the relation of parent and daughter sciences. By no means. You can take that argument down to the primary school and say that a person who has been at a primary school is much more likely easily to qualify as a dentist or a doctor than a person who has not been to a primary school, but there is no argument to be founded upon that. Deputy Tierney goes more to the root of the matter. He says that the main object of the Bill is to protect the public against unqualified or unauthorised men practising dentistry, and that, setting out with that object, it has gone far beyond it in trying to protect the public, not against unqualified men, but against doctors. The doctors, from the point of view of specialised dentistry, are unqualified men.

A DEPUTY

Question!

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would like to put this, in answer to any question: Would it be permissible for a dentist with two years' equivalent course to that of the medical man to be allowed to practise what Deputy Tierney has rightly described as a simple, light type of work in medicine? I certainly think that the medical profession would object to that. I do not think there would be much harm in it as long as you confined it to certain small things. We are not going beyond the point at which Deputy Tierney said we aimed. Take what will be in the Bill if the amendment passes. The qualified doctor can do such dental surgery as is incidental to his practice. There are certain other limitations and there are certain other allowances. Where there are no registered dentists he can perform certain operations and carry out certain simple work, and the public is given all the service it ought to be given. At the same time, the dentist who has specialised is set a little bit apart, and that is perfectly right when one considers the specialised course he goes through.

Deputy Ward has ventured into the region of prophecy. It is doubtful if any law will contain distinctions between the general surgeon, the gynecological surgeon and the surgeon dealing with the eye. Supposing Deputy Ward had been speaking a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago, he might have shuddered with horror at the idea of medical men not being able to deal with veterinary science, not being able to deal with every branch of what was then included in medical practice. We are getting to the stage where certain things are being considered more and more as specialised work, and we have long since arrived at the day when dentistry is regarded as a specialised type of work. Dentists go through a specialised course and devote their lives to one limited field of work. They go through a four years' course. They have certain basic things to learn before they enter upon the specialised side of it, and if we keep to the point where the dentist and the doctor are supposed to be equal for all things, instead of bringing forward a Dentists Bill we should simply put certain things in a Medical Bill allowing for some break-away and allowing for something to be recognised as dental surgery, just as we recognise something that is called midwifery and something that is called medicine, apart from surgery. But there are specialised classes; it is not now that these become specialised; it has taken place long since, and it is time that we had the whole matter properly regulated, as it is to be regulated by this Bill.

Deputy Hennessy is doubtful if I have met what was promised on the Committee Stage. I think I have fully met what was promised. In fact, I am now trying to get from the House what the House promised me on the Committee Stage. Deputy Hennessy, I think, alone on the Committee Stage, raised objection to any Dentists Bill whatever —at least he almost went so far as to say that it was a limitation of the large field that medical men previously occupied, and he almost went root and branch against the Dentists Bill, or at any rate he would weaken a Bill which was finally allowing every medical man to be a dentist in practice. I never promised to meet that point of view. There was an amendment advanced here which was accepted by the House simply to give us something better to base a further amendment on, and I was asked to bring forward amendments of a particular type. At that time my mind was running on the anxiety of the medical men who wished to practise dentistry registering themselves as dentists and paying a fee for such registration. On consideration it seemed to me that that was getting even to a worse stage than the amendment that was put in, and the best way to get out of the difficulty was to get such an amendment as would cover the case of the sick poor who have to be attended to in dispensary areas where one must recognise that they do not always have a dental man in attendance. An amendment has been brought forward to meet that, and it has not been shown to me that it does not meet that. Somebody ought to show me some case and say whether it covers that case, or they should get an improved formula to cover it. But this has been brought forward in the interests of the sick poor, and also to take away this very large power that was given to all medical men to engage in the practice of dentistry. On that Deputy Ward, I think, complained of this amendment that it would, for the future, prevent a medical man holding himself out as ready to practise dentistry. It does not require an amendment to effect that. The Bill as it stands prevents that. As the Bill stands a doctor may engage in a certain type of dental practice, but he may not hold himself out as ready to practise dentistry. He may not call himself a dentist; he may simply take dental practice as and when it comes along, and that point should be recognised if Deputy Ward's point had any force in it.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 78.

Tá

• Denis Allen.
• Ernest Henry Alton.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Neal Blaney.
• Gerald Boland.
• Daniel Bourke.
• Robert Briscoe.
• Alfred Byrne.
• John Joseph Byrne.
• Frank Carney.
• Frank Carty.
• Michael Clery.
• James Colbert.
• John James Cole.
• Eamon Cooney.
• Bryan Ricco Cooper.
• Dan Corkery.
• Richard Corish.
• Martin John Corry.
• Sir James Craig.
• Fred Hugh Crowley.
• Tadhg Crowley.
• John Daly.
• Peter de Loughrey.
• Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
• Andrew Fogarty.
• John Good.
• Denis J. Gorey.
• Patrick J. Gorry.
• John Goulding.
• Alexander Haslett.
• John J. Hassett.
• Seán Hayes.
• Michael R. Heffernan.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• Richard Holohan.
• Samuel Holt.
• Patrick Houlihan.
• Stephen Jordan.
• Michael Joseph Kennedy.
• William R. Kent.
• Myles Keogh.
• Frank Kerlin.
• James Joseph Killane.
• Mark Killilea.
• Michael Kilroy.
• Hugh Alexander Law.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Patrick John Little.
• Arthur Patrick Mathews.
• Martin McDonogh.
• Thomas McEillistrim.
• Michael Og McFadden.
• Séamus Moore.
• Thomas Mullins.
• Joseph Xavier Murphy.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Thomas J. O'Connell.
• Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
• Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
• John F. O'Hanlon.
• Seán T. O'Kelly.
• William O'Leary.
• John J. O'Reilly.
• Matthew O'Reilly.
• Thomas P. Powell.
• William Archer Redmond.
• Patrick Reynolds.
• James Ryan.
• Martin Sexton.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
• Patrick Smith.
• William Edward Thrift.
• John Tubridy.
• Richard Walsh.
• Francis C. Ward.

Níl

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

In page 16, Section 45, before subsection (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"During the period between the passing of this Act and the establishment of the register any person who, though not a registered dentist within the meaning of this Act, would be entitled (subject only to the payment of fees) to be registered in the register if the register were then established may notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section practise dentistry and dental surgery and may represent and hold himself out as practising dentistry and dental surgery."

This amendment is necessary to the text of the Bill and seeks to meet a very small point. There may be in the country people who are registered dentists, or who may be entitled to that description hereafter, but who are not on the Dental Register and who will not hereafter have to pass any further examination and, if the Bill passes at it stands, it would be necessary, if these people go on, they should join the British Register first by paying a fee there, and then come back and claim to register here on their qualifications.

Professor THRIFT

Does this say that they may be registered?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

"May practise dentistry." Does the Deputy mean that they should have the right to go on the register as well?

Professor THRIFT

Yes.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a point I will have to consider. I think it entitles them to register.

Professor THRIFT

I do not see why they should be compelled to pay twice.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We are in agreement as to what is aimed at. It does not say that such a person is entitled to be registered on the Irish register. I think it is implied, but I will look into the point and have it rectified later if necessary.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

In page 16, Section 45 (3), lines 62 and 63, to delete the words "and not less than fifty pounds."

As the clause stands at the moment, there is imposed a maximum and also a minimum penalty, and in consideration of the class of offences that might arise under the section, it is considered better not to include a minimum penalty for minor offences but leave it to the discretion of the courts as to what penalty should be enforced.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question—"That Section 45, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move:—

In page 20 to insert before the Second Schedule a new Schedule as follows:—

1. During the five years next after the establishment of the Board the members of the Board shall be nominated and elected as follows, that is to say:—

(a) one member shall be nominated by the Executive Council,

(b) two members shall be nominated by the Medical Council,

(c) two members, who shall be registered dentists resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered or formerly registered in the General Dentists Register under Section 3 of Dentists Act, 1921, shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and so registered or formerly registered,

(d) four members, who shall be registered dentists resident in Saorstát Eireann and registered or formerly registered in the General Dentists Register otherwise than under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and so registered or formerly registered.

2. After the expiration of five years from the establishment of the Board the members of the Board shall during the ten years next after such expiration be nominated and elected as follows, that is to say:—

(a) one member shall be nominated by the Executive Council,

(b) three members shall be nominated by the Medical Council,

(c) one member, who 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, shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and registered.

(d) four members, who 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, shall be elected by the registered dentists so resident and registered.

I am moving the insertion of a new Schedule, but consequent on a previous amendment carried yesterday, it will be necessary to alter 1 (b) of my amendment by deleting the figure "two" and inserting the figure "three," so that three members shall be nominated by the Medical Council.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Question—"That the New Schedule, as amended, be there inserted"—put and agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Bill ordered to be reported, with amendments.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move: That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 28th February.