Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1928

Vol. 25 No. 6

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - DENTISTS BILL, 1928—FROM THE SEANAD.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Debate resumed on amendment 1.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I circulated through the House an amendment which, I think, meets the points that I thought were agreed upon yesterday. The amendment I have circulated is as follows:—

(a) In the proposed new section, sub-section (1), to insert after the word "apply" the words "to the several persons named in the Third Schedule to this Act and also."

(b) In sub-section (1) (b) of the proposed new section to delete the figures "1921" and substitute the figures "1918," and in sub-section (1) (c) to delete the word "seven" and substitute the word "ten."

There was agreement pretty definitely on every point of that, with the exception of the point raised by Deputy Briscoe. If Deputy Briscoe's point was going to be given into, it would mean that we either reduce the 1918 year, or change it, or drop it altogether. Although I object to the case that Deputy Briscoe has in mind, and I do not think there should be any change made, I am not disposed to fight very hard for the inclusion of this or any age limit in the section.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

That is a point that I wished to make now. If this age limit excludes any great number or any of the people that we have already placed in the Schedule——

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It cannot; the Schedule stands.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

No age limit applies to the Schedule?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No, but Deputy Briscoe's point has reference to cases outside the Schedule. Cases considered and rejected from the Schedule might be ruled out even from applying for the examination and might be ruled out by reason of the age limit.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

If the Minister is willing to do it, on the whole it might be better.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As the Dental Board now has discretion with regard to the type of examination, all one is doing is allowing people to present themselves for an examination which will be held twice in a yearly period. There is possibly no great harm in allowing a big number to present themselves. If they get through, then they deserve to go on.

Mr. BRISCOE

I would like to correct the Minister. The Minister imagines that I have one particular case in mind. I have dozens of letters from people whom I have never seen with regard to the ten years practice. Would that mean absolute practice after apprenticeship years?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

What I am proposing to do is to move (a). That is on the sheet that has been presented to Deputies. Instead of moving the first part of amendment (b), I will move in opposition to that that the (b) section of the Seanad amendment be dropped and in the (c) section that "seven" be changed to "ten" years.

Mr. BRISCOE

Does that mean that it will allow the Dental Board to have a certain discretion and that the ten years will include the apprenticeship years?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Certainly.

Mr. BRISCOE

Then I am quite satisfied.

Mr. ANTHONY

I do not know if Deputy Briscoe is quite willing to concede that the age limit——

Mr. BRISCOE

The age limit is gone.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

The Minister has been very good about the matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The public health may suffer.

Mr. BRISCOE

That is a bad compliment to the Dental Board.

Amendment agreed to.

Seanad amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move that the Committee agree with Amendment 2 from the Seanad:—Section 28, subsections (1) to (8) inclusive deleted.

Agreed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Consequential on what we have done in the first amendments, we must refuse to accept the Seanad amendments 3, 4 and 5, because we are, in fact, re-instating the Third Schedule and, therefore, we must disapprove of the changing of the Third to the Fourth. I move that the Committee disagree with amendments 3, 4 and 5.

Agreed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendments No. 6 and No. 7:—Fourth Schedule. The words: "Dillon, John Patrick, 85 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin," inserted in the appropriate place. Fourth Schedule. The words: "Hanrahan, Michael Francis, Francis Street, Kilrush," inserted in the appropriate place. The names set out in Amendments No. 6 and No. 7 are dentists who, on further examination, were definitely found to be entitled to go on the register. Dillon has been in practice for a considerable period and has all the qualifications and the experience required. The gentleman named in Amendment 7 is actually practising as a dentist. He thought that having been in practice and being so definitely qualified, he need not apply.

Agreed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I move that the Committee agree with Amendment No.

8:—Fourth Schedule. The words: "Reid, John, 144 North Strand Road, Dublin," inserted in the appropriate place. This is a different case. This is a gentleman who was put on the Third Schedule. The Dáil was of opinion that he should pass an examination and some members had doubts about this man as to whether he should not go definitely on the register. The Seanad were of the opinion that he should go on. I agreed with them and the professional Committee agreed. I move accordingly.

Agreed.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Committee has accepted amendment 1 from the Seanad, as amended; has accepted amendment No. 2, disagreed with amendments 3, 4 and 5, and agreed with amendments 6, 7 and 8.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee"—put and agreed to.

Message ordered to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.