Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 4

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote No. 40.—Local Government and Public Health.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí, maraon le Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe, Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus Costaisí Oifig Chigire na nGaeltlann.

That a sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities and Sundry Grants in Aid, and the Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums.

The Dentists Act of 1928 made provision that a dental register be prepared not later than twelve months after the passing of the Act, and that certain expenses of the Board in connection with the preparation of the register, up to the end of the twelve months while the register was being prepared, would be borne out of funds provided by the Oireachtas. The present Vote provides those funds, by means of a token Vote. There will be savings on other branches of the Department.

Would I be in order in asking a question of the Minister with regard to the administration of this Dental Board? According to the Act, after the expiry of a certain date, there will be no expense incurred by the State in connection with the Dental Board. There is a matter that arises now in the administration of the Act on which I would like to ask a question.

What is the question?

When the Act came back to this House from the Seanad to be passed finally, there was a word in the Act which I thought might be interpreted differently by different persons. I asked the Minister who was putting the Bill through the House, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if the clause of the Act which referred to ten years' livelihood would preclude an applicant from sitting for the examination in cases where part of the ten years was spent in apprenticeship. The reply of the Minister was "Certainly not." Since then I understand in the case of numerous applicants the Department has refused to interpret the word "livelihood" as covering the apprenticeship period.

I had no notice of this question, and I do not know if the Deputy has even raised the matter with the Department.

Yes, I have. I have not raised it through correspondence, but I was on the 'phone, and I was told by the Department that they must administer the Act according to the letter of the Act, and that on the technical legal meaning the word "livelihood" means that a person must have been able to support himself during those ten years. What was intended here was that where a person was engaged in the practice of dentistry, including apprenticeship, he was to be allowed to sit for the examination. I understand the difficulty the official had in interpreting this word. He must give it its legal meaning.

The Department is not administering the Act. This Act is being administered by the Dental Board, set up with the aid of the Department. It is provided that whatever expenses are incurred by the Board in setting up the register shall be borne by the Department. In fact, it is an official of the Department who is doing the secretarial work for the Board, as a part-time officer. As I say, I have no personal knowledge of the matter that the Deputy raises, and I rather question if I could answer in any way for the administration of this particular Act except in so far as, at the setting up of the Board, we pay the expenses in connection with the preparation of the register. The fact that we have made arrangements for lending an official of the Department to do the secretarial work of the Board hardly makes me responsible for answering for the administration of the Act, in a matter over which I have no control. As far as I understand it at the moment, the question is one that is within the sphere of the Board and not of the Minister.

I must disagree with that, because I happen to know. I made inquiries into the matter. The position is that the Department of the Minister examines the credentials of applicants who wish to sit for examination.

They are submitted to the Department. The Dental Board has nothing to do with the applicants until their fitness to sit has been definitely judged by the officials of the Department, and the Board cannot be held responsible for the refusal to allow these candidates to sit. I do not say that this official is acting unjustly or unreasonably. I admit that he is interpreting the Act according to the wording, but, when the Bill was passed through this House, I raised this particular question, and I got an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that apprenticeship years would be included in the ten years during which the applicant was supposed to be earning his livelihood, and that you would not preclude an applicant from sitting for the examination because he had spent part of the ten years in apprenticeship. Applicants have since been refused permission to sit because they were serving their apprenticeship during part of that time.

The Deputy can hardly get a satisfactory or detailed reply unless he gives notice or puts down a question.

Perhaps I will get an assurance from the Minister now that he will give the matter consideration. Perhaps the Minister will say that my view of the matter is correct, or if he feels now that it is correct.

If the Deputy will put down a question I will answer it.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn