Earlier I referred to the need for the Minister, and the Dental Council, to give a degree of consideration to the problem of dental technicians. I accept that this is not as heady an item as the previous issue but, nevertheless, it is of importance. It has been suggested to us that as two provisions in the medical Practitioners Act, 1978 and the Opticians Act, 1976 facilitated the incorporation into the new legislation groups of people who had been acting in a freelance operation outside the network of legislation prior to the passing of those Bills, this method could be applied in this case also. I do not know if that is the right answer. It is very important, even if denturists or dental technicians are to be involved in the area of fitting and manufacturing of dentures, that there should be an insistence by the council and the Department on proper training and standards. There should not be any equivocation about that area of training so that there will not be any chance of slipshod standards or any type of unsatisfactory methods operating in that respect. People have been operating — I understand that the number is about 250 — and I am not aware of any major dissatisfaction with their work. I suspect that the largely mechanical job of fitting and manufacturing these dentures is one which could be handled by people who are qualified and trained but are not necessarily dentists. It should be possible to introduce a formula to allow for people to be open to training or retraining and then facilitate them by allowing them to operate or provide a service under the Bill.
We would all be loath to put out of business people who have been giving a service and who, as far as I am aware, have not been unsatisfactory although there may have been individual complaints as there is about every profession. In the course of his speech in the Seanad the Minister referred to the timing of the establishment of services auxiliary to the dental profession. He hoped that they would come into being very early after the passage of the Bill. It might help if those discussions took place soon so that any marginal fears there might be about those working in the area of dental hygiene or other peripheral areas of dentistry might be dealt with rather than waiting for the passage of the Bill and the establishment of the council. I am arguing for earlier rather than later dialogue with those who have a legitimate interest in this area of activity.
I hope that all the moves implicit in this Bill will not give rise to any form of monopoly and will not result in dentistry and allied activities being controlled by a small group. Nobody wants that. I know that is not the intention of the Minister or the Government nor is it the desire of the Dental Board or the dental professional groups. We should ensure that this does not happen.
I am pleased to note that this very comprehensive legislation is not permeated by reference to statutes of over 50 or 100 years ago, in other words, it is not legislation by reference, as one of the Senators referred to it. I commend that approach to other Ministers who might make legislation a little more intelligible to lay people and to Members of this House by excluding where possible references to existing Bills and by incorporating the full amendment in the up to date provision in the Bill as presented in this House so that we will know exactly what we are talking about without the aid of a veritable small reference library.
The original proposal to amend this legislation goes back to 1927. That says a little about the way we order our affairs in this House. I am not suggesting that this Bill is the same as the Bill suggested at that time, but this gives an indication of how little attention, legislatively speaking, has been given to this area over those decades. I hope this measure is successful and I ask the Minister to reply to the points I have raised.
At some stage, rather than taking one Bill after another, we should have a forum where we could look at the cumulative effects of all these new Bills and regulations in terms of the minutiae involved in sections and subsections and in terms of the implication of their enforcement and the other regulatory practices that are inevitably involved. I am not sure that we, collectively, want a society that is so tightly regulated as might happen if we continue down that road. This is something this House has not had a chance to consider, but if that chance presents itself and if we reach the conclusion that we want such a society, I will be happy to go along with it. In the meantime I would prefer if we did not continue to have a tightly regulated society by what we might call default or by stealth.
The implications of what I am speaking about will be visible in other legislation. The current legislation I am speaking about would include the Nurses Bill, the Air Transport Bill, the Broadcasting Bill and so on, all of which put the State in the central control position as opposed to the individual or the free group. I am not sure if that is properly the role of the State. If it is, we should discuss it because that presents a fundamental change in the kind of society we have, a change in respect of which I do not believe there is a mandate at present. This Bill brings a fair amount of sense and order into an area in which it is to some extent lacking. I wish the Bill and the Minister every success.
