Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Special Committee Dentists Bill, 1927 díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Feb 1928

DENTISTS’ COMMITTEE.

We will now take up the amendments. Probably the Minister when putting forward Amendment (1) will explain the whole position.

MINISTER

I had before me what had been raised by certain Deputies. Deputy Ward formally moved by way of amendment that those on the Second Schedule should be allowed to practise until they presented themselves for examination or failed to pass. I pointed out that of course under that amendment you are guaranteeing these men seven years' practice, because the relative section of the Bill says that an examination shall be held within seven years. Therefore, they could hold themselves out for seven years if they thought they would fail. On the other hand, you can take the worst possible view—the view that the Dental Board may be prejudiced against men and that they could keep them out of practice for seven years, because, as far as the Bill stands, they might hold no examination over the seven years period. As between the two, my consideration was this: that as these men were, as we have now considered the matter, improperly practising dentistry up to this, they should not be allowed to continue that improper practice, but that we should give them every possible chance of bringing the period between their being put off the register and getting on to it by examination to a close as quickly as possible, and the amendment aims at that. The effect of it simply is that the people who are going to be on the Second Schedule should pass an examination and that that examination must be passed within seven years after the passing of the Act. If they pass that examination and they make application on the prescribed form and pay the prescribed fees they are admitted. Any of the persons named in the Second Schedule may demand that an examination be held under the section at any time within the seven years. But that is limited by the provision that whenever an examination is demanded under this section an examination shall be held as soon thereafter as conveniently may be, or, when an examination has been held under the section within six months before such demand, at the expiration of such six months. It simply means that these people can make a demand immediately the Act is passed, and they must be given an examination within six months, and they must be given an examination every six months thereafter if they like to call for it.

My idea was that they must all present themselves within fifteen months after the Board starts working—allowing a few months to get things in order. If these men are to be allowed seven years to go in for the examination are they to be allowed to practise for that seven years?

MINISTER

My amendment is that they should not. Deputy Ward goes plainly for this position: that the people in the Second Schedule shall be entitled to practise until such time as they have been registered or fail to qualify for registration. Therefore, a man who is afraid of the examination may, under Deputy Ward's amendment, keep in practice until the seventh year and then go for his examination and take his chance at one examination. Deputy Thrift has an amendment down that the people in the Second Schedule should be allowed to practise for one year from the date of the passing of the Act, and has a subsidiary amendment that two examinations shall be held by the Board during the year following the passing of the Act to enable the several persons named in the Second Schedule to become entitled to be registered. Deputy Thrift would give them a year's grace. Deputy Ward allows them, if they like, to stay out for seven years.

Are we taking all the amendments together?

MINISTER

I am discussing them all together.

There is nothing in the Minister's amendment that will interfere with the discussion of the further amendments afterwards. His amendment sets up machinery whereby people in the Second Schedule will be admitted to the register. The passing of that amendment would not prevent us passing a further amendment dealing with the position of these men until such time as they do pass the examination.

MINISTER

Except that I think the implication in the first paragraph of my amendment is that they shall not continue in practice.

I do not know that you can read that into it.

I do not think that the two are contrary. I do not think the other would be out of order if this were passed, but I think the Minister's point of order is clear, that if we pass No.1 he will oppose the other.

MINISTER

I am offering the first amendment as an alternative to Deputy Ward's first amendment, which is simply to allow them to practise until they have failed to qualify, and that they need not expose their failure to qualify for seven years. Deputy Thrift gives them one year. They must either pass the examination within the year, or they have the six years thereafter in which to pass, but in these remaining six years they are not to practise. My amendment says that they go out of practice when the Bill passes until such time as they pass the examination.

I think that we can accept the Minister's amendment and then discuss the position of those people. I do not think it rules them out of practice.

Would it not be simpler to take the whole of the discussion together?

The Medical Act came into force, I think, in July and the elections were held in September. It was some time before the Board could meet. They were only this week able to draw up Standing Orders. Deputy Thrift's proposal of one year, therefore, may be greatly interfered with, because I do not think it will be possible for the Board to get into working order and hold an examination within eight or nine months.

MINISTER

I meet that by paragraph (4) of my amendment, which says that if a demand for an examination is made before the establishment of the Board the examination shall be prescribed and held by the Minister for Local Government.

I am speaking of Deputy Thrift's amendment.

My amendment is a modification of both.

MINISTER

Deputy Keogh's amendment gives fifteen months from the first meeting of the Board—that gives fifteen months, plus the period it will take to establish the Board.

Why should anything count until the Board is established? There is three months' grace and they have an opportunity to go up twice. Then there is a saving clause if a man can prove he was ill or away. I do not think they should be given seven years. You will find that these persons will pass the examination the first time they go up, because according to the syllabus it will be very simple.

The point as to which a difference of opinion may arise is as to whether we should prevent there being the possibility of any hiatus in a man's practice. That is to say, a man is now practising. An examination will not be held forthwith. Under the Bill and the Minister's amendment there seems to be some time during which he will be prevented from practising. Some of us think that there should be the possibility of having no hiatus at all—that he, at any rate, should be able to carry on until he fails at the examination, which should be held as soon as possible.

When will the Board be held to be established—is it when they are able to meet and before they have drafted Standing Orders?

MINISTER

When the Board comes into being.

Would it not be possible to have two examinations in one year?

Let us discuss the principle first.

The British Act was passed in 1921, and under that Act it became possible for people who were engaged in the practice of dentistry for a period of seven years to get on the Register. Some people in this country did not register for national reasons, some were not of the age, and some were not seven years in practice. In view of the fact that the Act did not apply to this country many did not bother looking for registration who could have registered. People who were engaged in the practice of dentistry in this country during the period from 1921 down to the present had no valid reason to believe that an exactly similar Act to the British Act would be introduced here, and they certainly had no reason to believe that when introduced it would be made retrospective. A man engaged in the practise of dentistry in this country for the past ten years would have no reason to believe that when an Act similar to the British Act was introduced here the conditions of qualification for the Register ten years ago would be applied rigidly to him. If we do not provide for the continuation of such a man's practice we will be doing a very serious injustice. We have examined the cases very carefully and have not admitted anyone to the Register or Schedule without careful examination. I suppose 95 per cent. of them, or more, have been engaged in dental work for a period that would entitle them to inclusion on the British Register if they had been engaged in it for the same period before that Act was passed. It does not appear to be fair to make this retrospective at this stage to put these men out of practice now, because if you put them out of practice you might as well not have put them on the Schedule at all. If they have to cease practice for six or twelve months their practice will be gone.

Do you make the point that seven years is too long?

There is one danger which I think the Minister indicated previously. We have no idea of the standard of efficiency that will be required by the Examining Body. It may be possible that the Board will require a high standard from persons on the Second Schedule, and, if we give these men an opportunity to qualify, it will be a check on the Board not to make the examination too severe, as they will say: " These men will be coming up automatically and we will have to admit them some time." I think a strong point is the fact that they have been such a large number of years in practice, and, so far as we know, there has not been any case of negligence or manslaughter against them. I do not think that we would be justified in deciding now that, at the end of ten years, they should cease practice and destroy their means of livelihood.

I think the Deputy is under a slight misapprehension when he says that the Act of 1921 did not apply to this country at its passing. It did apply, and 300 young men went on the Register from this country, but at the Treaty they were cut off and their claims lay in abeyance. They can go on now. There is a clause to the effect that the examination ordered to be held by the Dental Board shall be as prescribed in Clause 5 of the Act of 1921, and as conducted under the regulations of the Board of the United Kingdom and approved by the General Council in 1921. That regulates the standard, and in the Act you will see the Order in Council telling the Board what to ask the men. If that were put in it would encourage the men to go forward, as they would know what they were to be asked.

MINISTER

You could always put in an amendment on those lines, but you could not refer to the Act of 1921. That, however, is a small matter.

I agree with what has been said, but I would like to give a man an opportunity of carrying on continuously. I think that a fair opportunity would be given by allowing him to carry on for twelve months. I would, however, be prepared to agree to six months. The Minister could order an examination to be held, and give an opportunity to such persons to sit for an examination within a short time. The longer you postpone the examination the less chance there will be of a man taking it. At the start, a man would probably get through more easily than later. I think that seven years is too long a period.

The period of seven years was put down mainly for the purpose of discussing the principle. I am not tied to it, but I feel very strongly on the point that a man's practice should be allowed to continue without interruption.

I think we might compromise upon the period allowed for examination. If a man does not pass within two years, there would be no use in allowing him to continue. There should be a possibility of having four examinations in that period.

I am prepared to accept the Minister's amendment.

MINISTER

I was going to suggest that there is not much good in trying to decide these amendments now, but we could put up recommendations to the Dáil. I would like to argue, definitely, against any continuity. Take, for instance, the people who are penalised, if it is a penalty—people who might, for national reasons, not have applied. I would be prepared to put them on the Register if there were a sufficient period of apprenticeship, but I am entirely against making a 1927 Class instead of the 1921 Class. The principle adopted in 1921 was that a person would only be permitted to become a dentist on passing an examination. They admitted certain people and then closed down. There could not have been any suspicion that the 1921 Class was going to be enlarged and become a 1927 Class. If there was no change not one of these people would have got on. Their position is similar to that of the student in his second year putting up a plate and starting practice. Why should we let them continue? Such men should not be in practice. For the future they are going to be put in a profession and it is worth their while to go out and get the fuller qualification. If a special case could be brought forward for putting any of these men on the Register whose practice has been broken for six months, the cause of his not being on before being due to national reasons, then let us get those reasons. I am taking the types of men who would not have qualified in 1921 and who, if this country had remained united to England, would have no chance of becoming dentists. We are giving them a chance, but they should pass out of practice until they qualify. I do not know whether Deputy Ward considers that his hands are tied as regards bringing forward amendments. I certainly am not tied, and I think that this is one of the points that could be discussed better in the Dáil. The Committee may pass recommendations but anyone can bring forward his own point of view afterwards. So far as this clause is concerned, it is completely non-party and can be argued in the Dáil.

There are two men who were not put on the Dentists' Register owing to national reasons, but the other men, through the accident of the Treaty, are now getting on. Those who register now will not be interfered with, but the dozen men who have to pass an examination should be allowed some time to keep in practice. Seven years, however, is too long.

The Minister is against the six months' period.

MINISTER

I would like to argue that point afterwards. I think we should get agreement on the names, and on my second amendment, namely, the division into two schedules, one entitling certain men to become dentists on the passing of the Act, and the other requiring certain persons to pass an examination.

Could you not consider my amendments now?

MINISTER

I think that that is really an amendment to the Bill and not to the particular schedule referred to us.

Then if I hand it in as an amendment on Third Reading it will be considered. It will show the men what they are going to be asked.

Would the Committee like to take a formal vote on the amendments or consider the Minister's suggestion to refer them back to the Dáil?

I do not think that there is any reason to take a vote.

Then we will accept the Minister's amendment No. 2.

MINISTER

Is that to be included as it stands?

I see no reason to disagree with it.

MINISTER

It establishes a new schedule, the Third Schedule, dealing with people who are to be admitted on the passing of the Act to practice as dentists. They will go on the Register.

Have you to have any substantive clause if there is a Third Schedule?

MINISTER

I think it appears automatically.

Then amendment 2 is being agreed to and amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5 are being withdrawn for the present.

MINISTER

I agree to that. If that is agreed to, the only other thing for us to do is to report that we add to the names already in the Bill in the Second Schedule the following, and we add for inclusion in the Third Schedule the following, giving the names.

Is there any reason why we should not adopt amendments 3 and 4 now? They are not dependent on the first.

That is the point to which the Minister objects.

MINISTER

I think they all hang together. I will bring them forward later.

Then our report will take this form:—

" The Special Committee to which the Dentists Bill, 1927, has been referred have considered Section 28 and the Second Schedule.

" The following amendment to Section 28 was agreed to by the Committee . . .

" The following names were agreed to be recommended to the Dáil for inclusion in the Second Schedule . . .

" The Committee agreed to recommend the following names for inclusion in the Third Schedule."

If you read out the men's names in the House you must embody the names in the Bill.

MINISTER

They are in the Schedule.

We have power to amend in this Special Committee.

MINISTER

That might change our view on the other amendments. I was looking at it as recommendations to the House. If we have the power to amend, it may be that you desire to amend the Bill by giving them six months' continuous practice and putting them off until June. I was asking for agreement to my amendment on the basis that we were going back to the House and that we would have the Report Stage.

When this Bill goes back, it will only come before the House again on Report Stage.

MINISTER

As we stand at the moment, what we do is: we amend the Bill by the inclusion of the second amendment of mine, and by the insertion of the Third Schedule and the addition of certain things to the Second Schedule.

That is agreed.

MINISTER

We will be in a position, when the Bill goes back to the House and is recommitted, to move our various amendments.

When it goes back it will be taken formally as on Report Stage, but, no doubt, agreement will be come to to recommit it, so I think we will be all right.

MINISTER

Someone raised the point about defining the Third Schedule. The Second Schedule consists of persons entitled to be registered on passing a special examination.

Persons entitled to be registered as soon as the Bill becomes law.

MINISTER

Put the Third Schedule down as the Third Schedule and I will get a proper title for it on Report Stage.

Of course we cannot prevent the dozen names from England hanging out for another five years.

MINISTER

We can, but they can always go across to England and get their rights there and then come across here.

They can apply to us any time, but you cannot undo that Act of Parliament.

MINISTER

If we provide, on the Report Stage, that the people named in the Second Schedule pass an examination, to be held within three years from the passing of this Bill, it means that they can only get on by passing in three years, but they have the right under the 1921 Act in England.

They can hang out for five years.

Bill ordered to be reported to the House.

I got a telegram from Deputy Gorry apologising for his inability to be present.

The Committee adjourned.

Barr
Roinn